Cmon, you can do better than this sleepy
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
The Curse of Success, Taiwan is the new Japan, like the Japanese dominance in the late 80"s and 90"s, the US will not allow an Asian to lord over them and with TSMC refusal to "SHARE" its 3nm and 2nm tech by producing it in Taiwan instead of the US. The Americans together with Japan will form a JV on "researching 2nm Tech". So who will benefit, well most likely the American Poster Boy Intel with Nikon and Canon, the loser will be ASML if the Japanese can able to produce a viable equipment, how about TSMC, well IF worse come to worse, there is China and by that time they may have the necessary local equipment to mass produce the 2nm chip. 
167 views23 minutes ago
Domestication efforts and results are wide in breadth.
Bro what I learned from business school, Invest or increase capacity during a downturn as your competitor is saddled with huge operational cost and inventory. You take a lot of their market share and in turn it will justify your investment when the upswing came.
8 views7 minutes ago
At take on this whole situation from someone who is not humanities graduate.
In the case of the super expensive ASML lithography machines that are needed to make the most sophisticated digital logic chips, ASML and its supplier Zeiss spent decades learning how to make the complex optical system and extreme UV light source, and tie the whole thing together. Though there could be alternative routes, the problem is so demanding that it would take a comparable scale of investment and time. Cutting off access to Chinese companies will likely hobble them for some time. Access to leading edge lithography tools have long been restricted, hence companies like Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Company (SMIC) have consistently struggled to keep up with the latest chip generations.
In contrast, if there are alternative pathways that can take you there, export restrictions end up channeling investment towards them. A 2007 conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) together with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory examined the impact of export controls on the American space industry. Evaluating the impact of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export controls, it found that the U.S. share of global satellite manufacturing revenues dropped from 63% in 1996-1998 to 41% from 2002-2005 as a result of these controls. The report concluded that “ITAR has impacted U.S. competitiveness by encouraging other nations, in many cases our allies, to develop indigenous space capabilities and industries that now market globally.”
Many people in Washington assume that American companies enjoy an overwhelming technological lead and that countries on the receiving end of restrictions don’t have the R&D wherewithal to enable them to develop alternatives. That might have been the case in the late 1980s and 1990s, but as we know many countries including China have developed impressive capabilities in many fields. The U.S. really needs to avoid unintended consequences like damaging domestic firms who today are global leaders.
Tool manufacturers will likely also tell you that they benefit considerably by working closely with Chinese (and all) customers. This is because they can see and understand what those customers are working on. My sense is that this facet is widely under-appreciated.
Chip companies like AMD and Nvidia face a somewhat different dilemma. Restricting their sales will detract from the scale advantages they gain from the size of that market, and it will foster the growth of domestic Chinese alternatives. We should not assume that China is a developing country that lacks the knowhow to create innovative designs. Quite the contrary, there are a lot of smart engineers there who know how to use the latest electronic design automation tools and can and will design alternative chips.
Ultimately the way to win this kind of race is to run faster. As a chemist by training, I often suggest to my more technically-inclined colleagues that when the Universe cools to four degrees Kelvin, all gross margins will trend to zero. (that he saying that any innovation will spread evenly across the globe, doesn't matter were come from and how hard you try to protect it)
Why Is Biden Restricting More Chip Tech To China? It’s Complicated.
In the case of the super expensive ASML lithography machines that are needed to make the most sophisticated digital logic chips, ASML and its supplier Zeiss spent decades learning how to make the complex optical system and extreme UV light source, and tie the whole thing together. Though there could be alternative routes, the problem is so demanding that it would take a comparable scale of investment and time. Cutting off access to Chinese companies will likely hobble them for some time. Access to leading edge lithography tools have long been restricted, hence companies like Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Company (SMIC) have consistently struggled to keep up with the latest chip generations.
In contrast, if there are alternative pathways that can take you there, export restrictions end up channeling investment towards them. A 2007 conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) together with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory examined the impact of export controls on the American space industry. Evaluating the impact of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export controls, it found that the U.S. share of global satellite manufacturing revenues dropped from 63% in 1996-1998 to 41% from 2002-2005 as a result of these controls. The report concluded that “ITAR has impacted U.S. competitiveness by encouraging other nations, in many cases our allies, to develop indigenous space capabilities and industries that now market globally.”
Many people in Washington assume that American companies enjoy an overwhelming technological lead and that countries on the receiving end of restrictions don’t have the R&D wherewithal to enable them to develop alternatives. That might have been the case in the late 1980s and 1990s, but as we know many countries including China have developed impressive capabilities in many fields. The U.S. really needs to avoid unintended consequences like damaging domestic firms who today are global leaders.
2. How will new or additional restrictions affect manufacturers?
For tool manufacturers like Applied Materials or Lam Research , new licensing requirements on exports will make their job more difficult. It will also foster increased investment by the Chinese government in alternatives, which means potential future competition. China will work very hard to circumvent attempts to hold them back, and is already investing across a broad front to develop domestic capabilities. The Chinese market for semiconductor tools is enormous, thanks to the breakneck levels of investment in new fabs. Companies like Applied and Lam benefit greatly from selling into this market. It is more than just the positive impact on their bottom lines, as many in Washington may proclaim. Selling there gives them increased scale efficiencies and the profits necessary to invest in future technologies. Shrinking the size of their available markets risks hurting these companies over the longer term.Tool manufacturers will likely also tell you that they benefit considerably by working closely with Chinese (and all) customers. This is because they can see and understand what those customers are working on. My sense is that this facet is widely under-appreciated.
Chip companies like AMD and Nvidia face a somewhat different dilemma. Restricting their sales will detract from the scale advantages they gain from the size of that market, and it will foster the growth of domestic Chinese alternatives. We should not assume that China is a developing country that lacks the knowhow to create innovative designs. Quite the contrary, there are a lot of smart engineers there who know how to use the latest electronic design automation tools and can and will design alternative chips.
3. Is this a sustainable strategy over the longer term?
The key to effective export controls is understanding where the U.S. might possess technological advantages, how we arrived at them, and how we sustain them. More often than not, this arises from the foundation provided by huge past investments in basic scientific research and deep understanding and tacit knowledge gained from them that are not easily reproduced. It also means working closely with allies and coordinating policy on this front.Ultimately the way to win this kind of race is to run faster. As a chemist by training, I often suggest to my more technically-inclined colleagues that when the Universe cools to four degrees Kelvin, all gross margins will trend to zero. (that he saying that any innovation will spread evenly across the globe, doesn't matter were come from and how hard you try to protect it)
This , is considered one of the best "thinking-minds" in US administration. He realized now what was already obvious to many: "Given the foundational nature of certain technologies, such as advanced logic & memory chips, we must maintain as large a lead as possible"
Yes sir, that's it!
....but you got it with many years of delay. You should have got it far sooner, now I'm sorry but is way too late.
Now you can keep China out of EUV, i.e out of sub 5-7nm nodes. But if you are not a smartphone chip company, going there will make less and less business sense in the future: it is way more expensive and the big advantages are only in power consumption. Well, also in density, but with the new chiplet and advanced packaging technology now spreading everywhere, also this will be worked around.
Of course US will also double down on ASML to force them to stop selling DUV in China by any mean...the "Holland battle" will become even more furious and aggressive...
Translation: China is making faster progress than they anticipated.
All these bans and crackdowns just makes the CCP's job of encouraging self-reliance easier.
Several generations ahead was always aspirational. As large of a lead as possible might be smaller than several generations.
Lol, I used this exact phrase in this thread before. I don’t think the US is stupid for trying to slow down progress with these games, but I hope they realize that they are only creating their own competition with these moves.
Why is it more urgent for China to have a reliable operating system than chips in the automotive industry?
"The time window for China is about three years, or five years at most. " -- Miao Wei, former head of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology
and
34 min ago
1
Semiconductors and intelligent vehicles are two beloved topics for the tech community as well as investors interested in China. In previous posts, Ginger River Review has offered you three stories including , , and . All three of them were well received by our readers. GRR thus wants to bring you a fourth piece into the collection so that the discussion will be more well-rounded.
Co-hosted by China EV100 中国电动汽车百人会 and the government of Jiangning District in Nanjing, the capital of east China's Jiangsu Province, the "2022 Conference on Innovated Global Supply Chain of NEV and ICV " kicked off on September 6.
Miao Wei 苗圩, the deputy director of Economic Affairs Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conferencee (CPPCC) and former head of Ministry of Industry and Information Technology addressed the event.
Today's piece is a translation of at the conference.
In the speech, Miao expressed his concern over the operating system (OS), calling it "a more urgent and fatal issue than chips, and it is the key to success for intelligent vehicles and (V2X)," adding that though the landscape of global intelligent vehicles is still up in the air, the window left for China is about three years, five years at most.
Miao also elaborated on the relationships between chips and OS, and talked about how progress made in OS may help China out of the current semiconductor predicament.
Beware that the following speech was notes taken by , a Chinese news site, at the event, and the content and GRR’s translation have not been reviewed by the speaker.
The topic of my speech today is "on Key Issues Facing the Automobile Supply Chain."
For the supply chain of NEVs, let's pay attention to chips first.
Regarding the development of chips, chips for consumers hold high standards and the biggest demand for advanced chips, with chips used in smart phones as an example. However, smart cars are equipped with chips only secondary to ones for military use. They must operate in a worse environment compared with chips for consumers and chips for industrial use, and must have a longer lifespan. Moreover, in addition to the general standards, automotive chips must adapt to a series of automobile standards. For example, to test the reliability of chips, we usually use the AEC-Q100 standard, which is generally used in North America. To control the failure rate, we must establish a quality control system for chip makers, in other words, the IATF-16949 standard. This is a standard that automotive chips must meet as we are in line with the international standard now. For , ISO 26262 is another standard needed for certification. Therefore, there are more requirements for automotive chips, and the time needed for certification is longer.
In addition to chips, I would like to talk about software. In the era of computers, dominated the industry. Most PCs around the world operated on the Windows operating system. In the transition from traditional phones to smart phones, Apple Inc. created a closed-source operating system called iOS. In response, Google Android, an open-source operating system free of charge. Thus, in the era of smart phones, Apple occupies 10 to 20 percent of the market share, while the rest of the world's mobile phone companies go with the Android system.
In the past, I saw no problem in using an open-source operating system. However, the US began to clamp down on Huawei two years ago. Besides ceasing the chip supply, it also restricted the use of Android operating system. Instead of restricting Huawei's access to the Android OS, the US limited Huawei's use of apps that are operating on Android OS. As a result, Huawei had to equip smartphones with its HarmonyOS, an operating system originally for industrial use. In this way, Huawei managed to continue the service for customers. Otherwise, it couldn't maintain its customers even in China. But Huawei still lost huge swathes of the overseas market.
From the lack of OS for mobile phones, we are keenly aware that in the transition to intelligent products, without [reliable] OS, no matter how advanced the chips or automobiles are, the gains would be like a mirage. But if we don't overcome the challenge of chipmaking and building an independent OS, we cannot go fast or far.
- Status