Chinese semiconductor industry

Status
Not open for further replies.

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
You Reap what you sow and too much winning, restricting your largest IC customer, what will you expect....lol Ohhh!!!! more gov't subsidies is the answer. ;)

From Tom's Hardware,

Lobbying Group for U.S Semiconductor Industry: Government Assistance Necessary to Maintain Global Leadership​

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

published about 8 hours ago
SIA report says U.S. needs public funding to stay ahead of the pack

Panasonic

(Image credit: Panasonic)

The U.S. is the world's largest chip developer. But as semiconductors become more ubiquitous and important, other countries are gaining chip design prowess and market share.

If the U.S. wants to maintain its position as the world's largest chip developer, the U.S. government will have to help fund local semiconductor R&D
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from the Semiconductor Industry Association and Boston Consulting Group.

Chip Development Is Expensive​

American companies control approximately 46% of the global semiconductor design-related revenue — about 2.5 times higher than the closest competitor. The U.S. is particularly strong with logic chips, such as CPUs, GPUs, and various other complex SoCs, as companies like AMD, Apple, Intel, Nvidia, and Qualcomm dominate the processor, graphics card, and mobile SoC markets.


But 46% is down — the U.S. controlled over 50% of the market in 2015, according to the SIA. This loss is because countries such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan have been gaining design-related share for years, thanks to federal- and local-government-supported semiconductor research and development activities, as well as domestic talent development. For example, in 2021 South Korea approved
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to develop local semiconductor industry over the next 10 years. That figure included $1.3 billion for AI and power chip design.
If nothing changes and the U.S. continues its current downward trajectory, the U.S. share of chip design revenue could drop to 36% by the end of the decade,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.



As logic and memory chips get more complex, they require more R&D investments and more engineering talent. Design cost of a fairly complex chip to be produced at a 5nm class process technology — which includes design of both physical integrated circuits and associated software — is estimated to exceed $540 million, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. American companies produce dozens of such system-on-chips every year spending billions on design-related R&D. In 2021 alone companies from the U.S. poured in around $40 billion in chip design.
Analysts from the Semiconductor Industry Association estimate that the U.S. public sector is set to invest $400 billion to $500 billion over the next 10 years in R&D and workforce development. But they believe this is not enough to maintain chip design leadership for the whole country.


Experts from the SIA and BCG warn that the U.S. semiconductor design industry already faces a shortage of skilled workers — and by 2030 that shortage might increase to 23,000 as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates leave the industry.
Furthermore, things such as export restrictions for crème-de-la-crème processors for growing artificial intelligence and high-performance computing applications (e.g., AMD's Instinct MI250X, Intel's Ponte Vecchio, and Nvidia's A100 and H100 compute GPUs that sell for $10,000+ apiece) further threaten the ability of American companies to invest in R&D since such curbs limit their revenue growth.

Large OEMs Depend on Chips​

Chip design prowess not only ensures the prosperity of American chip developers, it also ensures the success of adjacent original equipment manufacturers. In the U.S. this includes 34 world-class companies, including Apple, Dell, HP, and HPE. By contrast, there are 27 huge companies in China, including Huawei, Lenovo, BKK, and Xiaomi, that consume chips made in the People's Republic as well as elsewhere.
The Chinese government understands how important it is to develop chips domestically — even if they're produced elsewhere — and has been nuturing its local design industry for years. Earnings of the top 25 Chinese fabless companies doubled from $12.2 billion in 2017 to $24.4 billion in 2020, according to data from the SIA.

Public Sector Chip Development Funding Needed​

The CHIPS & Science Act passed earlier this year
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
focused on new semiconductor production methods (i.e., new fundamental manufacturing technologies), advanced semiconductor research (transistor structures, materials), metrology research, and innovative chip packaging.
But the act will not fund chip designers: while Micron and Western Digital will get some funding to conduct pre-competitive R&D for materials, transistors, manufacturing methods, analysis, and metrology, they will get nothing to design actual products that will compete against those developed elsewhere.


Developing actual products ahead of competition is dramatically important because it allows first movers to set new market standards that others have to follow. Companies that set their own standards also tend to directly benefit. For example, Nvidia's proprietary CUDA parallel computing platform and development environment is so far ahead of rivals that the company has enjoyed years of dominance in some AI and HPC sectors.
At present, around 13% of semiconductor design R&D in the U.S. is funded by public investments. Around 20% - 30% of such R&D is funded by governments, local authorities, or through tax incentives in Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. In China, a whopping 45% of chip design-related R&D is funded using direct public funding (government, local authorities, public universities, etc.), tax incentives, and other initiatives.
To ensure U.S. leadership in chip design going forward, public sector investments are required, experts from the Semiconductor Industry Association and Boston Consulting Group believe.
The good news is that each public dollar invested in design and R&D would induce additional private-sector investments and therefore increase sales of actual chips significantly, according to the analysts.
They estimate that if the U.S. public sector invests $20 billion to $30 billion through 2030 in design and R&D (including a $15 billion to $20 billion design tax incentive), this would eventually generate design-related sales of around $450 billion over 10 years. It would also help train and employ 23,000 semiconductor design engineers and create 130,000 indirect jobs.

Summary​

The U.S. still leads in advanced logic processors and other logic, but lags in memory, sensors, and optoelectronics. This is not going to change any time soon, but the chip design-related revenue share controlled by American companies may also drop in the coming years if the ongoing trends continue.
Industry experts believe public sector funding of chip design and R&D in Europe and Asia will allow non-U.S. companies to expand their chip design-related revenue share if the U.S. does not act.
Public investments in chip design R&D in the U.S. do not need to be extremely high, as the chip development ecosystem already exists — and there are dozens of competitive chip designers in the country.
The report from the SIA and BCG indicates that if the U.S. public sector invests $20 billion to $30 billion through 2030 in design and R&D (including tax incentives), this would fuel private sector investment and generate incremental design-related sales of around $450 billion over 10 years. This would be more than enough for the U.S. to maintain its position as the world's leading chip developer.
 

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member

China is a growing threat to national security, U.S. companies and American workers, U.S. Commerce Secretary Raimondo says​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This is the reason why US has trouble convincing anyone about this policies, is just brain dead babbling that this officials talk.

China trying to develop their own national tech standards and forcing foreign companies that want to enter the vast Chinese market to adopt them has been one the biggest complain of Western companies and Western trade officials since 2005. To the point of even threatening of suing China in the WTO.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Now that Chinese companies are adopting more international standards and the market has basically created on its own a fair f*ucking game for companies wanting to sell in the Chinese market. NOW IS F*CKING PROBLEM.

TheN she goes on babbling contradicting herself over and over again.

She says China is a threat to US companies and American workers. But their OWN ACTIONS has cost US chips companies a good percentage of their revenue and that will come at cost of high paying jobs and that is not counting the loses for companies that made chips for airbags for example like TI as China domestic substitution drive accelerate. Even non semiconductor companies like Boeing are seeing their sales take over by their European competitors just because this braindead politicians.

She said that she value their 750 billion trade, 150 billion dollars exports to China, but they don't want to sell items that are considered of Nat.Sec importance. Between US export controls and China domestic substitution drive ACCELERATED BY SUCH THE FUD OF CONTROLS the US could probably end up exporting 50 billion dollars less to China. A significant increase in the trade deficit and heavy job losses.
 

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yet US President Joe Biden’s “Made in America” initiative is concurrently aiming to increase the domestic production of semiconductors via the CHIPS and Science Act and the CHIPS for America Fund, and to re-shore other high-tech industries involving clean energy via the Inflation Reduction Act. This is all in the pursuit of US supremacy in emerging industries.
The BIS export controls have been met with disillusionment from allies, particularly as the measures are being imposed on them without clear incentives, while the US Department of Commerce is still approving most US tech exports to China.
Seoul has frowned upon US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo’s diversion of a Taiwanese silicon wafer firm GlobalWafers’ investment bound for South Korea to Texas "Holy Crap". For the United States, the restrictions are not a question of feasibility but are imperative to limiting the transfer of dual-use technology.
But for allies, the reality of “friend-shoring” — manufacturing and sourcing components and raw materials within a group of countries that have shared values — raises questions as to whether they can defend their key industries.
US export controls on dual-use technology are not at all new. In 1949, the United States launched the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls against the Eastern Bloc in the aftermath of World War II.
This committee was dissolved upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but the United States launched the Wassenaar System in 1996 to succeed it. During the US-Japan trade war in the 1980s, the United States did not hesitate to impose measures against its ally.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, originally established in 1975 to study foreign investment, was empowered to reject deals from 1988 by the Exon-Florio Amendment. This revision occurred amid fears of Japanese investment after Japan’s Fujitsu tried to acquire Fairchild Semiconductor.
The United States fortified its unilateral export controls in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001. These export controls were reinforced during the US-China trade war from 2018 under former president Donald Trump. Biden’s tech war now presents an upgraded form of these export controls as uncertainty looms over the US economy.
While East Asian economies in the chip supply chain have each announced plans to uplift their domestic chip industries with subsidies, China is also raising the caliber of its chip production to defy US pressure.
Chinese President Xi Jinping at a chip production facility. His government is doubling down on domestic semiconductor production in response to US measures.
Governments and industry players alike should brace for further fluctuations in the chip industry based on geopolitical risk, as export controls are now the baseline scenario for international trade. The new export curbs are the prelude to heightened tech protectionism that may bring about further chip supply disruptions.
The BIS measures could have unintended consequences — including record losses for chip firms in the United States, South Korea and Taiwan, and the stalling of the development of advanced chips by Chinese firms.
But what is certain is that China under President Xi will push toward indigenous chip development and that the US measures alone do not guarantee the demise of the Chinese semiconductor industry.
The mismatch of government and business interests raises concerns that backdoor channels of rerouting may be activated by certain semiconductor companies for survival, as China is the key market for chips. Without clear incentives for allies, the US goal of friend-shoring cannot be achieved.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Chinese government has set up a consortium of companies and research institutes, including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, to create new chip intellectual property. Beijing wants to reduce its dependence on SoftBank-owned Arm, whose technology underpins the majority of semiconductors around the world.
Alibaba and Tencent are also in on this. Is this a big deal? Seems like an Avenger Assemble type moment.
 

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier




read his complete thread. Lei gong is very well known ethnic Chinese works in silicon valley.

we all know that, how Close China is in indigenous EUV tech. porotype will complete in 3-4 years. maybe early
He’s a lurker here. Just regurgitating what’s already been shared in this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top