News on China's scientific and technological development.

K

KYli

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
Earlier, You were saying equipments needs daily permission from ASML employee.

And now you saying on site support services on needed basis.

I dont get it
Click to expand...

Of course you don't get it. You just don't want to admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and don't try to move the goalpost.

I didn't say that the equipment needs daily permission from ASML employee to operate. I said that due to user agreement, ASML can shut these machines down any time they want. I said that ASML employees are there to monitor on the daily basis.

ASML onsite service is more than just regular onsite service. ASML is there to monitor to ensure that these machines are using as per agreement. That means since ASML machine is dual use machine, ASML employees are there to make sure it is used as intended(compliance). Just look at the chart, ASML made ten times more from service than selling these machines. Why is the service sales so enormous, that is because ASML has made sure that every users would need ASML for almost everything no matter how small and insignificance.
 
Last edited:
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
That's all? First of all, what does a mistake in the 1960's have to do with China being high on maglev, 5G, AI?

Secondly, article claims that China was close to the US in the 1960's at semiconductor technology. It is entirely unclear how the author qualifies that statement as well as what semiconductor technology means. It does not seem to mean lithography. Also, the US is far from being self-sufficient here since and I don't know if it ever was. It does not make its own lithographs and Intel, America's leading foundry, Intel, cannot yet go below 10nm. So right now, I don't know if China trails the US at all in "semiconductor technology" but rather that no country has, now or possibly ever before, commanded the entire manufacturing line from raw material to lithograph to design, to chip manufacturing. So China can very well be better or comparable to the US now but the challenge for China is to become the first country that commanded the entire line of technology. This is not a sanction that the US would fare well under, so being close to the US, as the article suggested, would do very little good.
Click to expand...

In 1965 China created its first IC using its own equipment. China was ahead of taiwan, south korea at the time. They were self sufficient at the time. If China didnt give up and continue to develop like its nuke powered subs or H6 bombers it would be a different story.
Even if only for military semiconductor.

US can command the entire manufacturing chain. Those wont follow will be sanctioned and destroyed. Samething cannot be said about China. It doesnt have that type of power. If US can have that type of power it can treated as having its own supply chain A to Z
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
KYli said:
I said that due to user agreement, ASML can shut these machines down any time they want. I said that ASML employees are there to monitor on the daily basis.

ASML onsite service is more than just regular onsite service. ASML is there to monitor to ensure that these machines are using as per agreement. That means since ASML machine is dual use machine, ASML employees are there to make sure it is used as intended(compliance). That means Just look at the chart, ASML made ten times more from service than selling these machines. Why is the service sales so enormous, that is because ASML has made sure that every users would need ASML for almost everything no matter how small and insignificance.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how ASML actually shut down the machine. As a company i have the power to ban ASML employee on site.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
In 1965 China created its first IC using its own equipment. China was ahead of taiwan, south korea at the time. They were self sufficient at the time. If China didnt give up and continue to develop like its nuke powered subs or H6 bombers it would be a different story.
Even if only for military semiconductor.

US can command the entire manufacturing chain. Those wont follow will be sanctioned and destroyed. Samething cannot be said about China. It doesnt have that type of power. If US can have that type of power it can treated as having its own supply chain A to Z
Click to expand...
Give me a source that said that China was self-sufficient. The one you provided does not say that. And also, it should state whether the product was internationally competitive. If China was self-sufficient but at a low level with a final product that was not competitive, that would contradict your claim that China was ahead. Being ahead of the ROC and South Korea when they were not dominant players is pointless. 50-60 years ago, if the US gave either of them a boost because of good relations (I think they were of the 4 tigers that the US designated to keep China down), China was not in the economic position to counter that with its own investment.

The US does not own the entire manufacturing chain or it wouldn't ask TSMC to set up shop in Arizona. It also does not make its own lithographs; only ASML does that. The US "commands" the chain in the sense that the countries or territories that own the parts of this chain are generally too scared of American sanctions and threats.

But what is the point of this? This is not a recent event. What is the importance of talking about 5-6 decades ago? We were talking about right now, how you claimed that focused lasers had no potential for mass production, and you were wrong, and then you claimed that companies did not have the resources to monitor their machines, and that was wrong again. You were talking about some AI 5G high causing China to fall behind, then your evidence was something 50 years old and possibly not true. So what is the point?
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
Give me a source that said that China was self-sufficient. The one you provided does not say that. And also, it should state whether the product was internationally competitive. If China was self-sufficient but at a low level with a final product that was not competitive, that would contradict your claim that China was ahead. Being ahead of the ROC and South Korea when they were not dominant players is pointless. 50-60 years ago, if the US gave either of them a boost because of good relations (I think they were of the 4 tigers that the US designated to keep China down), China was not in the economic position to counter that with its own investment.

The US does not own the entire manufacturing chain or it wouldn't ask TSMC to set up shop in Arizona. It also does not make its own lithographs; only ASML does that. The US "commands" the chain in the sense that the countries or territories that own the parts of this chain are generally too scared of American sanctions and threats.
Click to expand...


I
manqiangrexue said:
Give me a source that said that China was self-sufficient. The one you provided does not say that. And also, it should state whether the product was internationally competitive. If China was self-sufficient but at a low level with a final product that was not competitive, that would contradict your claim that China was ahead. Being ahead of the ROC and South Korea when they were not dominant players is pointless. 50-60 years ago, if the US gave either of them a boost because of good relations (I think they were of the 4 tigers that the US designated to keep China down), China was not in the economic position to counter that with its own investment.

The US does not own the entire manufacturing chain or it wouldn't ask TSMC to set up shop in Arizona. It also does not make its own lithographs; only ASML does that. The US "commands" the chain in the sense that the countries or territories that own the parts of this chain are generally too scared of American sanctions and threats.

But what is the point of this? This is not a recent event. What is the importance of talking about 5-6 decades ago? We were talking about right now, how you claimed that focused lasers had no potential for mass production, and you were wrong, and then you claimed that companies did not have the reso

urces to monitor their machines, and that was wrong again. You were talking about some AI 5G high causing China to fall behind, then your evidence was something 50 years old and possibly not true. So what is the point?
Click to expand...
I throw you a bone on that one.
Let said you are right that China was not self sufficient and had to purchased some equipment from US in 1965 to create its own IC . Only US made equipments for western market at the time. how's that sounds? ? Lol
China got equipments from US before Nixon set foot at China. Hell yeah way to go.

US can take western country companies to become its own.
 
Last edited:
SPOOPYSKELETON

SPOOPYSKELETON

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just as reminder to everyone here, SMIC is on track to release a 7nm process next year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am not worried about Huawei's survival in the long run, least of all its cellphone division. (More concerned by the health effects of 5G than Huaweis ability to deploy it) My main criticisms are that China's industrial policy was "late" on this specific issue, and that China isn't doing more to pressure America for its transgressions.

But I suppose the CCP will deal with this the way it dealt with Hong Kong. It will sink the knife in deep when America is distracted by some other crises, but leave everyone blueballed and disappointed in the meantime.
 
SPOOPYSKELETON

SPOOPYSKELETON

Junior Member
Registered Member
nastya1 said:
I

Let said you are right that China was not self sufficient and had to purchased some equipment from US in 1965 to create its own IC . Only US made equipments for western market at the time. how's that sounds? ? Lol

US can take western country companies to become its own.
Click to expand...

The United States does not have the amount of control over foreign companies you think it does, but neither are they as independent as manqingrexue claims. There are existing fissures in the Western world order that can be used in situations like this.

Consider the latest UN vote on the Iranian arms embargo. The Trump regime was dealt a heavy blow when Europe abstained from the vote. This proves that Europe does have a backbone and will stand with China on certain issues. How much Europe is willing to stick its neck out for the sake of trade with China however is significantly influenced by Chinese diplomancy.

Which is why I recommended a bigger emphasis on soft power for China.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
Can you explain how ASML actually shut down the machine. As a company i have the power to ban ASML employee on site.
Click to expand...

Don't need to physically shut them down. Just make sure that these machines won't be operational after ASML staffs pack their bags and leave. Look, no companies have successfully operated these machines after losing ASML support.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
nastya1 said:
I

I throw you a bone on that one.
Let said you are right that China was not self sufficient and had to purchased some equipment from US in 1965 to create its own IC . Only US made equipments for western market at the time. how's that sounds? ? Lol
China got equipments from US before Nixon set foot at China. Hell yeah way to go.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove your claim so you say you are throwing me a bone? LOL No thanks, you keep it. The rest of your statements don't support that China had the chance to dominate the lithography or semiconductor industry in the 50's or 60's; it's random ranting that doesn't have a point.
nastya1 said:
US can take western country companies to become its own.
Click to expand...
Big stretch to make an argument, but it won't cut it because AMSL is not American, neither is TSMC or Samsung. The US does not own the full line from lithograph making to implementation into cutting edge semiconductors.
 
N

nastya1

Junior Member
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
You cannot prove your claim so you say you are throwing me a bone? LOL No thanks, you keep it. The rest of your statements don't support that China had the chance to dominate the lithography or semiconductor industry in the 50's or 60's; it's random ranting that doesn't have a point.

Big stretch to make an argument, but it won't cut it because AMSL is not American, neither is TSMC or Samsung. The US does not own the full line from lithograph making to implementation into cutting edge semiconductors.
Click to expand...

Your statement is weak. Based on your reasoning
So if i cannot prove the earth is not round then earth is not around? Even if i cannot prove something explicitly doesnt mean your viewpoint is correct.
I said China IC industry was self sufficient at that time and no one was selling China anything at the time. China created first IC not transistor in 1965. And not many countries accomplished that. That was a fact. Do you have anything to contradict that?

Does it matter? US can access EUV equipment anyway it wants. No one can deny US. Thats just a fact

What got US fell behind intel got arrogant and didnt spend enough time on EUV research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top