jdw said: True, but that can be used as an excuse for any US company to halt all domestic US operations, export its "rocket science," and seek a cheaper source of labor overseas. America badly needs domestic US production to increase.
100% myth.
A. Manufacturing output in the United States is more than DOUBLE what it was in the 1980s. The problem is not "production increase". The problem is that automation has drastically reduced the number of jobs available in manufacturing...something like 1/3 of what it was in the 1980s.
B. Companies never moved manufacturing overseas because making the product in the U.S. was "too expensive" to be viable. They moved it to make higher profit levels. This also exposes the myth of companies pricing being based on labor costs etc. Companies did not reduce the price when they got lower labor costs etc. They kept the price the same and pocketed the extra profit.
Taiwan doesn't want factories outside of Taiwan to succeed.
Right now, a major factor in why the US protects Taiwan, is that much of our electronics infrastructure depends on chips made in Taiwan. If mainland China takes over Taiwan, China gains the ability to easily disrupt the US economy. Furthermore, China gains the ability to build backdoors into various chips, bypassing security.
If the US gains the ability to meet our own chip demand, a threat to Taiwan is no longer a threat to our economy. Therefore we have less incentive to protect Taiwan.
China gains the ability to build backdoors into various chips, bypassing security. Very stupid statement.
Why does US has to depend a Taiwanese company for chips manufacturing? That is also stupid. Chips manufacturing is not highly complicated technology. Apple originally contracted TSMC to fabricate chips primarily because it is cheap.
"Chip manufacturing is not highly complicated industry"
Most people familiar with semiconductor manufacturing would disagree with you, as do I.
This is one of those times I wish AppleInsider would do a bit more detailed reporting.
Please tell us why Chang of TSMC Taiwan said the plans were "doomed to fail." I want to know all the reasons he cited, but I can read the original article because its locked behind a paywall.
I have seen stories reference TSMC’s “ecosystem” as a (non)answer to your question. I’m not sure what that means though.
With enough time, money, and management attention, any reasonably well run company can do anything. With Gelsinger, Intel appears to have fixed their management issues (maybe), so the question is “just” whether they have the time and money. If we were living in ‘normal’ times, Intel might not have the time or money. The chip fab biz is all about economies of scale. When the smartphone passed the PC in scale, Intel’s infamous decisions to not seriously compete in the smartphone biz most likely would have doomed them, unless TSMC were to match Intel in making a long string of unforced errors.
But I think the geopolitical situation gives Intel the time and money — ie, the US government is now implicitly backing Intel for very valid national security reasons. So I would say Intel is no more ‘doomed’ today than GM was in 2009. Actually, Intel is far better positioned than GM was.
If the T in TSMC stood for Texas, Trinidad, or any other place not under threat of Chinese invasion, though, Intel likely would be doomed.
So maybe Intel has an “ecosystem” advantage of its own.
Intel and Samsung is shit for Apple chip wise, Apple has been there done that, building sourcing chips from outside Taiwan is a 3 to 6 year process no matter what, the only thing bad about Arizona is the lack water and world class schools. But Arizona’s political climate appears to be changing from crazy red.
Yeah, today both Intel and Samsung are not good enough for Apple, that is definitely true.
Thanks to better management and US government support, I think Intel has a shot at becoming an acceptable option. Samsung probably doesn't, but that's mostly because Samsung competes with the iPhone directly, which I think is likely the reason Apple dumped them in the first place. I can't prove it, but I suspect the causal arrow goes like this: Apple dumped Samsung -> Samsung fell behind TSMC (not the other way around). It's nearly impossible to be a manufacturing leader in semiconductors if you don't have a constant flow of massive investment which requires a constant flow of massive demand for your products (ie, economies of scale).
Actually, the more I think about it, the more likely I think it is that Intel will be fabbing at least some chips for Apple between now and 2030 (Mac might be more likely than iPhone). It's darned near a national security imperative that it happen.
Intel is probably totally focused on getting it’s in house CPU’s in line to do anything for Apple even if they wanted to, and Samsung is even further behind, when Apple was using Samsung used that inside information to get jump on Apple, notice how far behind they are now to Apple once they lost that tip-off, I don’t Apple will used them again for Soc chips. (Present world conditions today).
This is one of those times I wish AppleInsider would do a bit more detailed reporting.
Please tell us why Chang of TSMC Taiwan said the plans were "doomed to fail." I want to know all the reasons he cited, but I can read the original article because its locked behind a paywall.
I have seen stories reference TSMC’s “ecosystem” as a (non)answer to your question. I’m not sure what that means though.
With enough time, money, and management attention, any reasonably well run company can do anything. With Gelsinger, Intel appears to have fixed their management issues (maybe), so the question is “just” whether they have the time and money. If we were living in ‘normal’ times, Intel might not have the time or money. The chip fab biz is all about economies of scale. When the smartphone passed the PC in scale, Intel’s infamous decisions to not seriously compete in the smartphone biz most likely would have doomed them, unless TSMC were to match Intel in making a long string of unforced errors.
But I think the geopolitical situation gives Intel the time and money — ie, the US government is now implicitly backing Intel for very valid national security reasons. So I would say Intel is no more ‘doomed’ today than GM was in 2009. Actually, Intel is far better positioned than GM was.
If the T in TSMC stood for Texas, Trinidad, or any other place not under threat of Chinese invasion, though, Intel likely would be doomed.
So maybe Intel has an “ecosystem” advantage of its own.
Intel and Samsung is shit for Apple chip wise, Apple has been there done that, building sourcing chips from outside Taiwan is a 3 to 6 year process no matter what, the only thing bad about Arizona is the lack water and world class schools. But Arizona’s political climate appears to be changing from crazy red.
Yeah, today both Intel and Samsung are not good enough for Apple, that is definitely true.
Thanks to better management and US government support, I think Intel has a shot at becoming an acceptable option. Samsung probably doesn't, but that's mostly because Samsung competes with the iPhone directly, which I think is likely the reason Apple dumped them in the first place. I can't prove it, but I suspect the causal arrow goes like this: Apple dumped Samsung -> Samsung fell behind TSMC (not the other way around). It's nearly impossible to be a manufacturing leader in semiconductors if you don't have a constant flow of massive investment which requires a constant flow of massive demand for your products (ie, economies of scale).
Actually, the more I think about it, the more likely I think it is that Intel will be fabbing at least some chips for Apple between now and 2030 (Mac might be more likely than iPhone). It's darned near a national security imperative that it happen.
Intel is probably totally focused on getting it’s in house CPU’s in line to do anything for Apple even if they wanted to, and Samsung is even further behind, when Apple was using Samsung used that inside information to get jump on Apple, notice how far behind they are now to Apple once they lost that tip-off, I don’t Apple will used them again for Soc chips. (Present world conditions today).
You might be right but Intel claims they want to be a cutting edge foundry and want apple as a customer. And really, they need to — they don’t have enough volume on their own to support the level of investment needed to compete with TSMC
But the labor wages here and expenses are likely the biggest reason for that outlook.
True, but that can be used as an excuse for any US company to halt all domestic US operations, export its "rocket science," and seek a cheaper source of labor overseas. America badly needs domestic US production to increase. The US builds nearly everything in a country quite hostile to its own interests and wonders why it has such a big problem. COVID and lockdowns in China only made that bad situation worse. Taiwan isn't hostile to the US, but a lot of production remains in mainland China, not Taiwan. And the only thing being done on the US side is to push companies to increase wages to compensate for inflation, which makes it even more unlikely the root problem of inadequate domestic US manufacturing will ever get fixed. The current status quo cannot last forever.
The USA has long been a services economy instead of a product economy for exactly the reason you stated. That's why it's a great thing when we can get a slice of the product economy going in America. Corporations have already been sending business overseas for decades due to the enormous disparity in what they would pay here vs. china, taiwan, etc. But now that China is feeling itself and getting heavy handed, that reliance has proven to be a pending liability. The time to alter course is pronto, before things get really hairy. TSMC establishing foundries here is a nice step in the. right direction. When a country starts to threaten you and and its own. neighbors, how about we stop feeding. it, eh? China's strength has basicallybeen built by the. USA. Time to undo that - looking at you, Apple with your nearly 300 billion dollar pledge...
jdw said: True, but that can be used as an excuse for any US company to halt all domestic US operations, export its "rocket science," and seek a cheaper source of labor overseas. America badly needs domestic US production to increase.
100% myth.
A. Manufacturing output in the United States is more than DOUBLE what it was in the 1980s. The problem is not "production increase". The problem is that automation has drastically reduced the number of jobs available in manufacturing...something like 1/3 of what it was in the 1980s.
B. Companies never moved manufacturing overseas because making the product in the U.S. was "too expensive" to be viable. They moved it to make higher profit levels. This also exposes the myth of companies pricing being based on labor costs etc. Companies did not reduce the price when they got lower labor costs etc. They kept the price the same and pocketed the extra profit.
Agreed.
Another key enabler of globalization has been containerized shipping, which has largely reduced the unit cost of shipping products made anywhere to be consumed anywhere to levels that take what were formerly locality advantages out of play.
Unfortunately, when this part of global supply chain gets disrupted, everyone feels the pain.
Automation is a tremendous force multiplier, which I know from firsthand experience, but it still doesn’t fundamentally change the supply and demand dynamic. If you want to sell your products at global levels to a global market you need to operate in the global space, which means producing at a scale that can support global demand, having global presence, and having consumers around the globe who can afford to buy what you’re selling.
Even with automation, which products like the iPhone still can’t use for all aspects of the build process, Apple would not be able to scale their supply chain, workforce, or manufacturing operations to sustain their profitability, growth, and global presence if they had to source everything including labor domestically.
This is one of those times I wish AppleInsider would do a bit more detailed reporting.
Please tell us why Chang of TSMC Taiwan said the plans were "doomed to fail." I want to know all the reasons he cited, but I can read the original article because its locked behind a paywall.
I have seen stories reference TSMC’s “ecosystem” as a (non)answer to your question. I’m not sure what that means though.
With enough time, money, and management attention, any reasonably well run company can do anything. With Gelsinger, Intel appears to have fixed their management issues (maybe), so the question is “just” whether they have the time and money. If we were living in ‘normal’ times, Intel might not have the time or money. The chip fab biz is all about economies of scale. When the smartphone passed the PC in scale, Intel’s infamous decisions to not seriously compete in the smartphone biz most likely would have doomed them, unless TSMC were to match Intel in making a long string of unforced errors.
But I think the geopolitical situation gives Intel the time and money — ie, the US government is now implicitly backing Intel for very valid national security reasons. So I would say Intel is no more ‘doomed’ today than GM was in 2009. Actually, Intel is far better positioned than GM was.
If the T in TSMC stood for Texas, Trinidad, or any other place not under threat of Chinese invasion, though, Intel likely would be doomed.
So maybe Intel has an “ecosystem” advantage of its own.
Intel and Samsung is shit for Apple chip wise, Apple has been there done that, building sourcing chips from outside Taiwan is a 3 to 6 year process no matter what, the only thing bad about Arizona is the lack water and world class schools. But Arizona’s political climate appears to be changing from crazy red.
Yeah, today both Intel and Samsung are not good enough for Apple, that is definitely true.
Thanks to better management and US government support, I think Intel has a shot at becoming an acceptable option. Samsung probably doesn't, but that's mostly because Samsung competes with the iPhone directly, which I think is likely the reason Apple dumped them in the first place. I can't prove it, but I suspect the causal arrow goes like this: Apple dumped Samsung -> Samsung fell behind TSMC (not the other way around). It's nearly impossible to be a manufacturing leader in semiconductors if you don't have a constant flow of massive investment which requires a constant flow of massive demand for your products (ie, economies of scale).
Actually, the more I think about it, the more likely I think it is that Intel will be fabbing at least some chips for Apple between now and 2030 (Mac might be more likely than iPhone). It's darned near a national security imperative that it happen.
Intel is probably totally focused on getting it’s in house CPU’s in line to do anything for Apple even if they wanted to, and Samsung is even further behind, when Apple was using Samsung used that inside information to get jump on Apple, notice how far behind they are now to Apple once they lost that tip-off, I don’t Apple will used them again for Soc chips. (Present world conditions today).
You might be right but Intel claims they want to be a cutting edge foundry and want apple as a customer. And really, they need to — they don’t have enough volume on their own to support the level of investment needed to compete with TSMC
Huh? Intel can't make enough chips to keep up with demand and hasn't been able to for close to a decade now. There have been waiting lists that are weeks or months long to get Xeon server CPUs to fill orders for the entire 10 years I have been working at the company I am currently working at. Intel has a LOT of issues, but sales volume isn't one of them. Their biggest roadblock has been the technical ability to develop advanced manufacturing capabilities, which is why they have outsourced to TSMC and other companies who have had success where they have not been able to.
Comments
A. Manufacturing output in the United States is more than DOUBLE what it was in the 1980s. The problem is not "production increase". The problem is that automation has drastically reduced the number of jobs available in manufacturing...something like 1/3 of what it was in the 1980s.
B. Companies never moved manufacturing overseas because making the product in the U.S. was "too expensive" to be viable. They moved it to make higher profit levels. This also exposes the myth of companies pricing being based on labor costs etc. Companies did not reduce the price when they got lower labor costs etc. They kept the price the same and pocketed the extra profit.
Intel is probably totally focused on getting it’s in house CPU’s in line to do anything for Apple even if they wanted to, and Samsung is even further behind, when Apple was using Samsung used that inside information to get jump on Apple, notice how far behind they are now to Apple once they lost that tip-off, I don’t Apple will used them again for Soc chips. (Present world conditions today).