TSMC Cancels Chip Price Cuts, Promises $100 Billion Investment Surge (nikkei.com) 50
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) is asking clients to accept higher prices as it ramps up investment to deal with a "structural and fundamental increase" in chip demand. Nikkei Asia reports: C.C. Wei, TSMC's CEO, told clients in a letter seen by Nikkei Asia that the world's biggest contract chipmaker plans to invest $100 billion over the three years through 2023 in advanced semiconductor technologies, according to the letter. TSMC this year announced record high capital expenditure of up to $28 billion for this year alone. "We are seeing a structural and fundamental increase in underlying demand driven by key long-term growth megatrends including 5G and high-performance computing," Wei said in the letter. The Covid-19 pandemic has also transformed the global economy, changing how people work, learn and live, the CEO added.
Wei told clients that TSMC will also "suspend wafer price reductions starting December 31" this year, for four quarters. "We believe that this modest action is the least disruptive option to supply chains so that TSMC can deliver our mission of providing leading semiconductor technologies and manufacturing capability to you in a sustainable manner," Wei said. "The increased capacity will improve supply certainty and help protect complex global supply chains that rely on semiconductors," he said. "We ask for your patience as we expedite the building of new fabs and capacity."
Wei told clients that TSMC will also "suspend wafer price reductions starting December 31" this year, for four quarters. "We believe that this modest action is the least disruptive option to supply chains so that TSMC can deliver our mission of providing leading semiconductor technologies and manufacturing capability to you in a sustainable manner," Wei said. "The increased capacity will improve supply certainty and help protect complex global supply chains that rely on semiconductors," he said. "We ask for your patience as we expedite the building of new fabs and capacity."
China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They can actually do it without TSMC and tencent basically buying the chinese army?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:China (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh im sure americans will dare fire on chinese forces, especially when the chinese have nukes.
> Probably never. The chances of them taking the island by force and recovering those facilities is nearly zero. And they know it.
And thats the point, if the chinese gov build their own, they might want to deny the facility for its export opportunities.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a big if seeing as how they've been trying and so far got nothing out of it. It seems to me that chip making doesn't lend itself for the usual Chinese methods of taking over an industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thas because a lot of greedy traitors in the USA have helped build up china . You used the wrong words.
Re: (Score:3)
It's something that was supported by both parties for a long, long time. Started by Republicans (Nixon), supported by Democrats, back and forth for several decades. Not a plot by a bunch of secret-commies. If it had worked, we would have gone down in history as having helped to form the worlds largest democracy. A worthwhile risk that
Re: (Score:2)
No moving factories, expertise and sharing knowledge and builiding up the way it has turne dout was pure and the act of traitors motivated only by pure greed.
Nixon is one thing, the fact all those companies moved operations is completely separate, they moved manuf there because they wanted too. Nixon and later admins didnt force them
Re: (Score:2)
The decision to be nice to China was made strategically in order to try to guide them down a path DIFFERENT than the USSR. Yeah, it didn't work out, but it might have.
No, it mightn't. And it wasn't going to because of their government. And this was obvious long, long ago, and has remained consistently obvious. All we have been doing is funding slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about trade and controlling cost. Multi national corporations wanted to setup shop in China. So the they setup shop in China. It's all about capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, nice fairy tale story ass-hole.
It's all about trade and controlling cost. Multi national corporations wanted to setup shop in China. So the they setup shop in China. It's all about capitalism.
US foreign policy revolves around such fairy tales. It has since the end of WWII. It was a grand success for the public relations boys for 55 years. It started to wear a little thin when the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and needed an excuse, but up until that point, the fairy tales had been holding strong. The US's mercantile wars were a dirty little secret for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we wanted to keep our position as the dominant world power.
Yes, we wanted to maintain our influence in Asia.
Yes, we wanted to be able to trade with China for our own fun and profit
Yes, we wanted China on our side instead of supporting the USSR
Yes, we liked the idea of fostering a new democracy.
Yes, we liked the idea of helping to pull a billion people out o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
India (Score:3)
"Asking" isn't the way I put it (Score:1)
Can we please start treating China manufacturing everything we depend on as the National Security Crisis it actually is. I'm not saying we should get mad at China, I'm saying we shouldn't have all our eggs in anyone's basket. And we most definitely do right now.
Re:"Asking" isn't the way I put it (Score:4, Informative)
Can we please start treating China manufacturing everything we depend on as the National Security Crisis it actually is.
TSMC is not Chinese.
The "T" stands for Taiwan.
TSMC has an ancient 200mm fab in Shanghai that has a 200 nm step size.
All their bleeding edge (10nm or below) fabs are in Taiwan.
Their new fab in Arizona will be 5 nm.
Re:"Asking" isn't the way I put it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Taiwan is the part of China where the Nationalist government resettled after the 1949 Communist Revolution. For many years, the Nationalist government on Taiwan claimed to be the legitimate Chinese government, and western powers reinforced them in that position.
So there's a more complex history with regard to China/Taiwan than there is with regard to Mexico/Arizona.
Anyways, if there is a part of the US that Mexico could justly claim, it would be California, which was forcibly taken from Mexico after the Me
Re: (Score:2)
You’re using Latino representation among a national population to make an argument about a regional dispute? That makes no sense. Why would you use national numbers when talking about regional politics? And if you are going to use bigger picture numbers, why’d you arbitrarily stop at the national level? Why not consider Latino representation in the global population, in which case you’d have to conclude that they, and everyone else, have no claims to their land because the Chinese have out
Re: (Score:2)
NONE of America ever belonged to Mexico/New Spain. Why do I say that? Because Latinos have never had more than 3% of the population until after 1940s.
You ever heard of a mystical land called Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can worry about China taking Taiwan back and I cant worry about Mexico taking the Southwest back?
Mexico's military amounts to a fart in a wool blanket. They can literally be defeated by drug gangs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
TSMC is not Chinese. The "T" stands for Taiwan.
TIL according to wikipedia: "Taiwan,Officially the Republic of China (ROC)". It is not the "People's Republic of China". I guess both are Chinese?
Re: "Asking" isn't the way I put it (Score:2)
200mm not nm
200mm is the wafer size
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think this was a political decision and not a business decision.
Re: What's with the militaristic framing? (Score:2)
One word: Murica!
They literally can think in only twonmodes: War and money.
Literally! Ever their saying about love and such, are saying about money and war.
Welcome to your monopoly! (Score:1)
Now we know why they accepted making chips for Intel, instead of the natural instinct of telling them to fuck off and die.
Smart of you, Mr. Gold! [youtu.be]
So chips' prices won't come down in the near futur (Score:2)
In the long run prices will probably come down.
TSMC (Score:2)
controls over 50% of the market. Why would they reduce their prices if they're the only viable option? Sure, Samsung is nipping at their heels all the time, but a duopoly is usually the same result, and while I have not read anything about Samsung's capabilities, I doubt their capacity is even close.
The fabless companies (Apple, AMD, Nvidia, etc) can move their business around for the cheapest price - which may eventually force them down, except capacity is stretched the limit right now.
I saw an article [semiconductors.org] y
Re: (Score:2)
To who, corporate America? Corporate America does not give a flying fuck.
"controls over 50% of the market. Why would they reduce their prices if they're the only viable option?"
Because they did "reduce their prices" - "Wei told clients that TSMC will also "suspend wafer price reductions starting December 31" this year, for four quarters." The stated reason for ending price reductions was due to investment in increasing chip manufacturing capac
Re: (Score:2)