4 ms·

It's probably not just a piece of IP. The question of competitive advantage (or comparative advantage) by companies (IBM in the 70s, Microsoft in the 90s, Intel

It's probably not just a piece of IP. The question of competitive advantage (or comparative advantage) by companies (IBM in the 70s, Microsoft in the 90s, Intel for decades, TSMC, nVidia, and Apple recently) or by nation states (Japan in the 80s, Taiwan and S. Korea recently) is complex and often mysterious. Economists talk about core competencies, which is a combination of culture, training, work-ethic, supply chain, IP, and other things. If teasing these apart was easy, competitors would emerge more quickly. Equally fascinating is why it goes away (Japan in the 90s, Intel recently). I have been trying to figure out TSMC in particular but haven't yet, and I'm skeptical of anyone who claims it is one simple thing, or even anyone who claims they know all the reasons.

ok_computer 2y ago
They built the supplier global and local ecosystem and they have a local pipeline for engineering and technician talent. The US has good graduate and university systems but the industrial culture is different and you see that in operations. There are different workplace incentives. They’ve been working for a long time to reach this superior position and made good decisions business partners and investments along the way. These investments in local national economies take time, decades. I agree with you, IP is reductive where I think there is a combination of tangible and intangible factors, trade secrets, talent, operational discipline, management and long term thinking. It’s hard to see in present time, but it becomes clear in retrospect when the winning companies started making failing decisions while on top. Then doubling down on those poor decisions or switching strategies too frequently to make an effect.
- Glawen 2y ago
  >It’s hard to see in present time, but it becomes clear in retrospect when the winning companies started making failing decisions while on top. Then doubling down on those poor decisions or switching strategies too frequently to make an effect. It is even more infuriating when you see a big player makes a bad decision, but it takes years to see the effects (on the market for example).

ok_computer 2y ago

They built the supplier global and local ecosystem and they have a local pipeline for engineering and technician talent. The US has good graduate and university systems but the industrial culture is different and you see that in operations. There are different workplace incentives. They’ve been working for a long time to reach this superior position and made good decisions business partners and investments along the way. These investments in local national economies take time, decades. I agree with you, IP is reductive where I think there is a combination of tangible and intangible factors, trade secrets, talent, operational discipline, management and long term thinking. It’s hard to see in present time, but it becomes clear in retrospect when the winning companies started making failing decisions while on top. Then doubling down on those poor decisions or switching strategies too frequently to make an effect.

Glawen 2y ago
>It’s hard to see in present time, but it becomes clear in retrospect when the winning companies started making failing decisions while on top. Then doubling down on those poor decisions or switching strategies too frequently to make an effect. It is even more infuriating when you see a big player makes a bad decision, but it takes years to see the effects (on the market for example).