TSMC Arizona Chip Plant Will Be a 'Paperweight', Says Analyst 126
When it comes to reducing American dependence on Taiwan, the TSMC Arizona chip plant will be little more than a useless paperweight, says an analyst at one chip research firm. "The TSMC Arizona fab is effectively a paperweight in any geopolitical tension or war [with China over Taiwan] due to the fact that it still requires sending the chips back to Taiwan for packaging," said Dylan Patel, chief analyst at SemiAnalysis. 9to5Mac reports: A new report in The Information says while Apple chips may be made in the U.S., they will still need to be sent back to Taiwan before they get anywhere near an Apple device: "The Arizona factory -- which has been a focal point of the Biden plan and will cost $40 billion to build -- will do little to make the U.S. self-reliant in chips. That's because many advanced chips made in Arizona for Apple or other customers such as Nvidia, AMD and Tesla will still require assembly in Taiwan in a process known as packaging, according to interviews with multiple TSMC engineers and former Apple employees."
Given that TSMC has been struggling even to build a chip fab for older tech, there seems no prospect that it would ever attempt to set up chip packaging facilities in the U.S. "Building this type of facility is a huge expenditure of [capital], time, and effort, and it does not seem likely that TSMC will want to do this anytime soon in the desert in Arizona, particularly given all the problems the firm has encountered with construction, costs and personnel so far," said Paul Triolo, senior vice president for China at consultancy DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group.
Given that TSMC has been struggling even to build a chip fab for older tech, there seems no prospect that it would ever attempt to set up chip packaging facilities in the U.S. "Building this type of facility is a huge expenditure of [capital], time, and effort, and it does not seem likely that TSMC will want to do this anytime soon in the desert in Arizona, particularly given all the problems the firm has encountered with construction, costs and personnel so far," said Paul Triolo, senior vice president for China at consultancy DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group.
in a process known as packaging (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for that.
So uh, probably some more government money appears out of the sky to pay for a packaging plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is responsible for much of TSMC's profitability. So maybe they will!
You guys will pay. (Score:2)
Yeah. Nope.
You guys will pay.
(US taxpayers, and applephone customers)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Nope. You guys will pay. (US taxpayers, and applephone customers)
We would pay far more if the CCP takes possession of the plants. Pay in money and much more.
Re: (Score:2)
CCP won't take possession. Taiwan and/or the US would level them as the last shots fired.
Not a trade war, its infrastructure security (Score:2)
Do you not understand the value of a second source?
Re: (Score:3)
If the vastly profitable corporations who own all that stuff thought America was going to be the best place for them to make anything they would build these factories in America and pay for it all themselves.
I'm old enough to remember when China decided to court Western capital to develop their economy.
Some of us said that we shouldn't deal with an authoritarian dictatorship, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism does not care bout your "infrastructure security" as anyone paying attention over the past 35 years or so can see.
However a national government interested in self preservation is.
If the vastly profitable corporations who own all that stuff thought America was going to be the best place for them to make anything they would build these factories in America and pay for it all themselves.
You may not have noticed, but Apple and others are already diversifying production to avoid over reliance on the PRC/CCP. Second and Tertiary sources of key technology may or may not in the US, but will be outside of a country China is threatening to invade.
As for US based manufacturing. Global multinational corporation due that all the time where military equipment is involved. Corps have no problem complying with such laws, creating US ba
Re: (Score:3)
However a national government interested in self preservation is.
You'll need to explain that, because it makes no real sense.
Apple might be (trying) to diversify away from China, but that's not for the reasons you think. The fact is Chinese workers are not as cheap as they once were which is the real reason Apple is trying India on for size. Also Vietnam. Neither of those places are going to give Apple what they want though.
Also, there is no possible way for China to successfully invade Taiwan, and anybody who has ever read a book knows it.
America never "forced" a
Re: (Score:2)
However a national government interested in self preservation is.
You'll need to explain that, because it makes no real sense.
Again, consider forcing Japanese car manufacturers to move some production to the US.
Apple might be (trying) to diversify away from China, but that's not for the reasons you think. The fact is Chinese workers are not as cheap as they once were which is the real reason Apple is trying India on for size. Also Vietnam. Neither of those places are going to give Apple what they want though.
Not quite. Manufacturing in India is key to Apple gaining market share in India. An Indian made iPhone is key to get many Indians to switch from Android to Apple.
Also, whether Apple likes it or not they are being caught in US/China politics. They recognize the hazard involved and are trying to minimize the disruption governments can create for them.
Also, there is no possible way for China to successfully invade Taiwan, and anybody who has ever read a book knows it.
Which of these books was written in an era where China had the naval capa
Re: (Score:2)
The last time anyone even tried a landing like that was 1944, and the Allies had a practise first in Italy. They also had the Royal Navy and complete air superiority.
Also, the Germans didn't have satellites.
China can build as many ships as it likes, it still can't do it. The Chinese also know that and they're not going to try, because why would they? They're not America. They don't invade places.
Apple sell as
Re: (Score:2)
There is no possibility China gets enough soldiers across the Straights of Taiwan to invade.
They are aggressively building that capability. The PLAN Navy is the second largest in the world already, although a ship v ship, missile v missile, is misleading. An invasion of Taiwan is a LOCAL fight for China. Its not who has more ships on paper, its who has more ships, more firepower, at the fight. China could commit most of their navy to this fight, the US could not. Taiwan is about 100 miles from mainland China. There are Chinese islands far closer than that. China will have land based missile covera
Re: (Score:2)
Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely delusional. The good news is that the adults in the room know China is not going to invade Taiwan. Ever.
LOL - when you take pysch 101 pay attention to the concept of projects.
The adults are very much worried over the increasing capabilities of the room. The adults are very much concerned about land based missiles. Again, your WW2 thinking is the delusion here.
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes. China is going to cram a bunch of soldiers into their land based missiles and shoot them at Taiwan. Hilarious.
Thank you for demonstrating you are utterly unqualified for this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain how China invades Taiwan using missiles? You can't.
Its explained in previous posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did ask you about that but you told me about how the Chinese Navy is the second biggest in the world as if destroyers are troop transports, and as if Taiwan wouldn't see them coming.
It's not possible, and won't be possible until America stops providing Taiwan vast amounts of mi
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The US has offered to fully fund relocating all of TSMC's plants out of Taiwan along with all of the necessary engineers and their families. They prefer China.
Re:in a process known as packaging (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has offered to fully fund relocating all of TSMC's plants out of Taiwan along with all of the necessary engineers and their families. They prefer China.
Taiwan helps US become self sufficient on chip fab.
US says to Taiwan "Thanks, and since we don't need you any more, we're not going to bother helping protect you from China"
China rubs hands together.
Re: in a process known as packaging (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. The US invested in Taiwan since Chiang Kai Shek to maintain a thorn in the side of China. That thorn, and China as an antagonist, serve a crucial function for the US MIC. They don't actually want a direct war with China. They don't actually want Taiwanese independence. They want a divided China.
A ROC : PRC split of 24 : 1400, or 1.7% : 98.3% is not really a divided China.
The US genuinely wants Taiwan independence. It is in our economic and political interest. Whether that desire is enough to go to war with the PRC is a different question. Should the PRC invade Taiwan, one of the first casualties of the war will be the Chip Fabs. That is about the only US intervention that is a virtual certainty.
Re: in a process known as packaging (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes, thats right, the US loves to back right wing authoritarian regimes.
We’re equally willing to back left wing authoritarian regimes when it protects our real or perceived interests, see Soviet Union and Lend Lease. Not always our finest moments, to put it mildly, but occasionally the correct moral choice.
Same with Korea. The division of Korea into North and South was a rare example of collusion between China, Russia and the USA; a united Korea would have been an absolute powerhouse in the region. None of those powers could tolerate that.
That’s an offensive and inaccurate reading of history. I suggest for your own safety you not vocalize it if you ever find yourself in Seoul.
You might contemplate that the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, under the legal framework of the UN Charter, which attempted to outlaw war as a means of settling international disputes. Crazy concept that many once sincerely believed in. 22 different UN members sent men and material to fight and die for that ideal. Had it been successful the second half of the 20th Century might have been a lot less bloody. Alas, it wasn’t, but fun fact, to this day it legally remains a UN operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Korea. The division of Korea into North and South was a rare example of collusion between China, Russia and the USA; a united Korea would have been an absolute powerhouse in the region. None of those powers could tolerate that.
That’s an offensive and inaccurate reading of history. I suggest for your own safety you not vocalize it if you ever find yourself in Seoul.
You might contemplate that the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, under the legal framework of the UN Charter, which attempted to outlaw war as a means of settling international disputes. Crazy concept that many once sincerely believed in. 22 different UN members sent men and material to fight and die for that ideal. Had it been successful the second half of the 20th Century might have been a lot less bloody. Alas, it wasn’t, but fun fact, to this day it legally remains a UN operation.
I've heard Koreans say this. So don't assume that all Koreans find it offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Collusion among China, Russia, and the U.S. over Korea. Seems you never understood the Korean war. The U.S. fought all the way up the peninsula and then had to retreat all the way back down then Chinese troops arrived. Things got very complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Originally, the U.N. had decided to divide Korea at the 38 parallel. And that is where the border is today. The Chinese swung it for N. Korea and the Russian were always hovering the background contributed noth
Re: (Score:2)
Collusion among China, Russia, and the U.S. over Korea. Seems you never understood the Korean war. The U.S. fought all the way up the peninsula and then had to retreat all the way back down then Chinese troops arrived. Things got very complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Originally, the U.N. had decided to divide Korea at the 38 parallel. And that is where the border is today. The Chinese swung it for N. Korea and the Russian were always hovering the background contributed nothing of worth to peace...just as they are today.
Just saying... a lot of Koreans, north and south, believe this. And its true that a unified Korea would have been incredibly powerful; the south lacks in mineral resources, the north in agriculture. The south has agriculture, the north has mineral resources. Splitting Korea up, even if it was purely accidental, cemented the power of the USA, China and Russia in the region.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has offered to fully fund relocating all of TSMC's plants out of Taiwan along with all of the necessary engineers and their families. They prefer China.
Taiwan helps US become self sufficient on chip fab.
US says to Taiwan "Thanks, and since we don't need you any more, we're not going to bother helping protect you from China"
China rubs hands together.
I suspect the reason TSMC & Taiwan went along with this is some variation of "give the Americans enough of a chip plant so they don't go full out to create a competitor but small enough that we're still essential". The state of the plant seems to track with this.
Re:in a process known as packaging (Score:5, Insightful)
Official US policy is that Taiwan is already a part of China. There's nothing to protect.
No, the official US policy is strategic ambiguity, acknowledging that the PRC rules China, that people across the Taiwan Strait recognize one China of which Taiwan is a part, while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan and providing support for Taiwan's defense.
Of course, that's just diplomatic mumbo jumbo. In the 70's, the US didn't care about the Taiwanese people as much as supporting an Asian bulwark against the advancement of communist borders. At that time, Taiwan was ruled by the Nationalists who were mainland occupiers who really did believe that there was one China and that Taiwan was just one province. Nowadays, the Taiwanese people largely consider themselves both legally and culturally distinct from China.
None of the diplomatic language is important. The US still doesn't care about the Taiwanese people, but it does care about how a Chinese invasion or occupation of Taiwan would affect the US economy. If China invades Taiwan, it would be in the US interest to first try to protect Taiwanese factories vital to US companies and second to prevent China from gaining control of vital factories by making sure they are destroyed before any occupation.
Re: (Score:3)
"We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side"
"We do not support Taiwan independence."
https://www.state.gov/u-s-rela... [state.gov]
Nothing ambiguous about that.
Taiwan last unconquered portion of old China (Score:2)
Taiwan was ruled by the Nationalists who were mainland occupiers who really did believe that there was one China and that Taiwan was just one province.
The Nationalists were not occupiers of the mainland. They were natives of the mainland. They were the former government of the mainland. They were government that fought the invading Japanese throughout WW2. They fled to Taiwan as they were losing the revolution to the communists after WW2. They were the legitimate government of China prior to the revolution.
Taiwan is the last portion of old China that did not get conquered by the communists, that remained free. They have every right to remain free.
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not support Taiwan independence."
https://www.state.gov/u-s-rela... [state.gov]
Re: god thank you (Score:2)
Joe also said in so many words that we would be obligated to defend Taiwan. I watched the clip myself because it had pissed off my lady, and I wanted to see exactly what he had said - and while it wasn't cheering, it was accurate.
More a good southern "bless his heart". (Score:2)
historical knowledge is not his strong suit.
Neither is it the strong suit of the poster you praise. The Nationalists were not occupiers, they were the legitimate government prior to the revolution, etc.
The PRC has no right to Taiwan. No more right than the revolutionaries who took 13 North American colonies from Britain had a right to Canada, the remaining part of North America they failed to conquer. The PRC failed to conquer Taiwan as part of its revolution, the Nationalist government fled there. Just as North American loyalists fled to Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you look at the history of Taiwan? The Treaty of Shimonoseki (signed at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895) made Taiwan a Japanese colony. That was over 40 years before WW2. At the Cairo Conference (1943), the KMT (literally Chinese Nationalist Party) declared their intent to recover the territories "stolen" by Japan. The KMT fled to Taiwan, and the PRC was unable to take the island as they lacked a navy. ROC Taiwan was under martial law until 1987. It wasn't "free" by any defini
Its more like US and Canada (Score:2)
The PRC has no more right to Taiwan than the US has to Canada. None in both cases.
The problem with your Hawaii analogy is that you have reversed the roles of the old and new governments. In your analogy the old government on the American mainland legal
"One China" policy does not allow an invasion (Score:2)
Official US policy is that Taiwan is already a part of China. There's nothing to protect.
The "One China" policy you mention does not recognize the complete sovereignty of the mainland over the island. The mainland, communist China, is not recognized as having the right to forcefully politically reunite with the island, Taiwan, a democratic China. "One China" only allows a voluntary reuniting of the island with the mainland. An invasion by communist China is not permitted by the "One China" policy and the US is free to militarily oppose such an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not support Taiwan independence".
https://www.state.gov/u-s-rela... [state.gov]
It's only five words, which one do you not understand? Independence from whom?
Re:"One China" policy does NOT allow an invasion (Score:2)
"We do not support Taiwan independence".
Read the words before and after your misleading snippet: " We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means."
It's only five words, which one do you not understand?
It is you who fails to understand. Those words are a rejection of the "Two China" Policy where Taiwan independence is recognized. The "One China" policy backs off independence and allows for PEACEFUL and BILATERAL reunification. A forceful reunification is opposed. As sho
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Taiwan is part of China, that is the status quo. Otherwise the next part "We do not support Taiwan independence" makes no sense. Taiwan becoming independent would require violence on behalf of Taiwan.
Independence from whom? ONE CHINA, of which Taiwan is already a part of.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Taiwan is part of China, that is the status quo.
Again, no. China does not have the right to force Taiwan to do anything. Taiwan has autonomy until Taiwan decides otherwise.
Otherwise the next part "We do not support Taiwan independence" makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense, it is a statement saying the "Two China" policy is no more. Under "Two China" Taiwan was considering a totally independent and different country., a sovereign state. That there were two countries named "China", PRC and ROC. Now under "One China" Taiwan is demoted from a sovereign state to an autonomous region.
Essentially we now recognize the option of PEACEFU
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not support Taiwan Independence."
Independence from WHOM? Why won't you answer that? It's too bloody obvious isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not support Taiwan Independence."
Independence from WHOM? Why won't you answer that? It's too bloody obvious isn't it?
Straw man, I've referred to communist China numerous times. Also referred to the PRC.
Again, Taiwan is considered an an autonomous region under "One China", effectively functioning as a sovereign nation. Forcing reunification is not allowed under "One China". Taiwan is where the Nationalist Chinese government retreated when they were losing the revolution on the mainland. The PRC/CCP never conquered Taiwan. They have no claim on Taiwan. Taiwan joining with the mainland is entirely at the option of Taiwan,
Re: (Score:2)
How is the official stated policy of the US Government a strawman? It's only five words: "We do no support Taiwan independence". That would be because obviously Taiwan is a part of China and that is the status quo. That pesky sentence has you talking in circles because it so obviously means what it says.
Taiwan may be "autonomous" the same way California and Texas are autonomous insofar as they follow the supreme rules of the US Federal Government who ultimately call the shots. We both know what would happ
Re: (Score:2)
How is the official stated policy of the US Government a strawman?
The strawman was whether I had mentioned the name of the country. It was also a false accusation.
It's only five words: "We do no support Taiwan independence".
Its five words out of context, misleading, missing the leading and trailing text that shows China has no right to force Taiwan to do anything. Taiwan is autonomous for as long as Taiwan wishes to be.
""We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.""
That would be because obviously Taiwan is a part of China and that is the status quo.
The status quo is autonomy. I
While China has offered to relocate (Score:2)
>> The US has offered to fully fund relocating all of TSMC's plants out of Taiwan
While China has offered to relocate China into and around all the TSMC plants of Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody takes the USA stance seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that agreements made by the USA aren't worth the paper they are printed on and we're just liars?
Unfortunately I believe you are correct. Is there any wonder the developing world whose resources we depend on are running away from us as fast as they can to China and Russia?
Invasion not allowed by policy you cite. (Score:2)
Taiwan is already China. The TSMC plant in Taiwan is already in China.
Not really, the "One China" policy you cite does not recognize the complete sovereignty of the mainland over the island. The mainland, communist China, is not recognized as having the right to forcefully politically reunite with the island, Taiwan, a democratic China. "One China" only allows a voluntary reuniting of the island with the mainland. An invasion by communist China is not permitted by the "One China" policy and the US is free to militarily oppose such an invasion.
Stay away from the (semi-)rural areas ... (Score:2)
The perception is gun toting racists are running wild in the streets
Its true, its true. Stay in your dense urban environments where progressives will make you safe. For the love of god stay away from the rural and semi-rural less densely populated areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that.
So uh, probably some more government money appears out of the sky to pay for a packaging plant.
DING! WINNAR!
This is the beginning of the, "Hey, they gave us money. I'll bet we can get more," gravy train. I look for tech companies to become much like the larger telecoms. Constantly getting more and more government money shoved at them in the name of building something better, never actually crossing that finish line, and always needing just a little bit more. I said it the second the CHIPS act was announced. You don't hand fat wads of cash to profitable businesses and expect them to do anything more t
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Did that chief analyst show that the plant is likely to not actually work and produce stuff it's supposed to produce?
Or he's just saying stupid stuff like a farm is a paperweight because it doesn't make you self reliant in food? Even if it might be a step towards self reliance?
p.s. not saying that it is or is not going to work. FWIW I find it strange to build something that requires lots of water in Arizona. Heck I'd target a place that has much fewer earthquakes/year than Taiwan so to have a chance to be even better than them. I dunno much about chip fab but I'm guessing that earthquakes are unhelpful when making nm stuff.
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
It's just stupid stuff because this is nothing new. Intel has been fabricating semiconductors in Arizona for years. And guess what happens after that? They go to Malaysia for packaging, and then the chip gets "made in Malaysia" etched on it. Packaging has never been all that complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Packaging and test facilities are becoming increasingly complicated. Ever heard of CoWoS?
Re: (Score:2)
But as Forrester research director Glenn O'Donnell told CNBC, chip-fabrication plants are similar to indoor swimming pools -- "you need a lot to fill it, but you don't have to add much to keep it going."
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/why-do-chip-makers-keep-building-foundries-in-the-arizona-desert/ [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I find it strange to build something that requires lots of water in Arizona. Heck I'd target a place that has much fewer earthquakes/year than Taiwan so to have a chance to be even better than them. I dunno much about chip fab but I'm guessing that earthquakes are unhelpful when making nm stuff.
Part of the reason for picking Arizona is the geological stability and relative lack of earthquakes (though the state does get an occasional quake over 5.0), combined with other factors like available land and tax benefits. A large enough quake in California could be felt in Arizona, but for the most part, there's much lower risk.
As for the water, chip fabs do use a lot of water but they also recycle it. The water they use is ultra-purified, and it's usually cheaper to refilter the water used than to purify
Right (Score:2)
Instead, let's just not have any jobs. Being employed sucks. Who needs money, when there's plenty of tree bark around? Oh wait, it's Arizona. Cactus spines?
Isn't packaging the "easy" part? (Score:4, Interesting)
Environmental issues aside, I always thought the (relatively) easy part of the process was packaging. The real issue any chips need to go back to China before being integrated in an Apple device is the devices aren't made/assembled in the US.
Re:Isn't packaging the "easy" part? (Score:5, Informative)
Most chip design firms have 4 to 5 packaging engineers for every silicon engineer; while the processes are standardized there's quite a bit of customization involved on every single chip.
This particular point refers to processors, which is only going to use a few standard packaging methods, but they're still variation in how every chip is packaged.
This seems disingenuous to me though TSMC has all these complaints about the US workforce, but TSMC built a highly specialized workforce you can't find anywhere else on the globe. They need to get out of Taiwan and they have to adapt to that reality. PLus, Mexico is a hop skip and a jump away from Arizona and there is some reasonably inexpensive flip-chip packaging and other methods there.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the impression that these days much of the issue with packaging comes down to heat dissipation and getting so many signals out.
Used to be you would just take wires out from the edges of the die to pins. These days it's all BGA, and you need to ensure that the chip can transfer away enough heat at the same time.
Oh, and some physical protection for the secure parts of the chip too. A lot of security features can be bypassed by dissolving the package and applying UV light to the right area.
Re: (Score:3)
We all spend a ton of time talking about processors and 3nm nodes and high tech blah blah blah. But the cost of a chip is primarily in it's package; in many chips the COGS of a chip is between 50-80% packaging. Most issues with packaging can be solved technically. Not all issues can be solved affordably.
Re: (Score:3)
"Most chip design firms have 4 to 5 packaging engineers for every silicon engineer"
But the issue at hand isn't the engineering of the packaging, it's the manufacture. The engineers are not on the line operating the packaging equipment.
Test and packaging facilities are less technically demanding than a fab. If TSMC has the ability to build a fab somewhere other than Taiwan then they have the ability to build a packaging facility somewhere other than Taiwan.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is not easy.
Joke's on them (Score:2)
My office is paperless
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are expecting their customers to be government agencies. Some of them could really use a lot of paperweights!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are expecting their customers to be government agencies. Some of them could really use a lot of paperweights!
I hear that the US Government is particularly adept at buying vapourware.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this is true with many governments, who buy vaporware either through incompetence, or bribery.
First Foxconn (Score:2)
Serioously? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess that analyst is overlooking some stuff. A quick search and OH, look a packaging plant is being built.
SK Hynix to break ground on new U.S. chip packaging plant early next year [reuters.com]
But let's be honestly, compared the fabrication, packaging isn't a big deal. It doesn't rely on a single company and it doesn't need a machine only built by a different but singular company, it's just matter of building it. The US has packaging heavy-hitters like Amkor and Intel. They tend to like building stuff in Vietnam but I don't foresee the US starting another war with them.
The analyst is being hyperbolic but hey, that's what gets the clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC maintains their own packaging and test facilities with proprietary packaging technology. They won't be very keen on licensing their tech to a competitor just to use their stateside facility.
In the event of a war, they may not have a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC maintains their own packaging and test facilities with proprietary packaging technology.
Which doesn't mean that the chips will only work when packaged using that proprietary technology.
Meanwhile, the CHIPS law subsidizes new packaging plants as well as new fabs. At least one US chip packaging plant is already under construction (as another poster noted). SpaceX has a project to build their own.
(I had heard that an American Indian tribe already runs a semicondor chip packaging operation, but didn't fi
To all complainers ... (Score:2)
You probably do not realize the significance of loosing access to high end chips by the US, especially today with the new gold rush in the name of AI - the US military and economy would be shortly on it's knees. Just read the news what's happening in the Taiwan Strait - I hope it's just pushing around and nothing will come out of it, but forecasts are dire.
Production (what is it now EUV?) is the most critical and the most difficult to master, it took TMSC about 10 years (with ready machines, which are produ
Re: (Score:2)
sorry for the few mistakes,
SMIC will deliver (Score:2)
Have to start somewhere (Score:2)
The premise of this opinion is that all parts of the manufacturing pipeline must be brought online at the same time or the entire endeavor is a waste. It assumes that Taiwan will never set up packaging plants or other needed parts of the pipeline in the US. That may prove to be how events unfold in the future, but that is not the only likely outcome.
For example, the Taiwanese government may desire TSMC as a hostage that the US feels a need to protect. However, TSMC decision makers may think more about conti
Gonna be hard to find the workers (Score:3)
So ... (Score:2)
... we are to believe on the one hand that (say) a state can go zero-carbon in five years or whatever, but on the other hand that making our own chips here is impossible.
I learn so much from the popular press.
Re: (Score:2)
" but on the other hand that making our own chips here is impossible."
No, the claim is even dumber than that: making chips here is possible, but packaging them anywhere other than Taiwan is impossible.
Nonsense (Score:2)
Chip companies send chips across the oceans for packaging all the time. There are more options than just Taiwan. There is packaging capability in several places around the globe. The density of value in silicon is huge. The cost of flying dice across the ocean is negligible compared to the millions of dollars of unpackaged dice you can fit in the hold of a plane.
TSMC almost certainly has a plan. They wouldn't just build a factory that could be rendered useless. It might involve building die manufacturing so
Chip packaging is labour intensive (Score:2)
So, it makes more sense to build a packaging facility in low labour cost countries. Intel had one in costa rica a while ago. It was closed (probably because of lack of enough skilled labour).
For TSMC Mexico or Brazil are better bets. Mexico in particular due to Nafta++ is a good geopolitical bet. It also helps Mexico has a Pacific connection, which makes shipping finished product to Asia for assembly easier.
If I were the Supply chain officer of an USoA tech company of sufficient scale (Apple, HP Ink, HPE,
Step by step⦠(Score:2)
The plant neednâ(TM)t be a paperweight. Clearly it isnâ(TM)t sufficient in and of itself. But it would make little sense to try to build up the entire logistical chain all at once.
Packaging Machines (Score:2)
Hard to believe (Score:2)
Actually there's quite a lot in the US already (Score:2)
What they refer to as "packaging" is really called "Fab" in the industry. Masking, dicing, assembly on PCBs...a lot of places outside of Taiwan including the US do that. TFA is assuming TSMC would have to continue to do the entire process in-house instead of outsourcing. They could easily outsource the fab part, just as Apple already does with other components.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats really what is needed for industry. everything else can be fixed with engineering.
BTW Global Warming means warmer oceans, more moisture in the air and heavier rains including heavier Monsoons in Arizona. Arizona wont be a desert in 20-30 years.
Re:Of all the chip fab schemes (Score:4, Informative)
The biggest reason to pick Arizona is chip manufacturing is already a huge industry there. That immediately means construction, local government, suppliers and even staff are already nearby.
Re: (Score:3)
"Boy are they dumb, nobody could ever make chips in Arizona!?"
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny is that both you and the GP having your little two man circle jerk completely failed to understand the comment you were mocking while you were laughing about it. What they stated (not even implied) is that Arizona is going to become essentially uninhabitable. Being out in the middle of the day without functioning air conditioning is becoming a death sentence — what if you have an equipment failure? Paradoxically, the region is also subject to flash flooding, and all the flattest and thus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction is: the fab will be built, and will produce chips. And 30 years from now Arizona will still have at least 2M inhabitants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel has a big footprint in Phoenix/Chandler, or they did until yet another CEO fell into a coma.
TSMC needs many experienced installation and maintenance workers, just to get to startup.
They also would like stable earth, uniform humidity, and high solar availability.
And a fab is a chemical plant that uses the strongest and purest of nasties available, in quantity.
Best that it's out in the Phoenix desert.
Re: Of all the chip fab schemes (Score:4)
but Arizona just isn't a good place for anything
How little you know. Actually the Phoenix economy is both very diversified and very robust, meaning unlike say Detroit or San Francisco, it isn't overly dependent upon any one industry. Semiconductor fabrication is one of many that has a strong presence there, in fact there really isn't any better place for it for several reasons:
- Basically the most reliable power grid in the US, which is critical for high yields. In fact, California's own power grid is heavily reliant on Arizona's, without which they'd be totally screwed right now.
- No natural disasters to speak of. The ground barely moves at all, and the weather is highly predictable. Again, both of these are critical to high yields.
- There is already a very strong labor pool there for semiconductor fabrication, because multiple companies already do exactly that there. This wouldn't even come close to being the first time that the world's most advanced semiconductor plant was built in the area. There are currently 7 major semiconductor fabs there already, and by 2Q 2024 there will be 9.
Re: (Score:3)
- No natural disasters to speak of.
Other than the one ongoing, slow-acting disaster: the heat. People that complain about 90 degrees + 90% humidity need to come and spend a little summer time in this kiln. The run of 110+ F temperatures we've had this summer were brutal, with our July being the hottest on record. During these "Arizona winters", you just stay indoors under the A/C with that reliable power you've described (from the Palo Verde nuclear power plant).
Re: Of all the chip fab schemes (Score:2)
I was born and raised there, and I still own a house there I regularly visit. I'm already familiar with all of it. Most of the complaining comes from people who aren't actually from there, especially people from northern regions.
Besides, most of Arizona isn't Phoenix. Phoenix is in a valley, and valleys tend to do that. Go an hour south to Tucson and you'll find cooler weather. Go two hours north to Flagstaff and you'll find evergreens and ski resorts.
Re: Of all the chip fab schemes (Score:2)
The only dispute I'm aware of is California is demanding a bigger share of the Colorado River than it already has. Nobody else is doing that, just California, who already way over consumes it's own water. LA has very deep natural aquifers, but they modified the landscape to flush 90% of storm water into the ocean instead of into the ground like it normally would. So what do they do? Pipe in water from over the mountains.
And you know what their whole rationale for needing a bigger share is? Because they have
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.exploreintel.com/chandler