3 ms·

What are the chances that this ends up like the Wisconsin Foxconn deal? Is there anything actually driving a follow through on investment?

sct202 2y ago
Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.
aurareturn 2y ago
Less likely but could. Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Initially Foxconn was touted as thousands of high tech high paying jobs until it was revealed that it was just assembly jobs. We'll see what happens.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    What did they think a Foxconn factory is for? High tech what?
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      Most people have no idea what a Foxconn is other than the 2 minute mention on local news.
- runako 2y ago
  Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used? I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
  - 827a 2y ago
    These were early rumors, but I recall there being some hope that the first chips this factory would produce would be used for something made by Apple also in the United States, like the Mac Pro or something like the HomePod Mini.
  - jgab 2y ago
    The equipment in chip fabs is highly sensitive to weather and natural disasters. So sites like Arizona, Austin, Oregon are chosen due to low prevalence of earthquakes no hurricanes etc. The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off. The reason to onshore this is not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict. It’s not about scale but ability to produce high yielding chips at shrinking technology size, is vastly becoming a physics problem at smaller nodes. Reality is that Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development is lagging behind TSMC. So easier to onshore TSMC process here that help Intel learn how to speedrun transition to foundry model (producing others chip designs)
    - runako 2y ago
      > The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off. I see, but I think you are still skipping the major point that the chips need to be installed in a device to be useful. That device assembly is largely in Asia, and the US does not have the ready capacity to suddenly start assembling devices. > not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict > Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development If we don't need scale, then why couldn't Intel just produce the chips inefficiently in case of conflict? Or if this is about protecting the supply chain for consumer goods as well, then I am back to my initial question about siting chip production far from the places the chips are installed into devices.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used 1. Chips have a very high $/kg density, so logistics isn't go to change unit economics a lot. 2. These assembly lines are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two close, it's not going to be a problem anyway.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

sct202 2y ago

Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.

aurareturn 2y ago

Less likely but could. Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.

bongodongobob 2y ago
Initially Foxconn was touted as thousands of high tech high paying jobs until it was revealed that it was just assembly jobs. We'll see what happens.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  What did they think a Foxconn factory is for? High tech what?
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Most people have no idea what a Foxconn is other than the 2 minute mention on local news.
runako 2y ago
Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used? I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
- 827a 2y ago
  These were early rumors, but I recall there being some hope that the first chips this factory would produce would be used for something made by Apple also in the United States, like the Mac Pro or something like the HomePod Mini.
- jgab 2y ago
  The equipment in chip fabs is highly sensitive to weather and natural disasters. So sites like Arizona, Austin, Oregon are chosen due to low prevalence of earthquakes no hurricanes etc. The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off. The reason to onshore this is not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict. It’s not about scale but ability to produce high yielding chips at shrinking technology size, is vastly becoming a physics problem at smaller nodes. Reality is that Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development is lagging behind TSMC. So easier to onshore TSMC process here that help Intel learn how to speedrun transition to foundry model (producing others chip designs)
  - runako 2y ago
    > The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off. I see, but I think you are still skipping the major point that the chips need to be installed in a device to be useful. That device assembly is largely in Asia, and the US does not have the ready capacity to suddenly start assembling devices. > not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict > Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development If we don't need scale, then why couldn't Intel just produce the chips inefficiently in case of conflict? Or if this is about protecting the supply chain for consumer goods as well, then I am back to my initial question about siting chip production far from the places the chips are installed into devices.
- golergka 2y ago
  > chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used 1. Chips have a very high $/kg density, so logistics isn't go to change unit economics a lot. 2. These assembly lines are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two close, it's not going to be a problem anyway.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]