Is America Stealing TSMC?(youtube.com)
youtube.com
Is America Stealing TSMC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzZC6aFsk3M
65 comments
I think "Waifer" is a spelling mistake, its Wafer.
Are the fans owned by Taiwan, or TSMC? Those are not the same thing.
And how many of TSMC’s 15m wafers/year are recent nodes? If the majority are 60nm that’s not a super meaningful number.
I agree that this TSMC investment is not going to make the US self sufficient by totally replacing all Taiwan-made chips with US-owned production. But I don’t think anyone ever made that claim?
And how many of TSMC’s 15m wafers/year are recent nodes? If the majority are 60nm that’s not a super meaningful number.
I agree that this TSMC investment is not going to make the US self sufficient by totally replacing all Taiwan-made chips with US-owned production. But I don’t think anyone ever made that claim?
I'm pretty sure the first fab they announced was not going to be leading node but the one announced more recently is.
Except video skips the primary purpose/argument of reshoring onto US soil is de-risking in case of potential PRC-TW scenario. In which case US will likely nationalize these fabs, aka stealing, for even the small but critical strategical capacity they fill. The more accurate assessment is America is setting up contingency to steal some of TSMC in event of PRC trying to steal most of TSMC. Or that Chang wasn't exactly enthused to build Arizona fabs, and even now question the viability with subsidies. Like how would one attribute intentions of powerful party A persuading/coercing weak party B to build likely loss making venture against B's desires, out of the way in A's backyard, on the premise that one day, A will confiscate venture from B.
Derisking and geographically diversifying these assets (crucial unique capabilities, technologies, skills, processes, etc.) are IMO the most obvious wins here. If there's a PRC-TW invasion, at least some assets will exist outside Taiwan that can be leveraged to scale out beyond going from scratch, this really gives a head start.
I'm not entirely sure the goal in the US is to nationalize the resources to mask a 'steal' although I'm sure nationalization is a thought out contingency. I think TSMC ownership and people of Taiwan wouldn't need much incentive to scale up and would happily welcome an onpour of resources from the US and other governments should China invade or pressure them. The US isn't typically in the game of flat out stealing although it's undoubtedly a last resort desperation option that's embedded in this decision making.
Also, if I were Taiwan, this helps remove at least one strategic attraction from a PRC invasion scenario. It takes the option of basically controlling world chip supplies off the table as an incentive for PRC. There are undoubtedly plenty of other incentives, but it's one less thing in their cost/benefit analysis of an invasion that could help sway the decision away from an invasion.
I'm not entirely sure the goal in the US is to nationalize the resources to mask a 'steal' although I'm sure nationalization is a thought out contingency. I think TSMC ownership and people of Taiwan wouldn't need much incentive to scale up and would happily welcome an onpour of resources from the US and other governments should China invade or pressure them. The US isn't typically in the game of flat out stealing although it's undoubtedly a last resort desperation option that's embedded in this decision making.
Also, if I were Taiwan, this helps remove at least one strategic attraction from a PRC invasion scenario. It takes the option of basically controlling world chip supplies off the table as an incentive for PRC. There are undoubtedly plenty of other incentives, but it's one less thing in their cost/benefit analysis of an invasion that could help sway the decision away from an invasion.
> contingency
Yes but I think important to recognize that contingency is the large basis of the "stealing" TSMC narrative. The other consideration TW semi workers who get to jump the H1B VISA line eyeing for immigration shortcut to US if that option ever opens up = expertise transfers to Intel/US semi. Both US and TW has restricted TW semi talent from working in PRC semi to prevent knowledge transfer, the same concern applies when TW talent is in US, who has much better capacity to brain drain and "steal" expertise.
> TSMC ownership and people of Taiwan wouldn't need much incentive to scale up
There's been ample signals that TSMC leadership are weary of Arizonal expansion, and the meme of of US stealing TSMC are from murmurs in TW by people unhappy with erosion of silicon shield. On the flip side you have TSMC leadership angry that US export controls is cutting off major revenue / future growth in PRC, while underpaid semi workers are angry over controls to work in PRC semi for massive compensation. Opinion on the island falls in camp of preserving silicon shield (i.e. no leading edge fabs abroad) to leverage US into assistance. Or preserve silicon shield to keep money printing strategic industry for barter with PRC if US doesn't assist. There isn't a camp that thinks scaling up TSMC infra outside of island is a good idea that I'm aware of. Also I want to wadger even without funding UKR war, US weapon sales / deliveries to TW has been susipiciously slow with many dates set after fab openning, almost like onpour of US resources is dependant building these fabs in first place.
>one less thing
I argue it's one more thing with Oct export controls, since PRC has even less access to leading edge semi from island, vs US who maintains unrestricted access. Now there is more incentive, arguably pressing short/medium term need, to distrupt TW semi because it would hurt US disproportionately more, and close relative semi gap.
Yes but I think important to recognize that contingency is the large basis of the "stealing" TSMC narrative. The other consideration TW semi workers who get to jump the H1B VISA line eyeing for immigration shortcut to US if that option ever opens up = expertise transfers to Intel/US semi. Both US and TW has restricted TW semi talent from working in PRC semi to prevent knowledge transfer, the same concern applies when TW talent is in US, who has much better capacity to brain drain and "steal" expertise.
> TSMC ownership and people of Taiwan wouldn't need much incentive to scale up
There's been ample signals that TSMC leadership are weary of Arizonal expansion, and the meme of of US stealing TSMC are from murmurs in TW by people unhappy with erosion of silicon shield. On the flip side you have TSMC leadership angry that US export controls is cutting off major revenue / future growth in PRC, while underpaid semi workers are angry over controls to work in PRC semi for massive compensation. Opinion on the island falls in camp of preserving silicon shield (i.e. no leading edge fabs abroad) to leverage US into assistance. Or preserve silicon shield to keep money printing strategic industry for barter with PRC if US doesn't assist. There isn't a camp that thinks scaling up TSMC infra outside of island is a good idea that I'm aware of. Also I want to wadger even without funding UKR war, US weapon sales / deliveries to TW has been susipiciously slow with many dates set after fab openning, almost like onpour of US resources is dependant building these fabs in first place.
>one less thing
I argue it's one more thing with Oct export controls, since PRC has even less access to leading edge semi from island, vs US who maintains unrestricted access. Now there is more incentive, arguably pressing short/medium term need, to distrupt TW semi because it would hurt US disproportionately more, and close relative semi gap.
Why should the US nationalize these fabs? I mean, regardless of whether China invades Taiwan or not, the fabs located in the US are owned by TSMC, and TSMC is owned by TSMC's shareholders, which will likely remain the same regardless of whether the state of Taiwan still exists...
The same reason west confiscated Russian reserves, and destroyed historic economic linkages via sanctions. You can't "regardless" of invasion when invasion/not invasion are qualifiably different geopolitical realities. Most analysis suggest at minimum there will be heavy PRC sanctions in event of invasion, a successful one would make TSMC a PRC controlled company, which which will not be business as usual for TSMC operations or share holders.
They don't really need to "steal it" as in take it from their owners. The owners will own it in the US and will probably have an incentive to keep running their operation if Taiwan takes a hit.
It is getting stolen from "Taiwan", however. Since Taiwan guarantee for independence is the world's dependence on its chips.
It is getting stolen from "Taiwan", however. Since Taiwan guarantee for independence is the world's dependence on its chips.
You can even get ChatGPT to write an entirely plausible speech from the President declaring that event:
> Write a impassioned speech for an American wartime president making a speech declaring the immediate nationalization of the Arizona TSMC chip fab for national security reasons.
Posting ChatGPT spew is very tedious, but it completely nails it.
> Write a impassioned speech for an American wartime president making a speech declaring the immediate nationalization of the Arizona TSMC chip fab for national security reasons.
Posting ChatGPT spew is very tedious, but it completely nails it.
40 billion, not 9.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63883047
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63883047
Per year, it's about $9 billion; 40 is the total.
TSMC is a public company. Last news I see shows a drop to 73% of the company being foreign-owned. The biggest shareholders are American. It might be more accurate to say it's an American company that operates in Taiwan.
Is the US chinese-owned because it's amongst the top holders of the US's debt then? Of course not.
If you think american shareholders have a huge say in the running of the company, or can claim their works and assets anytime like you've been saying, get real. American shareholders only care if the profits TSMC line up their pockets.
If you think american shareholders have a huge say in the running of the company, or can claim their works and assets anytime like you've been saying, get real. American shareholders only care if the profits TSMC line up their pockets.
Bringing up the debt was a useless strawman. The US government is not a corporation, and China definitely doesn't own the majority of the US. China isn't even the largest foreign debt holder either. And foreign debtholders don't hold most US debt - the US does. Be better, these were 4 inaccuracies / fallacies in one statement.
That's exactly how ownership works in the US and other free nations. If foreign citizens own the majority of a private US company and its voting shares, they have control over that company. Taiwan has similar rules. [0]. "Each shareholder of the Corporation shall have a voting right for each share they hold. Voting rights may be exercised in writing or electronically at the shareholders' meeting of the Corporation."
Taiwan allows significant foreign ownership, even where it is restricted it's set to 60% max (it isn't for TSMC). And they are a democratic, capitalist society, not an authoritarian one like China. And they have many reason to placate Americans, since we're the only thing standing between them and China.
0. https://twse-regulation.twse.com.tw/ENG/EN/law/DAT0201.aspx?....
That's exactly how ownership works in the US and other free nations. If foreign citizens own the majority of a private US company and its voting shares, they have control over that company. Taiwan has similar rules. [0]. "Each shareholder of the Corporation shall have a voting right for each share they hold. Voting rights may be exercised in writing or electronically at the shareholders' meeting of the Corporation."
Taiwan allows significant foreign ownership, even where it is restricted it's set to 60% max (it isn't for TSMC). And they are a democratic, capitalist society, not an authoritarian one like China. And they have many reason to placate Americans, since we're the only thing standing between them and China.
0. https://twse-regulation.twse.com.tw/ENG/EN/law/DAT0201.aspx?....
> If foreign citizens own the majority of a private US company and its voting shares, they have control over that company.
And I highly doubt Taiwan's government would allow any move that threatens their one of their economic golden gooses. Then as mentioned in the video, you literally do not get to control employees through a vote of shares - they'll quit and work at another competitor. You might think people will always stick to the principles of democracy and rules of law, but as the US itself has proven itself time and time again, they'll put on tariffs if push comes to shove, screw democracy.
Hell, the incentives don't even line up for shareholders to fulfill America's dreams and wishes. Trying to equate voting shares to a company being 'American' without addressing the social, political realities is wishful American centrism.
And I highly doubt Taiwan's government would allow any move that threatens their one of their economic golden gooses. Then as mentioned in the video, you literally do not get to control employees through a vote of shares - they'll quit and work at another competitor. You might think people will always stick to the principles of democracy and rules of law, but as the US itself has proven itself time and time again, they'll put on tariffs if push comes to shove, screw democracy.
Hell, the incentives don't even line up for shareholders to fulfill America's dreams and wishes. Trying to equate voting shares to a company being 'American' without addressing the social, political realities is wishful American centrism.
TSMC is literally building out multiple fabs in Arizona to placate America's wishes, including a 4nm and 3nm process, which is more advanced than any they currently have.
> Hell, the incentives don't even line up for shareholders to fulfill America's dreams and wishes. Trying to equate voting shares to a company being 'American' without addressing the social, political realities is wishful American centrism.
This is literally what's happening. It's not a dream or wish, it's a desire, and one that TSMC has decided to fulfill. You continue to say "they won't" but they have already decided to do exactly what the US wants.
> Hell, the incentives don't even line up for shareholders to fulfill America's dreams and wishes. Trying to equate voting shares to a company being 'American' without addressing the social, political realities is wishful American centrism.
This is literally what's happening. It's not a dream or wish, it's a desire, and one that TSMC has decided to fulfill. You continue to say "they won't" but they have already decided to do exactly what the US wants.
No more than Toyota having a factory in the US is "stealing" Toyota.
Manufacturers in almost all sectors, including silicon foundries, have had manufacturing operations worldwide for decades. Centuries even. For all sorts of economic, customer, and government reasons, as well as simple diversification.
Taiwan is still going to be TSMC's home base.
Besides, if TSMC didn't open a US foundry then the US government would just throw money at Intel's foundry operation until they caught up. They're not that far behind. To be honest that's probably going to happen anyway.
Manufacturers in almost all sectors, including silicon foundries, have had manufacturing operations worldwide for decades. Centuries even. For all sorts of economic, customer, and government reasons, as well as simple diversification.
Taiwan is still going to be TSMC's home base.
Besides, if TSMC didn't open a US foundry then the US government would just throw money at Intel's foundry operation until they caught up. They're not that far behind. To be honest that's probably going to happen anyway.
[deleted]
In 20 years when tsmc has effectively transferred to america, taiwan will stop being contested and go the way of other chinese islands like hk. This is the logical solution to the us-china cold war.
Taiwan is the key part of the first island chain[1] that prevents china from projecting hard power beyond their immediate neighborhood. It is way more important for the American hegemony than Ukraine for example. I really do not think that TSMC is the deciding factor here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain
I don't see why the Taiwanese would go quietly.
It will be a carbon copy of HongKongers
Not even close. Hong Kong was at the end of a 100 year lease to UK from mainland China. Taiwan is China's previous regime military holdout. There is no soft (diplomatical) path for it's reintegration into mainland, ever. Observe that HK's didn't go that smoothly, either even if it was only a "change of administration".
> Taiwan is China's previous regime military holdout.
Taiwanese may also have the value of "having free elections", I hear those are quite popular and people may not want to give them up. Especially now they can see what happened to HK.
It was explained to me that in mainland China they do have free and fair elections. That they only have one candidate to vote for is just a quibble.
Living in a former colony that's been given abruptly cutoff from motherland and sent to the wolves (ha!) almost 300 years ago, I can tell you firsthand that culture and values actually _thrive_ in the face of adversity. I'd contend that comfort and the lack of conflict is actually the greatest long term threat to cultural identity.
China is patient, but in "Civilisation-game" terms I believe that the strategic, political and economic importance of Taiwan are much to high for the CCP leadership to passively ignore long enough for a "cultural victory".
China is patient, but in "Civilisation-game" terms I believe that the strategic, political and economic importance of Taiwan are much to high for the CCP leadership to passively ignore long enough for a "cultural victory".
I commented on this a couple of months ago, after looking at a Global Times (purported cpc mouthpiece) cartoon when Pelosi was visiting. "Theft of national heritage" was an odd one to see, and it immediately became clear CPC meant the Taiwanese chip industry. The TSMC CEO also very openly said that post-invasion Taiwan won't have a chip industry.
I also agree with your prediction. If Taiwan's "Chinese cultural heritage" does end up in US, the only other matter that are Taiwan sensitive are controlling the first island chain, and Japan's thoughts on the matter.
I also agree with your prediction. If Taiwan's "Chinese cultural heritage" does end up in US, the only other matter that are Taiwan sensitive are controlling the first island chain, and Japan's thoughts on the matter.
indeed.. the US "strategic ambiguity" policy towards Taiwan is eroding as a recent major test against it was Nancy Pelosi's visit
The tech is mostly from US funded research. Taiwan itself wouldn’t even exist without US military. Give me a break.
lol, what kind of reason is that? Existing thanks to the US' military means what exactly?
"I put the food on the table in this house and you will respect me, or so help me God I'll give you something to cry about."
To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
— Henry Kissinger
That's what the parent comment meant
That's what the parent comment meant
Taiwan as a sovereign state wouldn’t exist without US backing.
And at least reading between the lines with China, Taiwans days are numbered.
They’re choice is move their factories offshore or give them up to China.
And at least reading between the lines with China, Taiwans days are numbered.
They’re choice is move their factories offshore or give them up to China.
>They’re choice is move their factories offshore or give them up to China.
Then the question is why wouldn't they want to give them to PRC? TW semi was expanding fabs in mainland before US export controls, TW semi workers were being handsomely rewarded with huge compensation packages until DPP cracked down on cross strait headhunting/recruitment. Both profitable TW semi industry and underpaid TW semi workers benefitted massively from integrating with PRC semi, their choice was to give up to PRC, until (US) politics made that not a choice. So at least in that sense US stole the opportunities of TW semi that saw benefits to closer integration with - giving up - to PRC.
Then the question is why wouldn't they want to give them to PRC? TW semi was expanding fabs in mainland before US export controls, TW semi workers were being handsomely rewarded with huge compensation packages until DPP cracked down on cross strait headhunting/recruitment. Both profitable TW semi industry and underpaid TW semi workers benefitted massively from integrating with PRC semi, their choice was to give up to PRC, until (US) politics made that not a choice. So at least in that sense US stole the opportunities of TW semi that saw benefits to closer integration with - giving up - to PRC.
> give them up to China
I'm not sure the US would let this happen. Maybe they'd just level the factories with cruise missiles before China can get hold of them.
I'm not sure the US would let this happen. Maybe they'd just level the factories with cruise missiles before China can get hold of them.
It is pretty well known that TSMC's factories and most other important Taiwanese industries that china would really like to get a hold of are already rigged to blow if needed.
>rigged to blow
Sounds like a stressful work environment.
Sounds like a stressful work environment.
Maybe if it was a WW3 scenario, but otherwise where would we get our chips?
Maybe from plants in the US or somewhere else in the world. I think in the end it's more important (from the perspective of the US) that China will not get that technology.
> Taiwan as a sovereign state
Does the USA recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? No.
Does the PRC recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? No.
Does Taiwan recognize itself as a sovereign state separate from mainland China? No.
Does the USA recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? No.
Does the PRC recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? No.
Does Taiwan recognize itself as a sovereign state separate from mainland China? No.
The US position is just politics between super powers. They’re literally sending high technology weapons to counter China.
The only body that makes decisions about Taiwan is the Taiwanese government. It has 100% control of the land within its borders.
Not sure how much more sovereign you can get than that.
The only body that makes decisions about Taiwan is the Taiwanese government. It has 100% control of the land within its borders.
Not sure how much more sovereign you can get than that.
> The only body that makes decisions about Taiwan is the Taiwanese government. It has 100% control of the land within its borders.
Being that the Taiwanese government claims Beijing and Shanghai as being within its borders, I don't think that this is the case.
Being that the Taiwanese government claims Beijing and Shanghai as being within its borders, I don't think that this is the case.
Again politics.
It’s a sovereign state with claims over a larger territory than it controls.
It’s a sovereign state with claims over a larger territory than it controls.
> Does Taiwan recognize itself as a sovereign state separate from mainland China? No.
The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not going to say that China is separate from china. Their position is that Taiwan is the rightful ruler of mainland china (currently controlled by the communist party).
The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not going to say that China is separate from china. Their position is that Taiwan is the rightful ruler of mainland china (currently controlled by the communist party).
Lots of US funded research is also globally funded because US attracts lots of talent and that talent costs quite a lot to educate. If there weren't the immigrants, the US wouldn't be the tech and science superpower that it is today.
Kudos for providing the opportunities for these brilliant people, great success through the year of executing programs for bringing Nazi scientists, Soviet scientists etc. but if we are going to keep tabs you might find out that that the American science and technology is not that much American after all.
Kudos for providing the opportunities for these brilliant people, great success through the year of executing programs for bringing Nazi scientists, Soviet scientists etc. but if we are going to keep tabs you might find out that that the American science and technology is not that much American after all.
You sound like someone who lives in the 50s. US higher ed is not funded globally at all. In fact US indirectly funds institutions abroad because many of the top academics were trained in the US especially in sciences.
And just why do you think all these brilliant people leave for the US? Let’s think about that for a moment.
And just why do you think all these brilliant people leave for the US? Let’s think about that for a moment.
Taiwanese Tech developed over work of Americans is American but tech developed over the work of Germans/British/French/Japanese is also American, got it. My apologies for sounding from 50s, my school is apparently 70 years behind.
May I as you what great school gave you this powerful reasoning powers are are you self taught?
May I as you what great school gave you this powerful reasoning powers are are you self taught?
I'm an American in the tech industry (shocker). I've worked in chip design, but not chip manufacturing. I don't know very much about the manufacturing side of things but I know enough to confidently say the industry is huge and very much entagled with the global economy. It's not going to turn around overnight, or overdecade, if that's even a word.
But beyond that, I look where our country is, our values and our culture and I wonder to myself "Do we have what it takes to compete in the 21st century?".
But beyond that, I look where our country is, our values and our culture and I wonder to myself "Do we have what it takes to compete in the 21st century?".
(not a downvoter)
The timeline to turn the ship around is misleading, whereas ironically if you reflect on turnaround time involved in this critical industry should highlight what is happening.
Taiwan apparently got where it is because of a smart/lucky bet a couple of decades ago. When it made that bet, it wasn't evident it would lead to it being the king of chip manufacturing. As a strategic, capital and ip intensive, this industry is national security level policy for all concerned, consumers and producers and middle men, and instability in global production chain in this industry upsets policy and planning goals, and creates insecurities.
That a political disagreement (US & China) would result in creating insecurity, in a globalist context, regarding chip manufacturing for the next few decades, is a sort of crossing of Rubicon.
As for your second paragraph, don't worry: in the same exact way that starting in 90s corporate controlled culture (which is pretty much everything) had a coordinated campaign to create the image of the New Globalist American (went by a variety of labels) comfortable with the idea of being a "service economy" and their political views shaped to be adaptable to a internationalist mindset.
Now that the globalist project appears to have failed, the corporate media will in due course adjust content, for the 'Adjusted American Model'. You should watch for this event, I predict it will happen soon. Masculine will be OK again. "It's the economy stupid" are possibly the only true words that came out of that mouth.
The timeline to turn the ship around is misleading, whereas ironically if you reflect on turnaround time involved in this critical industry should highlight what is happening.
Taiwan apparently got where it is because of a smart/lucky bet a couple of decades ago. When it made that bet, it wasn't evident it would lead to it being the king of chip manufacturing. As a strategic, capital and ip intensive, this industry is national security level policy for all concerned, consumers and producers and middle men, and instability in global production chain in this industry upsets policy and planning goals, and creates insecurities.
That a political disagreement (US & China) would result in creating insecurity, in a globalist context, regarding chip manufacturing for the next few decades, is a sort of crossing of Rubicon.
As for your second paragraph, don't worry: in the same exact way that starting in 90s corporate controlled culture (which is pretty much everything) had a coordinated campaign to create the image of the New Globalist American (went by a variety of labels) comfortable with the idea of being a "service economy" and their political views shaped to be adaptable to a internationalist mindset.
Now that the globalist project appears to have failed, the corporate media will in due course adjust content, for the 'Adjusted American Model'. You should watch for this event, I predict it will happen soon. Masculine will be OK again. "It's the economy stupid" are possibly the only true words that came out of that mouth.
I wonder which part of this got me downvoted, the 1st or the 2nd.
While indeed it might not be a "technology transfer" in the usual sense, it seems to me that there's not much need for the US to actually use technology transfers. Technology transfer is only partly about being able to make things yourself to save money: it's also about securing the supply chain against "non-violent" foreign interferences: trade wars, sanctions, etc. If the US was worried about that, they might consider it, but no one has the power to do that to them.
Instead, this is more about physical security of the supply chain. They don't need to "officially own" the IP, they just need enough of it safe. They have other ways of making sure that they can have access to the results of that IP on favourable terms.
And, like oil, at that scales, it's not critical to be the sole producer of something, as long as all the other producers denominate their output in your currency. And TSMC already denominates in dollars.
Instead, this is more about physical security of the supply chain. They don't need to "officially own" the IP, they just need enough of it safe. They have other ways of making sure that they can have access to the results of that IP on favourable terms.
And, like oil, at that scales, it's not critical to be the sole producer of something, as long as all the other producers denominate their output in your currency. And TSMC already denominates in dollars.
Is HN doing so bad these days that we now have to link to clickbait YouTube videos?
Asianometry is a pretty well sourced and researched channel focused on this exact field. I don't know that it's fair to call this "clickbait", the title is in response to a growing meme around Taiwan and the video makes the case to refute the point.
Asianometry does some of the best, most in depth research for any YouTube channel I've watched.
I'm more convinced you didn't watch the video than the video being click-bait.
I'm more convinced you didn't watch the video than the video being click-bait.
The video title is based on real sentiment from people in Taiwan. Asianometry is a treasure trove of easily accessible information on semi-conductor manufacturing, and business in Asia. I highly suggest you watch the video before passing judgement. Asianometry videos are no nonesense, no filler, and very eloquently explain current and past events and businesses.
Is HN doing so bad these days that people don't even bother to check the channel or listen to the first 1 min of the video before commenting? Take my downvotes.
I'm looking forward to a nicely packaged AI transcription service for videos. More than just generated captions, but completely converting the video to an article with section headers, screenshots, cleaned up text, etc. A lot of folks (such as myself) really don't like video content.
Not liking a video isn't an excuse to kneejerk comments.
Not stealing. More like convincing.
TSMC was given it's monopoly through patents given by GE, it's hard to understand the levels of strange nationalism and subtle racism in many of these videos but from my understanding it's the fear of the US leaving Taiwan to China which is very unlikely to happen for the foreseeable future. Taiwan holding the semiconductor industry hostage is not very good for global trade. The Taiwanese as well do not experience an increase in quality of life due to it besides in small groups and causes people who wish to undergo this industry to not be able to find jobs suitable towards them.
"We gave them an offer they couldn't refuse".
Force but not stealing
- The factories are not joint ventures, they are fully owned by Taiwan.
- Build-outs in US are not going to be the most cutting edge technology.
- TSMC has ~$36bn in capital expenditures in 2022. The Arizona fab is ~$9bn a year. Majority of TSMC investment remains in Taiwan.
- TSMC produces ~15m waifers a year, ~80% produced in Taiwan. Arizona fab will produce ~250k waifers a year from 2024, ~500k from 2026.
- TSMC has at least 5 other build outs in Taiwan.
- The notion that US is going to be self sufficient in terms of chips thanks to the Arizona fab is flawed: 1. By volume, most chips are not what this fab is going to ship. 2. There are other chip foundries with specialty processes in Taiwan. 3. Taiwan leads the rest of the pipeline: assembly, packaging and testing.