ASML CEO Peter Wennink warns that Europe risks falling behind in the global semiconductor race due to slow and complex regulations. While supportive of the EU Chips Act's aims to boost domestic chip production, Wennink argues that excessive bureaucracy and delayed funding disbursement hinder the rapid expansion needed to compete with heavily subsidized American and Asian chipmakers. He emphasizes the urgency for Europe to streamline its processes and accelerate investment to avoid losing out on crucial semiconductor manufacturing capacity and future innovation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world's largest contract chip maker, is expected to announce a massive $100 billion investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States over the next three years. This substantial commitment aims to boost domestic chip production and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers, particularly in light of escalating tensions with China and growing concerns about semiconductor supply chain security. The investment includes plans for multiple new factories, potentially creating thousands of jobs.
HN commenters are skeptical of TSMC's purported $100B investment, questioning whether it will fully materialize and expressing concern over the high cost of US chip fabrication. Several point out that TSMC's Arizona fabs are smaller and less advanced than their Taiwanese counterparts, suggesting the investment figure may include long-term operational costs rather than solely construction. Others discuss the geopolitical motivations behind the move, viewing it as a US strategy to secure its chip supply chain amidst rising tensions with China. Some highlight the challenges TSMC faces in the US, including higher labor and operating expenses, and potential difficulties attracting and retaining skilled talent. Finally, a few commenters raise concerns about the environmental impact of these large-scale fabs and the potential strain on local resources.
Imec has successfully patterned functional 20nm pitch metal lines using High-NA EUV lithography in a single exposure, achieving a good electrical yield. This milestone demonstrates the viability of High-NA EUV for creating the tiny, densely packed features required for advanced semiconductor nodes beyond 2nm. This achievement was enabled by utilizing a metal hard mask and resist process optimization on ASML's NXE:5000 pre-production High-NA EUV scanner. The successful electrical yield signifies a crucial step towards high-volume manufacturing of future chip generations.
Hacker News commenters discuss the significance of Imec's achievement, with some emphasizing the immense difficulty and cost associated with High-NA EUV lithography, questioning its economic viability compared to multi-patterning. Others point out that this is a research milestone, not a production process, and that further optimizations are needed for defect reduction and improved overlay accuracy. Some commenters also delve into the technical details, highlighting the role of new resist materials and the impact of stochastic effects at these incredibly small scales. Several express excitement about the advancement for future chip manufacturing, despite the challenges.
Broadcom and TSMC are reportedly exploring separate deals with Intel that could break up the struggling chip giant. Broadcom is considering acquiring Intel's networking business, while TSMC is in talks to potentially build a dedicated fabrication plant near Intel's Arizona site. These deals, if they materialize, would represent a significant shift for Intel, signaling a potential move away from its traditional integrated device manufacturing model and allowing it to focus on its core chip-designing business.
HN commenters are skeptical of the WSJ article's premise that Intel would split its manufacturing operations. Several point out that Intel's foundry business is integral to its IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturing) model and selling it off, especially to a competitor like TSMC, would be strategically unsound. Others argue that Intel's manufacturing capabilities, while currently lagging behind TSMC, are still a valuable asset, especially given the current geopolitical climate and the desire for more geographically diverse chip production. Some commenters suggest the rumors might be intentionally leaked by Intel to gauge public and investor reactions, or even to put pressure on governments for more subsidies. The overall sentiment is that a complete split is unlikely, but smaller deals, like selling specific fabs or collaborating on specific technologies, are more plausible.
TSMC is reportedly in talks with Intel to potentially manufacture chips for Intel's GPU division using TSMC's advanced 3nm process. This presents a dilemma for TSMC, as accepting Intel's business would mean allocating valuable 3nm capacity away from existing customers like Apple and Nvidia, potentially impacting their product roadmaps. Further complicating matters is the geopolitical pressure TSMC faces to reduce its reliance on China, with the US CHIPS Act incentivizing domestic production. While taking on Intel's business could strengthen TSMC's US presence and potentially secure government subsidies, it risks alienating key clients and diverting resources from crucial internal development. TSMC must carefully weigh the benefits of this collaboration against the potential disruption to its existing business and long-term strategic goals.
Hacker News commenters discuss the potential TSMC-Intel collaboration with skepticism. Several doubt Intel's ability to successfully utilize TSMC's advanced nodes, citing Intel's past manufacturing struggles and the potential complexity of integrating different process technologies. Others question the strategic logic for both companies, suggesting that such a partnership could create conflicts of interest and potentially compromise TSMC's competitive advantage. Some commenters also point out the geopolitical implications, noting the US government's desire to strengthen domestic chip production and reduce reliance on Taiwan. A few express concerns about the potential impact on TSMC's capacity and the availability of advanced nodes for other clients. Overall, the sentiment leans towards cautious pessimism about the rumored collaboration.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has started producing 4-nanometer chips at its Arizona facility. US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced the milestone, stating the chips will be ready for customers in 2025. This marks a significant step for US chip production, bringing advanced semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to American soil. While the Arizona plant initially focused on 5-nanometer chips, this shift to 4-nanometer production signifies an upgrade to a more advanced and efficient process.
Hacker News commenters discuss the geopolitical implications of TSMC's Arizona fab, expressing skepticism about its competitiveness with Taiwanese facilities. Some doubt the US can replicate the supporting infrastructure and skilled workforce that TSMC enjoys in Taiwan, potentially leading to higher costs and lower yields. Others highlight the strategic importance of domestic chip production for the US, even if it's less efficient, to reduce reliance on Taiwan amidst rising tensions with China. Several commenters also question the long-term viability of the project given the rapid pace of semiconductor technology advancement, speculating that the Arizona fab may be obsolete by the time it reaches full production. Finally, some express concern about the environmental impact of chip manufacturing, particularly water usage in Arizona's arid climate.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515812
Hacker News users discuss the potential negative consequences of export controls on ASML's chipmaking equipment, echoing the CEO's warning in the linked Economist article. Some argue that such restrictions, while intended to hinder China's technological advancement, might incentivize them to develop their own indigenous technology, ultimately hurting ASML's long-term market share. Others express skepticism that China could replicate ASML's highly complex technology easily, emphasizing the company's significant lead and the difficulty of acquiring the necessary expertise and supply chains. Several commenters point out the delicate balance Europe must strike between national security concerns and economic interests, suggesting that overly aggressive restrictions could backfire. The geopolitical implications of these export controls are also debated, with some highlighting the potential for escalating tensions and a technological "cold war."
The Hacker News post titled "ASML's boss has a warning for Europe" (linking to an Economist article about ASML) generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments. Many of the comments revolve around the complexities of globalization, geopolitics, and technological dependence.
A recurring theme is the tension between free trade and national security. Some commenters argue that ASML's dominance in lithography equipment puts Europe in a strong position, allowing them to exert influence and potentially restrict China's technological advancement. Others express concern that pushing China too hard might backfire, leading to accelerated domestic development and a loss of future market share for ASML. The "lose-lose" scenario of a fractured global economy is mentioned, where everyone suffers from reduced trade and increased costs.
One commenter highlights the potential for unintended consequences, suggesting that restrictions might incentivize China to develop their own lithography technology, eventually surpassing ASML. This echoes the sentiment that trying to suppress a determined competitor can often strengthen them in the long run.
Another commenter questions the effectiveness of export controls, pointing out that China might still access restricted technology through other countries or by developing workarounds. They also suggest that focusing on domestic innovation and outcompeting China technologically would be a more sustainable strategy.
The discussion also touches on the hypocrisy and potential harm of Western protectionism. Some commenters argue that the West previously benefited from open markets and now imposing restrictions sets a dangerous precedent. The potential for retaliatory measures from China is also raised, further emphasizing the risk of escalation and economic disruption.
A few comments delve into the technical aspects of lithography, discussing the difficulty of replicating ASML's advanced technology and the significant investments required. This underscores the complexity of the issue and the challenges faced by China in becoming self-sufficient in this area.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News present a nuanced perspective on the geopolitical and economic implications of ASML's position in the semiconductor industry. They highlight the difficult choices facing policymakers and the potential risks associated with navigating the increasingly complex landscape of global trade and technological competition.