6 ms·

High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself. The problem is that unlike Airbus, which (highly inefficiently) ca

by jorvi 8mo ago

High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself. The problem is that unlike Airbus, which (highly inefficiently) can be made in multiple countries, you can't really spread out parts of a fab that way. The most you can do is fab machines + chips + chip packaging. Netherlands already has fab machines and in packaging there isn't a high margin. That leaves chips, and you can be sure that whoever gets the fabs, the other EU countries will throw a shit fit and demand counter investments to compensate. And on top of that there is also regional animosity. So even if it makes logical sense to pop the fab down in the middle of the blue banana, it won't make political sense because France and all of South and East EU will be angry about "the rich getting richer".

joe_mamba 8mo ago
>High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself. And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors. When you're relying on national subsidies to build and run a factory and adjacent infrastructure in a country, you're tied to national interests and demands of those countries footing the bill for all that infrastructure. So the likes of France and Germany aren't gonna give billions in subsidies from their taxpayers' money to semiconductor companies so that they can incorporate in Netherlands to dodge taxes and then create jobs in low-cost Poland and Romania instead of at home, even though that's already been happening to an extent in other industries over the last 20+ years. It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.
- bjourne 8mo ago
  Specialization takes away a lot of the competitive pressure.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    What do you mean by this?
- ffsm8 8mo ago
  > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it What part of my original statement you quoted "EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block" do you think does not stand anymore and why? >unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence Maybe reading comprehension or understanding of international politics within the EU is not your strength, but I gave you the evidence and arguments in the comment you quoted. Maybe you don't like to hear what I said, but that's another thing entirely.
    - ffsm8 8mo ago
      The preceding example to the quotes excerpt. I was just under the seemingly mistaken assumption you'd remember the contents of your own comment.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        You again brought no argument when I asked you to. How can anyone have a conversation out of this when you refuse to play ball and are only interested in throwing hissy fits at comments you disagree with?
        ffsm8 8mo ago
        okay,the preceding paragraph I referenced of yours was > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. Which you the followed up with > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. To which I responded with (just in case your ability to recall that fails you again) with > Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
- ido 8mo ago
  The solution is to make the EU more like an actual unified economic and monitary union- with a central fiscal authority, unified public debt, all member states joining the Eurozone, unified tax system, etc.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    So in your opinion, the solution is that individual national serenity should be abolished and the EU should have the liberty, nay, the authority to fleece its highest payers into the system, like France and Germany, and then redistribute their money to whoever and whatever it sees fit, for the "greater good" of the union, with no accountability or obligation to provide them equal benefits in return? How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps? How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.
    - petesergeant 8mo ago
      > How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps? Isn’t this exactly how the United States and every other country works?
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        Firstly, NO, the US is a country, the EU is not. Secondly, even if the US as a country is tighter integrated and more financially successful than the EU as a union, the US is not a successful model example of a well functioning society that people in the EU would aspire to emulate, on the contrary, they'd rather preserve the status quo than turning into something resembling what the US has become.
        selestify 8mo ago
        Ok, well I guess if Europe is fine with a continued slide in global economic relevance, they can keep their status quo. But something tells me that's not what Europeans generally want...
- jorvi 8mo ago
  > And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors. The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., I'm not sure where you get the idea that France and Germany are. I will say you point out another big problem with the EU: its budget is tiny compared to the member states themselves. I do think as time goes on and millenials get in real positions of power, the idea of a more unified EU will get much broader support. So more of an EU army, much more of a single market, etc., but this will be a 25-50y timescale. I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is. > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. No, that is just reasonable. Theoretically I am all for open trade in the name of efficiency, but in the coming multi-polar world, there is real advantage to having more onshored production. This also really makes me want to integrate Ukraine into the EU. Their troops are very battle-hardened at this point, and would bring ample experience to EU armies. Especially in the field of drone warfare.
  - mamonster 8mo ago
    >The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., Not by raw amount of euros no. By % of GDP or per capita maybe.
    - jorvi 8mo ago
      Per capita yes, which is the only logical way to compare it.
      - slaw 8mo ago
        The only logical way to compare is by amount of money.
whstl 8mo ago
Good point, but gotta remember that people don't buy chips, they buy products. There's plenty of stuff to be produced. From components to PCBs to casing to packaging. China didn't become the manufacturing giant it is because of a single product, they did because the whole supply chain was moving there while the EU and US were only concerned about higher-margin products and activities. I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something.
- xorcist 8mo ago
  I wish more people understood this. Or perhaps they do, but it doesn't fir their political pitches or something. Funding an enormously complicated semiconductor facility from a blank sheet of paper somewhere in Europe is a very expensive way to accomplish little, if the rest of the supply chain from materials to products is in non-friendly nations. The way to bring in an industry the same way you do anything complicated: You start small. Get the specialized diode factory up and running again, and then build out supporting industries and value chains as needed. Complex lithography equipment can wait until last. It wasn't long ago we built mobile phones in Europe. Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel and Bosch all had production and most if not all components were sourced from Europe or the US. Two decades ago is the blink of an eye in the larger scheme of things, not even a generation, and many who worked on this are still in their working years. Without being directly related, it would also be a good opportunity to chisel out a crack in the Android/Apple monopoly. Then maybe in a decade or so you could actually live as a functioning citizen without giving remote root to the oligarchs and self proclaimed supranational kingmakers.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something. Except that's exactly what happened. EU semi fabs like the ones in Italy mostly make diodes, mosfets, microcontrollers and other such low margin products. Nobody here tapes out GPUs and CPUs, that's all Korea, Taiwan and US.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
Gravityloss 8mo ago
There is one: https://www.european-processor-initiative.eu/ https://www.european-processor-initiative.eu/
acatton 8mo ago
Airbus was never born as a European giant. It was a merging of many national champions (Aérospatiale, DASA and CASA) that were each already making full airplanes. They figured out how to spread out the manufacturing later. Airbus currently has two factories finalizing the airplane assembly: one in Toulouse and one in Hamburg. You could copy this model and just open different fab in different countries to spread production. Also, another model is one country making wafers, one country making EUV-lithography machines and parts, one country mining and refining silicon, etc.
- panick21_ 8mo ago
  Fabs are so expensive and profit from local knowlage. 2 full leading node fabs seems optimistic.
- throw20251220 8mo ago
  There's no "one country making lithography machines". The mirrors come from Germany already. Other parts from about 160 other countries around the world. The EUV tech itself is an American invention and was picked up by ASML. That is why USA has the say in who gets it.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
rich_sasha 8mo ago
EU has a solid path of a lot of money to be spent in the next 5-20 years. Chips, AI, advanced weaponry, more advanced weaponry etc. If there was a program where everyone gets a slice, I'm sure it would work - a bit like ESA. It is doing it piecemeal that runs into the very problem you describe.
bigbadfeline 8mo ago
> you can't really spread out parts of a fab that way. > That leaves chips, and you can be sure that whoever gets the fabs, "a fab" or "the fabs"? We are commenting on news about TSMC building fabs in 3 countries across 2 continents, multiple fabs in each - I counted 23 of them here [1]. Surely, the EU can commit to a few fabs and research labs in different countries, semis are equipment and labor intensive, there's work for more than the EU. There's no need to build all of them at once, a clear commitment will suffice. [1] https://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs https://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs

by jorvi 8mo ago

joe_mamba 8mo ago

>High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself. And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors. When you're relying on national subsidies to build and run a factory and adjacent infrastructure in a country, you're tied to national interests and demands of those countries footing the bill for all that infrastructure. So the likes of France and Germany aren't gonna give billions in subsidies from their taxpayers' money to semiconductor companies so that they can incorporate in Netherlands to dodge taxes and then create jobs in low-cost Poland and Romania instead of at home, even though that's already been happening to an extent in other industries over the last 20+ years. It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.

bjourne 8mo ago
Specialization takes away a lot of the competitive pressure.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  What do you mean by this?
ffsm8 8mo ago
> Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it What part of my original statement you quoted "EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block" do you think does not stand anymore and why? >unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence Maybe reading comprehension or understanding of international politics within the EU is not your strength, but I gave you the evidence and arguments in the comment you quoted. Maybe you don't like to hear what I said, but that's another thing entirely.
  - ffsm8 8mo ago
    The preceding example to the quotes excerpt. I was just under the seemingly mistaken assumption you'd remember the contents of your own comment.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      You again brought no argument when I asked you to. How can anyone have a conversation out of this when you refuse to play ball and are only interested in throwing hissy fits at comments you disagree with?
      - ffsm8 8mo ago
        okay,the preceding paragraph I referenced of yours was > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. Which you the followed up with > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. To which I responded with (just in case your ability to recall that fails you again) with > Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence
ido 8mo ago
The solution is to make the EU more like an actual unified economic and monitary union- with a central fiscal authority, unified public debt, all member states joining the Eurozone, unified tax system, etc.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  So in your opinion, the solution is that individual national serenity should be abolished and the EU should have the liberty, nay, the authority to fleece its highest payers into the system, like France and Germany, and then redistribute their money to whoever and whatever it sees fit, for the "greater good" of the union, with no accountability or obligation to provide them equal benefits in return? How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps? How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.
  - petesergeant 8mo ago
    > How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps? Isn’t this exactly how the United States and every other country works?
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      Firstly, NO, the US is a country, the EU is not. Secondly, even if the US as a country is tighter integrated and more financially successful than the EU as a union, the US is not a successful model example of a well functioning society that people in the EU would aspire to emulate, on the contrary, they'd rather preserve the status quo than turning into something resembling what the US has become.
      - selestify 8mo ago
        Ok, well I guess if Europe is fine with a continued slide in global economic relevance, they can keep their status quo. But something tells me that's not what Europeans generally want...
jorvi 8mo ago
> And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors. The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., I'm not sure where you get the idea that France and Germany are. I will say you point out another big problem with the EU: its budget is tiny compared to the member states themselves. I do think as time goes on and millenials get in real positions of power, the idea of a more unified EU will get much broader support. So more of an EU army, much more of a single market, etc., but this will be a 25-50y timescale. I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is. > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later. > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block. No, that is just reasonable. Theoretically I am all for open trade in the name of efficiency, but in the coming multi-polar world, there is real advantage to having more onshored production. This also really makes me want to integrate Ukraine into the EU. Their troops are very battle-hardened at this point, and would bring ample experience to EU armies. Especially in the field of drone warfare.
- mamonster 8mo ago
  >The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., Not by raw amount of euros no. By % of GDP or per capita maybe.
  - jorvi 8mo ago
    Per capita yes, which is the only logical way to compare it.
    - slaw 8mo ago
      The only logical way to compare is by amount of money.

whstl 8mo ago

Good point, but gotta remember that people don't buy chips, they buy products. There's plenty of stuff to be produced. From components to PCBs to casing to packaging. China didn't become the manufacturing giant it is because of a single product, they did because the whole supply chain was moving there while the EU and US were only concerned about higher-margin products and activities. I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something.

xorcist 8mo ago
I wish more people understood this. Or perhaps they do, but it doesn't fir their political pitches or something. Funding an enormously complicated semiconductor facility from a blank sheet of paper somewhere in Europe is a very expensive way to accomplish little, if the rest of the supply chain from materials to products is in non-friendly nations. The way to bring in an industry the same way you do anything complicated: You start small. Get the specialized diode factory up and running again, and then build out supporting industries and value chains as needed. Complex lithography equipment can wait until last. It wasn't long ago we built mobile phones in Europe. Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel and Bosch all had production and most if not all components were sourced from Europe or the US. Two decades ago is the blink of an eye in the larger scheme of things, not even a generation, and many who worked on this are still in their working years. Without being directly related, it would also be a good opportunity to chisel out a crack in the Android/Apple monopoly. Then maybe in a decade or so you could actually live as a functioning citizen without giving remote root to the oligarchs and self proclaimed supranational kingmakers.
joe_mamba 8mo ago
>I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something. Except that's exactly what happened. EU semi fabs like the ones in Italy mostly make diodes, mosfets, microcontrollers and other such low margin products. Nobody here tapes out GPUs and CPUs, that's all Korea, Taiwan and US.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]

Gravityloss 8mo ago

There is one: https://www.european-processor-initiative.eu/ https://www.european-processor-initiative.eu/

acatton 8mo ago

Airbus was never born as a European giant. It was a merging of many national champions (Aérospatiale, DASA and CASA) that were each already making full airplanes. They figured out how to spread out the manufacturing later. Airbus currently has two factories finalizing the airplane assembly: one in Toulouse and one in Hamburg. You could copy this model and just open different fab in different countries to spread production. Also, another model is one country making wafers, one country making EUV-lithography machines and parts, one country mining and refining silicon, etc.

panick21_ 8mo ago
Fabs are so expensive and profit from local knowlage. 2 full leading node fabs seems optimistic.
throw20251220 8mo ago
There's no "one country making lithography machines". The mirrors come from Germany already. Other parts from about 160 other countries around the world. The EUV tech itself is an American invention and was picked up by ASML. That is why USA has the say in who gets it.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

rich_sasha 8mo ago

EU has a solid path of a lot of money to be spent in the next 5-20 years. Chips, AI, advanced weaponry, more advanced weaponry etc. If there was a program where everyone gets a slice, I'm sure it would work - a bit like ESA. It is doing it piecemeal that runs into the very problem you describe.

bigbadfeline 8mo ago

> you can't really spread out parts of a fab that way. > That leaves chips, and you can be sure that whoever gets the fabs, "a fab" or "the fabs"? We are commenting on news about TSMC building fabs in 3 countries across 2 continents, multiple fabs in each - I counted 23 of them here [1]. Surely, the EU can commit to a few fabs and research labs in different countries, semis are equipment and labor intensive, there's work for more than the EU. There's no need to build all of them at once, a clear commitment will suffice. [1] https://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs https://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs