4 ms·

Yeah, you've got Apple, Nvidia and AMD heavily exposed to that geopolitical risk, but seemingly not willing to help lessen it by investing in US fabs. Whenever

Yeah, you've got Apple, Nvidia and AMD heavily exposed to that geopolitical risk, but seemingly not willing to help lessen it by investing in US fabs. Whenever I note this people here and elsewhere say "they're smart to be fabless" but somebody's gotta run fabs and more fabs need to be run in the US and quickly. I realize industrial policy isn't in vogue these days but it might be a good idea for the future of US semiconductor production to arrange some marriages between some of these companies that have a lot of capital and have a lot of need to reduce their geopolitical risk. Our brand of capitalism isn't great at looking ahead more than a quarter or two.

jjtheblunt 2y ago
Apple is heavily invested in the new TSMC fab in the US east of the north end of Phoenix, last i read; not sure how arranged that marriage really is, but perhaps tax incentives for TSMC facilitated Apple plans to heavily utilize it. (trying to find linkable articles...like this https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23497417/apple-tsmc-phoenix-fab-plans-biden-amd-nvidia https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23497417/apple-tsmc-phoen... ) ; p.s. i wonder if only i compulsively balance lisp parens
sroussey 2y ago
Apple could invest in an Intel Foundry spinoff, but there is no reason to invest in the Intel of today.
Panzer04 2y ago
I thought historically companies always wanted "second sources" for things like this. Surely all the fabless semis can't be blithely running off a cliff with TSMC as their only parts source? That would be a catastrophic risk to take down the track if there's only a single vendor for advanced chips and they've decided to hike prices and collect all of the benefits alone from their advanced processes and share none of them with their customers.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Buyers will obviously always want more sellers. That is not a sufficient condition for sellers to exist, however. Selling what TSMC sells might not be easily reproducible.
  - Panzer04 2y ago
    As it currently stands, it is reproducible. In 5 years, it might not be, if Samsung/Intel throw in the towel. I don't really see that happening yet, but at some point if TSMC maintains its lead and the alternative options don't get the sales to continue investing, TSMC could well become completely unassailable at the leading edge.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Intel seems like it’s at least a few years (but I would bet many years) behind TSMC on obtaining/training the necessary people with necessary expertise with the necessary management changes. It took TSMC a long time and many expensive, risky bets to beat Intel. I imagine it will take Intel just as many resources and time to catch up to TSMC. Hence the divergence in their market caps.
      - Panzer04 2y ago
        I would frame TSMCs lead to be as much down to a failure st intel rather than a success at TSMC. Intel invested a ton of money into making a non-EUV 7nm process work and basically got it wrong. Now they have EUV, it seems largely a matter of doing basically the same things as TSMC. Not to denigrate TSMC at all, they have excellent execution and are being well rewarded for that. Intel supposedly will be on par with TSMC in the next year or two with their newest processes. Even when they were stuck on 10nm, they were fabbing competitive parts with it for ages. I don't see the same "years behind" narrative you see, personally. Interestingly, even TSMC revenue is only 70b usd. Intel made 55b revenue last year (down markedly from earlier years as well). Yes, that combines semiconductor design and fab income, but Intel still has the financials to make things work over the next few years. Funnily enough, if TSMC starts hiking prices (which presumably they will at some point), that would also aid Intel, since there are only really three players, and Samsung is hardly in a better position than Intel is.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Globalisation in peace time happened, and everyone thought we would just be a group of friends across the globe, with occasional hotspots here and there. Turns out, yet again we failed to learn from history of past civilizations.

jjtheblunt 2y ago

Apple is heavily invested in the new TSMC fab in the US east of the north end of Phoenix, last i read; not sure how arranged that marriage really is, but perhaps tax incentives for TSMC facilitated Apple plans to heavily utilize it. (trying to find linkable articles...like this https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23497417/apple-tsmc-phoenix-fab-plans-biden-amd-nvidia https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/6/23497417/apple-tsmc-phoen... ) ; p.s. i wonder if only i compulsively balance lisp parens

sroussey 2y ago

Apple could invest in an Intel Foundry spinoff, but there is no reason to invest in the Intel of today.

Panzer04 2y ago

I thought historically companies always wanted "second sources" for things like this. Surely all the fabless semis can't be blithely running off a cliff with TSMC as their only parts source? That would be a catastrophic risk to take down the track if there's only a single vendor for advanced chips and they've decided to hike prices and collect all of the benefits alone from their advanced processes and share none of them with their customers.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Buyers will obviously always want more sellers. That is not a sufficient condition for sellers to exist, however. Selling what TSMC sells might not be easily reproducible.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  As it currently stands, it is reproducible. In 5 years, it might not be, if Samsung/Intel throw in the towel. I don't really see that happening yet, but at some point if TSMC maintains its lead and the alternative options don't get the sales to continue investing, TSMC could well become completely unassailable at the leading edge.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Intel seems like it’s at least a few years (but I would bet many years) behind TSMC on obtaining/training the necessary people with necessary expertise with the necessary management changes. It took TSMC a long time and many expensive, risky bets to beat Intel. I imagine it will take Intel just as many resources and time to catch up to TSMC. Hence the divergence in their market caps.
    - Panzer04 2y ago
      I would frame TSMCs lead to be as much down to a failure st intel rather than a success at TSMC. Intel invested a ton of money into making a non-EUV 7nm process work and basically got it wrong. Now they have EUV, it seems largely a matter of doing basically the same things as TSMC. Not to denigrate TSMC at all, they have excellent execution and are being well rewarded for that. Intel supposedly will be on par with TSMC in the next year or two with their newest processes. Even when they were stuck on 10nm, they were fabbing competitive parts with it for ages. I don't see the same "years behind" narrative you see, personally. Interestingly, even TSMC revenue is only 70b usd. Intel made 55b revenue last year (down markedly from earlier years as well). Yes, that combines semiconductor design and fab income, but Intel still has the financials to make things work over the next few years. Funnily enough, if TSMC starts hiking prices (which presumably they will at some point), that would also aid Intel, since there are only really three players, and Samsung is hardly in a better position than Intel is.
pjmlp 2y ago
Globalisation in peace time happened, and everyone thought we would just be a group of friends across the globe, with occasional hotspots here and there. Turns out, yet again we failed to learn from history of past civilizations.