I do. Solyndra did not fail because of the it loan received from Obama's recover act. It failed because between 2009 and 2011 the price of polysilicon dropped almost 90%, invalidating any plans for thin film solar. Applied Materials thin film solar program also failed, but were self-funded so did not receive the same attention (particularly from the Koch Brothers, who spent almost $9M denouncing Obama for the 2012 campaign). The Solyndra products were technically successful and met their performance goals and economic goals before the bottom fell out of the TF solar biz. Admittedly, Solyndra did defraud the government by overstating financial viability to get the loan, but Obama's program did what it was supposed to, just didn't have a crystal ball. Epic nothing burger.
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
I do. Solyndra did not fail because of the it loan received from Obama's recover act. It failed because between 2009 and 2011 the price of polysilicon dropped almost 90%, invalidating any plans for thin film solar. Applied Materials thin film solar program also failed, but were self-funded so did not receive the same attention (particularly from the Koch Brothers, who spent almost $9M denouncing Obama for the 2012 campaign). The Solyndra products were technically successful and met their performance goals and economic goals before the bottom fell out of the TF solar biz. Admittedly, Solyndra did defraud the government by overstating financial viability to get the loan, but Obama's program did what it was supposed to, just didn't have a crystal ball. Epic nothing burger.
Right. I think it’s important to recognize that most new ventures fail with or without government support and it’s neither sensible nor fair to measure the efficacy of a government’s industrial policy just by cherry picking the failures. The US could afford to have the government take more losses in exchange for developing new industrial ventures, and many countries, especially in East Asia, have benefited from precisely this sort of active state support.
So the major casualty of the US tech ban to Huawei is Qualcomm and Mediatek (good job President TSAI), SK sure know how to play the game and Samsung know when to exploit it. If push thru it may account for nearly 60% of world chips use in SMART PHONE (including Samsung )
from cnTechPost
Samsung to supply Exynos chips to Xiaomi, Vivo and OPPO
2020-11-03 21:20:21 GMT+8 | cnTechPost
0
Samsung Electronics' System LSI Business says it will supply its Exynos family of processors (APs) for smartphones to Chinese smartphone makers Xiaomi, OPPO, and Vivo in 2021, according to South Korean media outlet Business Korea today.
Samsung is reportedly preparing to supply APs to one of the company's cheaper phones - or low-end and mid-range models - in the first half of 2021 and has indicated that it may supply them to its high-end smartphones later, as its technical prowess has been recognized.
Samsung's System LSI business unit has begun to reduce its supply of Exynos APs to Samsung's wireless business unit due to low margins and is seeking new customers with a focus on Chinese manufacturers.
The Samsung Exynos 980 and 880 have been successfully introduced into Vivo's supply chain with some success.
Earlier this year, Samsung became the world's first Qualcomm Snapdragon 865-powered handset maker when it decided to use its Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 processor instead of its premium AP (Exynos 990) for the Galaxy S20 model released in the Korean market.
The company's Exynos 1080 AP, produced using the 5nm process, will be launched in Shanghai on November 12 and will be used in Vivo's 5G smartphone X60 and Samsung's Galaxy A series.
Industry sources say the 1080 AP will outperform Qualcomm's flagship AP, the Snapdragon 865. in addition, Samsung will release the Exynos 2100 in early 2021.
The said report also suggests that Samsung Electronics is benefiting from the ban on Huawei. With Huawei in trouble, Xiaomi and OPPO need to secure more APs in order to expand their production lines. In this case, the Samsung Exynos AP has attracted the attention of Chinese smartphone makers with its strong price/performance ratio.
from cnTechPost
Samsung to supply Exynos chips to Xiaomi, Vivo and OPPO
2020-11-03 21:20:21 GMT+8 | cnTechPost
0
Samsung Electronics' System LSI Business says it will supply its Exynos family of processors (APs) for smartphones to Chinese smartphone makers Xiaomi, OPPO, and Vivo in 2021, according to South Korean media outlet Business Korea today.
Samsung is reportedly preparing to supply APs to one of the company's cheaper phones - or low-end and mid-range models - in the first half of 2021 and has indicated that it may supply them to its high-end smartphones later, as its technical prowess has been recognized.
Samsung's System LSI business unit has begun to reduce its supply of Exynos APs to Samsung's wireless business unit due to low margins and is seeking new customers with a focus on Chinese manufacturers.
The Samsung Exynos 980 and 880 have been successfully introduced into Vivo's supply chain with some success.
Earlier this year, Samsung became the world's first Qualcomm Snapdragon 865-powered handset maker when it decided to use its Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 processor instead of its premium AP (Exynos 990) for the Galaxy S20 model released in the Korean market.
The company's Exynos 1080 AP, produced using the 5nm process, will be launched in Shanghai on November 12 and will be used in Vivo's 5G smartphone X60 and Samsung's Galaxy A series.
Industry sources say the 1080 AP will outperform Qualcomm's flagship AP, the Snapdragon 865. in addition, Samsung will release the Exynos 2100 in early 2021.
The said report also suggests that Samsung Electronics is benefiting from the ban on Huawei. With Huawei in trouble, Xiaomi and OPPO need to secure more APs in order to expand their production lines. In this case, the Samsung Exynos AP has attracted the attention of Chinese smartphone makers with its strong price/performance ratio.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I never said anything of Solyndra's technology failing so everything afterwards you bring up is irrelevant. This discussion started claiming because China lost money on a bad bet, it was forever that China will never recover. I pointed to a US bet that lost big. Is the US paralyzed from taking chances as is presumed because China made a bad bet? Solyndra failed because in the end it's about cost. Solyndra may have had the newest tech but it cost more and people didn't bother because old tech was cheaper for the same amount of electricity produced. That's why it failed. You can claim Solyndra's technology worked all you want. That's not the point. Because of Solyndra's failure, it was that moment that sank Obama's dream of the US being the green tech powerhouse went crashing because he recognized the US was never going to beat China on price because when it comes down to it, that's what people consider most. Solyndra's solar panels were not cheaper for how much one had to pay for what electricity it produced compared to the old tech. If it were all about success, why isn't Solyndra solar panels the standard today? People aren't going to buy it because it cost too much for what you get from it.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I never argued against that. You guys are responding to the wrong person. Remember when Americans said when one of China's Beidou satellites failed early on or when the KJ-200 crashed, China was never going to recover from it...? All of the sudden the side who said those things are now being logical and sensible when it comes to their failures...?
I want more such Chinese CEOs to wail and lament.
What a convoluted mess it could've been for China if it has never been threatened with the Tech-Trade war by US.
Don't you think the timing was just right? Imagine if the US launched the tech war atleast 10 years ago. It'd been bad for China.
Sometimes I feel like they are doing this to help China.
Well, it may be irrelevant to your central argument of cost, but you still mentioned Obama and the loan more than that. Hence my comment. Maybe if you stayed on course...
I suspect had the cost of silicon not plummeted and the discovery of cheap (dirty) natural gas not happened, this piece of history might be different. Who's to know?
Respectfully,
pg
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It wasn't the tech, it was ultimately the cost no matter what. Yeah I mention Obama and the loan because the discussion that started this was claiming China invested into a guy that was going bring a domestic chip industry who failed and that somehow means that China was so psychologic damaged that China can never create a domestic chip industry because of it. The US government invested into Solyndra and failed. Republicans like to claim it was corruption. There are similarities. The guy making this argument is pro-US. Therefore I used a US example of the same thing. If the US isn't paralyzed because of failure, then China won't be either.
Ok.
pg
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It is not if but when China double the investment fund for semiconductor independent via broadsword
| Phase II of National Investment Fund doubles funding in self-sufficiency According to Strategy Analytics, China’s recent announcement of Phase II of its National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund will lead to near self-sufficient production of integrated circuits at the all-important 28 nm feature size, probably within two years. This is but one of the consequences of the technology cold war that has broken out between the U.S. and China, as outlined in the new report Self-sufficiency for China at the Important 28 nm CMOS node: The Plan Can Succeed. China has funded a second phase of its investment plan to establish self-sufficiency in semiconductor production with a focus on the 28 nm CMOS process node. This plan will probably succeed, but it will not end the need for trade and cooperation between the U.S. and China, especially in semiconductors and related technologies such as 5G and AI. Christopher Taylor, Director of RF & Wireless Components and author of the report, stated “Efforts by the U.S. Government to cut off the sales of semiconductors to some commercial electronics producers in China have led to an increase in China’s efforts to develop its own, indigenous semiconductors. With China facing increasing restrictions on importing chips, semiconductor production equipment, and electronic design software from the U.S. and its allies, the move to self-sufficiency should help reassure customers of Huawei, HiSilicon, Fujian, SMIC, and a host of consumer electronics firms in China. However, consequences will probably include lower market share and higher production costs for the U.S. semiconductor industry and U.S. allies.” Stephen Entwistle, VP of Strategic Technologies at Strategy Analytics, added “China was expected to have been the largest buyer of semiconductor production equipment in 2020 up until the imposition of semiconductor equipment restrictions by the U.S. As it stands now, China plans to put a big proportion of its Phase II investment into developing its own photolithography, etching, thin film deposition and wafer cleaning equipment.” |
- Status