3 ms·

fabs like tsmc would hire design firms like nvidia to produce designs to fabricate; the division of labor would be the same as at present, but banks and investo

fabs like tsmc would hire design firms like nvidia to produce designs to fabricate; the division of labor would be the same as at present, but banks and investors would send their money to tsmc to pay to nvidia, rather than to nvidia to pay to tsmc There’s a bit of a snag with this. Chip designs are rarely ever done from scratch. Instead they’re iterated over many years, similar to how browsers, operating systems, other critical software is developed. It took NVIDIA decades to get where they are now. If anyone else can just take their designs as a starting point then NVIDIA’s whole investment (billions of dollars in R&D over decades) ceases to be a competitive advantage. I think what would actually end up happening is that chip design as NVIDIA is doing would cease to exist as a business. Perhaps we’d end up with something more akin to an open source model like Linux. But then cost of manufacturing (paying for the masks and order startup costs) would still run into the millions, and TSMC would hold all the cards. The reason I brought all this up though may have been missed by all the commenters to my original post: the U.S. government and their strategic interests. Having American companies like NVIDIA (and Apple as well, really) lose power and marketshare is not in the interest of the government. The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff.

kragen 2y ago
in the case you mention, the geopolitical considerations run strongly counter to what you suggest chinese policymakers can loosen domestic restrictions on innovation such as copyright and patent laws; then the laws in the us will only restrict us companies like nvidia. in large part this has happened, which is a major reason chinese companies (in both prc and roc) have become the leading organizations in a wide variety of high-tech fields, including solar panels, cell phones, electric cars, nuclear power, and microelectronics your nvidia analogy predicts that gcc engineers and linux kernel engineers would have terrible job security, since anyone who needs a gcc backend or device driver written can hire literally any programmer; there are no legal restrictions. but in fact this seems to make the barriers to entry higher rather than lower. they're just in the form of 'human capital', knowhow, rather than in the form of the assets of a company also, you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company, and it's already left the us behind. sentences like 'The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff.' reflect wishful thinking that the technology gap is the other way around from how it actually is
- computerfriend 2y ago
  In sentences like "The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff", China is referring to the PRC. In sentences like "you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company", China is referring to Taiwan. It is disingenuous to conflate these.
  - kragen 2y ago
    conflating them has been the official policy of both prc and taiwan since the prc was founded, as well as of the un, and it shows little sign of changing. in day-to-day life, there is an enormous flow of money, technical information, hardware, and skilled workers back and forth between taipei and shenzhen. taipei is a 20-minute flight away from fuzhou. the idea of maintaining a 'technology gap' between the prc and the roc is more wishful thinking, like the idea of maintaining a technology gap between california and washington, or between france and germany. i mean, at least france and germany speak different languages
    - computerfriend 2y ago
      Being ambiguous as to what "China" means is both vitally important for international relations and also generally unhelpful for the purpose of clear communication. Corporate (and other) espionage notwithstanding.
      - kragen 2y ago
        there was no ambiguity in my comment; i said 'chinese companies (in both prc and roc)' to ensure that i was communicating clearly
        account42 2y ago
        Deliberately conflating the two, especially in discussion of US strategic interests, is not just unhelpful but makes your entire argument nonsensical.
account42 2y ago
> The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff. China doesn't have to care about US IP laws and largely already doesn't.

kragen 2y ago

in the case you mention, the geopolitical considerations run strongly counter to what you suggest chinese policymakers can loosen domestic restrictions on innovation such as copyright and patent laws; then the laws in the us will only restrict us companies like nvidia. in large part this has happened, which is a major reason chinese companies (in both prc and roc) have become the leading organizations in a wide variety of high-tech fields, including solar panels, cell phones, electric cars, nuclear power, and microelectronics your nvidia analogy predicts that gcc engineers and linux kernel engineers would have terrible job security, since anyone who needs a gcc backend or device driver written can hire literally any programmer; there are no legal restrictions. but in fact this seems to make the barriers to entry higher rather than lower. they're just in the form of 'human capital', knowhow, rather than in the form of the assets of a company also, you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company, and it's already left the us behind. sentences like 'The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff.' reflect wishful thinking that the technology gap is the other way around from how it actually is

computerfriend 2y ago
In sentences like "The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff", China is referring to the PRC. In sentences like "you may not be aware of this, but tsmc is a chinese company", China is referring to Taiwan. It is disingenuous to conflate these.
- kragen 2y ago
  conflating them has been the official policy of both prc and taiwan since the prc was founded, as well as of the un, and it shows little sign of changing. in day-to-day life, there is an enormous flow of money, technical information, hardware, and skilled workers back and forth between taipei and shenzhen. taipei is a 20-minute flight away from fuzhou. the idea of maintaining a 'technology gap' between the prc and the roc is more wishful thinking, like the idea of maintaining a technology gap between california and washington, or between france and germany. i mean, at least france and germany speak different languages
  - computerfriend 2y ago
    Being ambiguous as to what "China" means is both vitally important for international relations and also generally unhelpful for the purpose of clear communication. Corporate (and other) espionage notwithstanding.
    - kragen 2y ago
      there was no ambiguity in my comment; i said 'chinese companies (in both prc and roc)' to ensure that i was communicating clearly
      - account42 2y ago
        Deliberately conflating the two, especially in discussion of US strategic interests, is not just unhelpful but makes your entire argument nonsensical.

account42 2y ago

> The last thing the US wants to see is for China to close the technology gap on this stuff. China doesn't have to care about US IP laws and largely already doesn't.