Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It is 2 way street without China those chip company will go bankrupt read this AMD has been loosing money for 5 or more quarter They have no choice but licensing technology
China's strategy in Korean peninsula
- Thread starter Phead128
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
US consumption is 70% while China's is 40% but let's not forget the topic here: trade with Korea. China is a bigger market for SK. It is a fact backed by numbers as SK exports over double to China than the US. Your whole point that the US is a market for SK exports while China is not, makes no sense and is against fact. The US consumes a lot, and it also has a LOT more countries than SK to bribe with its consumption.
Without the US, SK/China relationship falls apart?? China/SK trade just flows through without effect on the economy? Those are just statements without meaning born from your stubbornness after you've been proven wrong. I can make statements without backing too. Without China and SK purchases, US government will collapse. US economy will be in recession and technology will stagnate. See? I can do it too. LOL
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Now this article is in 2015 by now they probably runover Qualcomm and Intel
Chinese upstarts Rockchip and Allwinner put pressure on Qualcomm and Intel in tablet chip market
by |
Aug 21, 2015 12:05pm
Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) is a leader in the tablet chipset market and Intel has spent mightily trying to crack into that market, but both have new competitors racing behind them from China. Rockchip Electronics and Allwinner Technology increased their tablet chip sales from a combined 0.3 percent of the market in 2010 to more than 27 percent just three years later, according to Bloomberg. By relying on designs from ARM Holdings they have jumped into the market more quickly than more established competitors did. ARM, which licenses its chipset designs and technology to nearly every major mobile silicon company, is looking to expand its business in China as more consumers there buy smartphones and tablets -- and as more devices are made there.
Rockchip and Allwinner have focused on being fast movers that throw caution to the wind. For example, instead of designing, making and testing a chipset, and then repeating that process, they use basic ARM building blocks to jump quickly through the "make and test" phase and skip the re-testing. Intel struck a deal with Rockchip in 2014 to jointly develop chips that the Chinese company can market to its local customers, especially for the value and entry-level tablet market segment.
Meanwhile, Allwinner does not just get chips to customers quickly, Ben El Baz, a company business development manager, told Bloomberg. "Until that first customer gets the first tablet off the production line, our engineering teams basically live in the factories of the customers," he said. "They do whatever it takes. You don't get that in the U.S.''
Chinese upstarts Rockchip and Allwinner put pressure on Qualcomm and Intel in tablet chip market
by |
Aug 21, 2015 12:05pm
Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) is a leader in the tablet chipset market and Intel has spent mightily trying to crack into that market, but both have new competitors racing behind them from China. Rockchip Electronics and Allwinner Technology increased their tablet chip sales from a combined 0.3 percent of the market in 2010 to more than 27 percent just three years later, according to Bloomberg. By relying on designs from ARM Holdings they have jumped into the market more quickly than more established competitors did. ARM, which licenses its chipset designs and technology to nearly every major mobile silicon company, is looking to expand its business in China as more consumers there buy smartphones and tablets -- and as more devices are made there.
Rockchip and Allwinner have focused on being fast movers that throw caution to the wind. For example, instead of designing, making and testing a chipset, and then repeating that process, they use basic ARM building blocks to jump quickly through the "make and test" phase and skip the re-testing. Intel struck a deal with Rockchip in 2014 to jointly develop chips that the Chinese company can market to its local customers, especially for the value and entry-level tablet market segment.
Meanwhile, Allwinner does not just get chips to customers quickly, Ben El Baz, a company business development manager, told Bloomberg. "Until that first customer gets the first tablet off the production line, our engineering teams basically live in the factories of the customers," he said. "They do whatever it takes. You don't get that in the U.S.''
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
How many times have we heard experts claim China can't do this or can't do that and then China does it? I would make an argument that the rise of the right in many Western countries is because they see China rising above their denials and threatens their status as the predominant power on Earth. The West fears dearly and I mean DEARLY China's Made in China 2025 initiative that calls for all strategically important technologies be developed in China. If China couldn't do this or that, why are they worried? They're worried they won't be in control of these technologies and make money off of it and China will sell it to countries they don't want to see having them.
South Korea isn't going to dump the US because it has no other choice. Without the US their status in this world drops. That's why Asians like the Cold War. If China had surrendered and became lapdogs of Western colonialism, all other Asian countries would be ignored. China was the prize. Americans never heard of Korea before the war. If China didn't fight against Western colonialism and just gave in, most Asian countries today Americans wouldn't even know existed. They would've never gotten free money and favors because the US would've never needed them in the Cold War.
The US proclaimed to the world that they had the only ladder to the top and countries better follow or get crowded and left behind in the back of the line up. The further back in line, the harder the climb up because of all the other countries before you. That ladder is crowded with countries trying to push and shove other countries out of the way on their way up. But then there's China building it own ladder able to climb up at its own pace. All the other countries see China and what it has done. Some are angry seeing China surpassing them up by cheating by not going up the US's ladder and following the rules. Some see that China's ladder is not as crowded. Maybe they'll climb that one or they'll make a ladder of their own. Some already devoted to climbing up the US's ladder have too much to lose by starting over at the bottom so they decide to try to knock China down off its ladder by throwing stones hoping to preserve their place higher in the hierarchy but then China has already moved too high and quickly beyond how far they can throw their stones. So everyone below on the ladder is dependent on the US now where China is climbing into its range. The US has to be careful. A lot of people who were supporting its ladder below have now left leaving the top imbalanced so any overly strong desperate swings of stones might send the US ladder tumbling down and all the other countries who chose to stick with it down with them. The US can easily grab the closest ledge to the top saving itself before the ladder collapses. Uncle Sam might be able to give a hand to Great Britain who's next below. Maybe Germany and France also because they're close too. But then the rest who made the bad choice of climbing a ladder which couldn't support the weight of the lofty dreams and promises of that many countries in the first place aren't anywhere close to safety.
South Korea isn't going to dump the US because it has no other choice. Without the US their status in this world drops. That's why Asians like the Cold War. If China had surrendered and became lapdogs of Western colonialism, all other Asian countries would be ignored. China was the prize. Americans never heard of Korea before the war. If China didn't fight against Western colonialism and just gave in, most Asian countries today Americans wouldn't even know existed. They would've never gotten free money and favors because the US would've never needed them in the Cold War.
The US proclaimed to the world that they had the only ladder to the top and countries better follow or get crowded and left behind in the back of the line up. The further back in line, the harder the climb up because of all the other countries before you. That ladder is crowded with countries trying to push and shove other countries out of the way on their way up. But then there's China building it own ladder able to climb up at its own pace. All the other countries see China and what it has done. Some are angry seeing China surpassing them up by cheating by not going up the US's ladder and following the rules. Some see that China's ladder is not as crowded. Maybe they'll climb that one or they'll make a ladder of their own. Some already devoted to climbing up the US's ladder have too much to lose by starting over at the bottom so they decide to try to knock China down off its ladder by throwing stones hoping to preserve their place higher in the hierarchy but then China has already moved too high and quickly beyond how far they can throw their stones. So everyone below on the ladder is dependent on the US now where China is climbing into its range. The US has to be careful. A lot of people who were supporting its ladder below have now left leaving the top imbalanced so any overly strong desperate swings of stones might send the US ladder tumbling down and all the other countries who chose to stick with it down with them. The US can easily grab the closest ledge to the top saving itself before the ladder collapses. Uncle Sam might be able to give a hand to Great Britain who's next below. Maybe Germany and France also because they're close too. But then the rest who made the bad choice of climbing a ladder which couldn't support the weight of the lofty dreams and promises of that many countries in the first place aren't anywhere close to safety.
Last edited:
Actually by the experiences of the 1930s without trade deficit countries the trade surpluss ones get into long and deep recession.
So, if you cut the trade relationship between the US/China then the US will go into high GDP growth with increasing salaries and decreasing unemployment, and the inverse will be true for China ( and for SK as well)
Example in the 30s the trade surpluss US recesion was deep and long, for the UK it was short and shallow.
I think it is a bit overcomplication of the things.
The main diference is not that what the US, or China or whatever can makes, or how it climba lader, or what the leaders wants. - if China wants it can make as much semi as the US .
BUT the main driver is the efficiency.
There was a 100-1000 time big afficiency gap between the US and China during the boxer rebellion, since that China managed to close the gap to 4-5:1.
I think China can reach a 2:1 efficiency gap , and that on its own means it willhave to times bigger economy, but the gap will still exist.
The semi industry the result of it actually.
Say if the US close the trade relations ,then the gap start to increase, and the ratio between the two country will be bigger.
Japan has 1.5:1 gap with the US, so I think 2:1 gap is the best that china can get without deep policital changes.
I think without increasing the household wealth / consumption the 3-4:1 will be the ultimate result.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Efficiency is irrelevant. Americans might be more efficient making iPhones for Apple but they don't do that because in the end it would still cost them more to make iPhones. The best value for Apple in production is in China. Efficiency is trumped by a lot of other factors more valuable or they would be somewhere else making iPhones.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Completely over your head. I said something that was obviously a parody of your idiocy, and you actually tried to argue against it like it was a serious point. I don't know if it's your English problem (don't know where you're from) or because you're stupid... or both.
Well then, the US sure is a really nice country, isn't it? It purposefully keeps itself at a deficit so other countries can grow and prosper! By your logic, the US should probably cut off all of its trade ties and isolate itself, right? That'll put its economy on steroids! LOL
Before you say something stupid, it was sarcastic. US-China trade is not the topic. I made a joke at the end of my relevant post and you made this entire post about it. That's how bad you are at debating. Here's what's relevant:
1. US leads in semiconductors; China's catching up fast (read all Hendrik_2000's links).
2. If the US wants to use semiconductors as a trade weapon, it will backfire. Other countries have the technology and nobody needs the US to sell.
3. Semiconductors (15% Korean economy?) are good, but doubling the size of my country is better. China would trade 15% of its GDP to double its territory any day, and if the Koreans weren't stupid, they would too.
4. China is South Korea's biggest trading partner and foreign market, (by a factor of 2 over the US) and it will only get bigger. The massive amount of American gluttony does not matter because when it comes to Korea, Chinese business is bigger.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Efficiency impacts on price since it directly affects how many man hours are needed to make something, but it is also a very abstract, aggregate figure which I think is an extremely poor tool to measure the competitiveness of specific industries.
Efficiency is linked to productivity, but also wages. So if the choice is to use 10 guys or buy 1 machine so 1 guy could do the same job, it doesn’t always makes economic sense to buy the machine. Especially if labour costs are significantly cheaper than the machine.
So higher wage economies will almost always have a better efficiency ratio since they have a much higher incentive to cut headcount.
But cutting headcount and adding automation doesn’t automatically mean they will be able to make something faster or more cheaply or better than a much more labour intensive production method in a lower wage competitor. Otherwise high efficiency economies would be the factories of the world. The fact that they are not means that that efficiency in itself is far from the be all and end all of the argument.
Looking at efficiency ratios for the economy to analyse specific sectors is also massively flawed, since Chinese argiculture in particular will be a massive drag on the overall national efficiency figure (because of geography and social legacy), but will have absolutely zero influence on how competitive China can be in chip building.
Wages, geography, cumulative investment in infrastructure and machinery, tech level etc all impact on efficiency. What doesn’t impact on efficiency is politics. Just compare India and China to see how much democracy magically adds to efficiency.
What matters most in chip production is volume.
The fabs costs billions to build, while the raw materials (silicon ie sand) costs barely anything. As with all high fixed cost, low variable cost operations, volume is key. The more chips you make, the cheaper you can sell them and the faster you make your investment back, so you can re-invest in R&D and better chip fabs.
China cannot make as many chips as America, nor could they ramp up production all that fast since the fabs takes years to build, and the American-dominated chip industry goes out of its way to try an deny China access to know how and machinery.
What more, even if China does go on a massive chip fab building spree, it would still be for nought if there isn’t demand for those chips.
China is using its own growing internal market demand for chips, and piggybacking on its electronics industry exports (phones, drones, computers etc) to try and create the demand to allow them to build up enough scale to be able to compete with America, but it will be a long time before China could hope to compete on a near level footing in terms of scale.
Ironically, the best thing the US could do to from China’s chip industry’s POV is to cut supply, like they did with the intel xeon chips, since that means Chinese users have no choice but to use Chinese chips, which massively boosts demand for Chinese chips.
To bring things back on topic, all of the above means that China could not easily supplant America’s economic and technological impact in SK.
Since if SK threw in with China, the US dominated semi conductor industry will shut them out in the Cold, like they currently try with China.
But it will be much worse for SK since they don’t have the economic scale to generate sufficient internal demand; cannot afford to independently research and build new chip fabs in enough scale to make any difference; and is far more reliant on the US and other western markets to make their operations viable and profitable.
In time, China could absolutely supplant America’s economic and technological role on SK, but that time isn’t now or will it likely to be in the near future.
Efficiency is linked to productivity, but also wages. So if the choice is to use 10 guys or buy 1 machine so 1 guy could do the same job, it doesn’t always makes economic sense to buy the machine. Especially if labour costs are significantly cheaper than the machine.
So higher wage economies will almost always have a better efficiency ratio since they have a much higher incentive to cut headcount.
But cutting headcount and adding automation doesn’t automatically mean they will be able to make something faster or more cheaply or better than a much more labour intensive production method in a lower wage competitor. Otherwise high efficiency economies would be the factories of the world. The fact that they are not means that that efficiency in itself is far from the be all and end all of the argument.
Looking at efficiency ratios for the economy to analyse specific sectors is also massively flawed, since Chinese argiculture in particular will be a massive drag on the overall national efficiency figure (because of geography and social legacy), but will have absolutely zero influence on how competitive China can be in chip building.
Wages, geography, cumulative investment in infrastructure and machinery, tech level etc all impact on efficiency. What doesn’t impact on efficiency is politics. Just compare India and China to see how much democracy magically adds to efficiency.
What matters most in chip production is volume.
The fabs costs billions to build, while the raw materials (silicon ie sand) costs barely anything. As with all high fixed cost, low variable cost operations, volume is key. The more chips you make, the cheaper you can sell them and the faster you make your investment back, so you can re-invest in R&D and better chip fabs.
China cannot make as many chips as America, nor could they ramp up production all that fast since the fabs takes years to build, and the American-dominated chip industry goes out of its way to try an deny China access to know how and machinery.
What more, even if China does go on a massive chip fab building spree, it would still be for nought if there isn’t demand for those chips.
China is using its own growing internal market demand for chips, and piggybacking on its electronics industry exports (phones, drones, computers etc) to try and create the demand to allow them to build up enough scale to be able to compete with America, but it will be a long time before China could hope to compete on a near level footing in terms of scale.
Ironically, the best thing the US could do to from China’s chip industry’s POV is to cut supply, like they did with the intel xeon chips, since that means Chinese users have no choice but to use Chinese chips, which massively boosts demand for Chinese chips.
To bring things back on topic, all of the above means that China could not easily supplant America’s economic and technological impact in SK.
Since if SK threw in with China, the US dominated semi conductor industry will shut them out in the Cold, like they currently try with China.
But it will be much worse for SK since they don’t have the economic scale to generate sufficient internal demand; cannot afford to independently research and build new chip fabs in enough scale to make any difference; and is far more reliant on the US and other western markets to make their operations viable and profitable.
In time, China could absolutely supplant America’s economic and technological role on SK, but that time isn’t now or will it likely to be in the near future.
Ok, so whatever think anyone about the FUTURE of China,US or SK at the moment SK is dependent on the US technology and markets to prosper, like China.
It can change in the future, and of course it doesn't means that any party won't willing to take even extreme level of economycal hardship to reach a strategical goal.
But, the current SK/US relations making any trialt o get rid fo the US a very hard and expensive adventure, and the US has many means to kill this idea.
And sadly many of the comments about future prospect of Chinese semi industry, trade flow and deficit, efficeincy and so on require way more talk than the patience fo the moderators to delete the best part of this topics.
It can change in the future, and of course it doesn't means that any party won't willing to take even extreme level of economycal hardship to reach a strategical goal.
But, the current SK/US relations making any trialt o get rid fo the US a very hard and expensive adventure, and the US has many means to kill this idea.
And sadly many of the comments about future prospect of Chinese semi industry, trade flow and deficit, efficeincy and so on require way more talk than the patience fo the moderators to delete the best part of this topics.