TSMC...

[Don Y]

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:51:52 -0700) it happened Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in <t2p7l6$m9q$1@dont-email.me>:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

TMSC (here in the Netherlands) WANTD to sell to China,
but US threatened it not to.

US Mafia
Now they get behind they fear other countries more and more.
Failing empire.

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 4:52:13 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

It\'s the continue development of personnel/people. China brought some of the key people of TSMC before, but without the right environment, they stop developing.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-04-08 14:18, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:51:52 -0700) it happened Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in <t2p7l6$m9q$1@dont-email.me>:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

TMSC (here in the Netherlands) WANTD to sell to China,
but US threatened it not to.

That would have been ASML, no?

[...]

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:52:13 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

This is an odd question as it would only apply to those who are actually customers of TSMC. To the rest of us, what is important is obtaining chips from the companies who *are* customers of TSMC. We don\'t have the insight as to what the issues of production might be or how to mitigate them. We could only speculate with little real insight. In other words, a perfect s.e.d question.

I expect TSMC\'s most important aspect is the institutional knowledge of making chips at the newest process nodes. I don\'t think China would be able to take over the plants and make anything important without full cooperation of the key employees. I don\'t think sabotage is required. The process is delicate/fragile enough to be broken easily by simply not knowing what you are doing.

I believe that an invasion of Taiwan by China would have *much* more severe impact on the world than anything going on in the Ukraine, neon gas or not.. Taiwan\'s semiconductor industry is much harder to replace.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:07:30 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <t2pfj2$m1r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 2022-04-08 14:18, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:51:52 -0700) it happened Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in <t2p7l6$m9q$1@dont-email.me>:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

TMSC (here in the Netherlands) WANTD to sell to China,
but US threatened it not to.

That would have been ASML, no?

Yes of course, my error

 

[server]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

That is wrong question. AFAICS TSMC \"value\" is a a whole: all
ingredients are there and it works _now_.

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

Of course TSMC is replaceable, this is just matter of time. IIUC
current estimate is that China needs about 10 years to catch up
to TMSC and this time is mostly due to western embargo. Building
advanced fab seem to be about 3 years (but possibly another 2 before
initial troubles are worked out and fab operates smootly at full
capacity).

IIUC at most advanced process Samsung has similar capability.
Much of production is on older processes, and those are available
in several fabs outside Taiwan.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

IIUC China has know-how and people capable of operating such a fab.
ATM China is not capable of making some of needed equipment.
If crucial equipment was destroyed, then fab probably would be
useless to China. If equipment was merely faulty, there is
some chance that China would be able to repair it. There
are consumables (notably photoresist and pure chemicals)
needed to operate such a plant. I am not sure if China _now_
can make all of them.

Without smooth transition almost surely there would be some dip
in production.

OTOH if China is smart and can learn from history they will not
attack Taiwan in next few years. ATM China is probably first
industrial power in the world, but they are depenedent on trade.
And currently China is too weak to protect its trade from
hostile US actions (like naval blockade). So if they are
smart they will wait till they have stronger position.

--
Waldek Hebisch

 

[Don Y]

On 4/8/2022 4:52 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

That is wrong question. AFAICS TSMC \"value\" is a a whole: all
ingredients are there and it works _now_.

So, by that reasoning, ANYTHING China might do would irreparably
damage TSMC.

Any staff who were demotivated (or executed for not performing
to the level required by The People), any equipment damaged or
rendered ineffective due to parts/supplies, etc.

I can\'t believe that TSMC has a monopoly on fab.

Rather, I suspect that they represent *capacity* at *lower cost*.
And, that any loss of capacity there would be compensated for, over
time, elsewhere.

The question becomes one of what limits the rate at which that
capacity can be restored: the lack of \"spare\" equipment?
the lack of staff to operate same? cost of that labor/materials?

E.g., the US has now started to reinvest in semiconductor fab.
No doubt, the cost per item will be higher than at TSMC simply
due to differences in labor/operating rates. But, there\'s no
\"secret recipe\" that is at risk of being lost if TSMC (effectively)
closed its doors.

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

Of course TSMC is replaceable, this is just matter of time. IIUC
current estimate is that China needs about 10 years to catch up
to TMSC and this time is mostly due to western embargo. Building
advanced fab seem to be about 3 years (but possibly another 2 before
initial troubles are worked out and fab operates smootly at full
capacity).

That suggests there is value in the *equipment*. But, ignores the
expertise/experience provided by the existing staff.

IIUC at most advanced process Samsung has similar capability.
Much of production is on older processes, and those are available
in several fabs outside Taiwan.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be
able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

IIUC China has know-how and people capable of operating such a fab.
ATM China is not capable of making some of needed equipment.
If crucial equipment was destroyed, then fab probably would be
useless to China. If equipment was merely faulty, there is
some chance that China would be able to repair it. There
are consumables (notably photoresist and pure chemicals)
needed to operate such a plant. I am not sure if China _now_
can make all of them.

Without smooth transition almost surely there would be some dip
in production.

OTOH, if China were to undertake such an \"expansion adventure\"
and be met by the same sort of sanctions that Putin is suffering,
there may not be much *need* for that large of a fab (if it is
only supplying domestic demand)

OTOH if China is smart and can learn from history they will not
attack Taiwan in next few years. ATM China is probably first
industrial power in the world, but they are depenedent on trade.

They rely on an inflow of currency to pay for the upgrades
they\'ve not undertaken in their \"ancient\" society. They
likewise also rely on western tech (and education) to
further those goals. What cost to their plans if, for
example, all chinese students were expelled from western
schools (in the event china becomes a pariah)?

And currently China is too weak to protect its trade from
hostile US actions (like naval blockade). So if they are
smart they will wait till they have stronger position.

 

[Don Y]

On 4/8/2022 5:29 AM, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 4:52:13 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be able to
exploit TSMC\'s abilities if: - the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on
parts from The West) - the staff (quickly) emigrated etc.

It\'s the continue development of personnel/people. China brought some of
the key people of TSMC before, but without the right environment, they stop
developing.

That\'s not to say that Draconian measures couldn\'t \"entice\" them to be
more productive.

NKorea seems to have no problem getting advanced munitions technology.
Possibly some of that is \"carrot-based\" (better living conditions for
those individuals who \"produce\") and I imagine a fair bit of \"stick-based\"
(no \"rule of law\" to fall back on if you feel yourself \"unduly pressured\").

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 1:36:09 PM UTC+10, Don Y wrote:

On 4/8/2022 4:52 PM, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

That is wrong question. AFAICS TSMC \"value\" is a a whole: all
ingredients are there and it works _now_.

So, by that reasoning, ANYTHING China might do would irreparably
damage TSMC.

Any staff who were demotivated (or executed for not performing
to the level required by The People), any equipment damaged or
rendered ineffective due to parts/supplies, etc.

I can\'t believe that TSMC has a monopoly on fab.

They don\'t. But they are better at it than anybody else at the moment.

> Rather, I suspect that they represent *capacity* at *lower cost*.

They represent a capacity that would cost a lot - in money and time - to equal and surpass. Representing the state of the art is always a transient honour, but it isn\'t easy to get into that position.

> And, that any loss of capacity there would be compensated for, over time, elsewhere.

But not for quite a while.

> The question becomes one of what limits the rate at which that capacity can be restored: the lack of \"spare\" equipment?

Don Y imagines that being a state of the art setup is a \"capacity that can be restored\". For all practical purposes it is a capacity that has to be re-invented. It can be done but it take time and money.

> the lack of staff to operate same? cost of that labor/materials?

Re-inventing a state of the art production capacity requires experts who are skilled in the art. There aren\'t many of them, and it takes a while to recruit candidate experts and work out which of them will end up being able to do better than the current generation of experts.

> E.g., the US has now started to reinvest in semiconductor fab.

But has it started to invest in the kind of managers who won\'t cut corners to try to get to the desired performance faster than the experts who work for them imagine to be possible?

> No doubt, the cost per item will be higher than at TSMC simply due to differences in labor/operating rates. But, there\'s no \"secret recipe\" that is at risk of being lost if TSMC (effectively) closed its doors.

But there\'s a lot of in-house expertise that is really difficult to transplant.

> >> Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel do the trick? etc.

Probably not. You\'d have to airlift a great many of them, and the information resources they rely on for their day-to-day work. Semiconductor fabrication is a very complicate process with about 120 sequential operations on each wafer - probably more now - and getting any one of them wrong wrecks the wafer.

Of course TSMC is replaceable, this is just matter of time. IIUC current estimate is that China needs about 10 years to catch up to TMSC and this time is mostly due to western embargo. Building advanced fab seem to be about 3 years (but possibly another 2 before initial troubles are worked out and fab operates smoothly at full capacity).

That suggests there is value in the *equipment*. But, ignores the expertise/experience provided by the existing staff.

Developing the expertise/experience of the operating staff is where the two years years needed to get the fab operating smoothly at full capacity gets used up.

IIUC at most advanced process Samsung has similar capability. Much of production is on older processes, and those are available in several fabs outside Taiwan.

The other aspect of that question is: how likely would China be able to exploit TSMC\'s abilities if:
- the equipment was sabotaged (or relied on parts from The West)
- the staff (quickly) emigrated
etc.

IIUC China has know-how and people capable of operating such a fab.

But lack the experience of doing it.

> > ATM China is not capable of making some of needed equipment. If crucial equipment was destroyed, then fab probably would be useless to China. If equipment was merely faulty, there is some chance that China would be able to repair it. There are consumables (notably photoresist and pure chemicals) needed to operate such a plant. I am not sure if China _now_ can make all of them.

ASML is just the tip of an iceberg of supporting technologies.

> > Without smooth transition almost surely there would be some dip in production.

To nothing, for years.

OTOH, if China were to undertake such an \"expansion adventure\" and be met by the same sort of sanctions that Putin is suffering, there may not be much *need* for that large of a fab (if it is only supplying domestic demand)
OTOH if China is smart and can learn from history they will not attack Taiwan in next few years. ATM China is probably first industrial power in the world, but they are dependent on trade.

They rely on an inflow of currency to pay for the upgrades they\'ve not undertaken in their \"ancient\" society. They likewise also rely on western tech (and education) to further those goals. What cost to their plans if, for example, all chinese students were expelled from western schools (in the event china becomes a pariah)?

And currently China is too weak to protect its trade from hostile US actions (like naval blockade). So if they are smart they will wait till they have stronger position.

And if they are even smarter, they will recognise that they will be even stronger as collaborators in a cooperative world than they can ever be in world that was motivated to collaborate against them.

The first round of sanctions against Russia haven\'t done enough damage to Russia to make Putin\'s position obviously untenable. What his colleagues actually think won\'t be obvious until some of them have work out a scheme to minimise the damage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Chris Jones]

On 08/04/2022 21:51, Don Y wrote:

Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)?  I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume?  Would airlifting personnel
do the trick?  etc.

Even if there is a process at another fab that has the same approximate
capabilities as a particular process at TSMC, the exact characteristics
of the devices will differ so that for anything with analog parts (adc,
pll, high speed serdes etc.), the circuit design will need to be
altered, by hand, and re-simulated. The design rules will be at least
subtly different, so that even if an analog circuit still works in
simulation, its layout will generally need to be redone. This would take
many months per part (and the people who designed those products may not
work there any more, figuring out how the old product worked is not
trivial), and a several semiconductor companies would have many hundreds
of parts made by TSMC. Some customers (automotive, medical etc.) would
also not accept the new design as being equivalent to the old one, so
there would be another delay to qualify the new parts at the customers.

 

[Don Y]

On 4/9/2022 8:02 AM, Chris Jones wrote:

On 08/04/2022 21:51, Don Y wrote:
Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

Even if there is a process at another fab that has the same approximate
capabilities as a particular process at TSMC, the exact characteristics of the
devices will differ so that for anything with analog parts (adc, pll, high
speed serdes etc.), the circuit design will need to be altered, by hand, and
re-simulated. The design rules will be at least subtly different, so that even
if an analog circuit still works in simulation, its layout will generally need
to be redone. This would take many months per part (and the people who designed
those products may not work there any more, figuring out how the old product
worked is not trivial), and a several semiconductor companies would have many
hundreds of parts made by TSMC. Some customers (automotive, medical etc.) would
also not accept the new design as being equivalent to the old one, so there
would be another delay to qualify the new parts at the customers.

But all that is true of *any* foundry. It\'s not like they have
the only 5nm process or are the only fab that can handle mixed-mode
or...

Their strength appears to lie in capacity (though less than Samsung
in terms of wafers produced). And, possibly *price* (?).

I.e., if they suddenly closed up shop (or WERE closed up), the industry
would recover, after a delay (as it will re: covid).

The announcement of new fabs in the US (including TSMC) suggests that
economics was the previous driving force; entice manufacturers with
subsidies and they \"suddenly\" see the merit of building domestic
installations. The bottleneck of qualified personnel and kit just
inserts a delay in that schedule (but it takes time to start ANY
business operation).

[I believe Intel is adding two plants to its AZ location -- along with
TSMC increasing its investment, here. The question (for the industry
as a whole) then boils down to how \"general purpose\" those fabs may
end up being. E.g., Micron is likely not going to be producing
bleeding edge *processors* -- for ANY of its clients!]

 

[boB]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 10:10:20 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

On 4/9/2022 8:02 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On 08/04/2022 21:51, Don Y wrote:
Where does TSMC\'s *primary* \"value\" as a semiconductor supplier lie:
- equipment
- technology
- personnel
- \"volume\"

I.e., in the event China went after Taiwan, would you bemoan the loss
of the equipment, know-how, staff or \"capacity\"?

Said another way, how *replaceable* is TSMC (given some practical
timeframe)? I.e., do all of its capabilities already lie in the
West -- but at a reduced scale/volume? Would airlifting personnel
do the trick? etc.

Even if there is a process at another fab that has the same approximate
capabilities as a particular process at TSMC, the exact characteristics of the
devices will differ so that for anything with analog parts (adc, pll, high
speed serdes etc.), the circuit design will need to be altered, by hand, and
re-simulated. The design rules will be at least subtly different, so that even
if an analog circuit still works in simulation, its layout will generally need
to be redone. This would take many months per part (and the people who designed
those products may not work there any more, figuring out how the old product
worked is not trivial), and a several semiconductor companies would have many
hundreds of parts made by TSMC. Some customers (automotive, medical etc.) would
also not accept the new design as being equivalent to the old one, so there
would be another delay to qualify the new parts at the customers.

But all that is true of *any* foundry. It\'s not like they have
the only 5nm process or are the only fab that can handle mixed-mode
or...

Their strength appears to lie in capacity (though less than Samsung
in terms of wafers produced). And, possibly *price* (?).

I.e., if they suddenly closed up shop (or WERE closed up), the industry
would recover, after a delay (as it will re: covid).

The announcement of new fabs in the US (including TSMC) suggests that
economics was the previous driving force; entice manufacturers with
subsidies and they \"suddenly\" see the merit of building domestic
installations. The bottleneck of qualified personnel and kit just
inserts a delay in that schedule (but it takes time to start ANY
business operation).

[I believe Intel is adding two plants to its AZ location -- along with
TSMC increasing its investment, here. The question (for the industry
as a whole) then boils down to how \"general purpose\" those fabs may
end up being. E.g., Micron is likely not going to be producing
bleeding edge *processors* -- for ANY of its clients!]

I will feel a little better when TSMC is up and running in AZ...

I think that first, it is the know-how but here in the US, I fear they
won\'t be able to hire enough smart people to work there.

But maybe TSMC knows how to hire people too ?

I have driven by their facility here near Phoenix and it looks
impressively huge.

boB

 

[Don Y]

On 4/12/2022 6:25 PM, boB wrote:

> I will feel a little better when TSMC is up and running in AZ...

Classic shortsightedness...

“computer chips, potato chips, what’s the difference?”

— George H.W. Bush Sr.’s Chairman of the President’s
Council of Economic Advisers, Michael Boskin.

Obviously, Detroit\'s problems could be solved overnight -- if
they would just use POTATOES in their new vehicles!

I think that first, it is the know-how but here in the US, I fear they
won\'t be able to hire enough smart people to work there.

Intel announced setting aside some extra monies for \"staff retention\"
as they undoubtedly expect a bit of talent-poaching.

> But maybe TSMC knows how to hire people too ?

Or, a sudden increase in number of H1B visas issued...

And, if Taiwan was \"having a China problem\", I suspect there would
be a fair number of skilled professionals BANGING on our door...

I have driven by their facility here near Phoenix and it looks
impressively huge.

As is the (growing) Intel facility. What\'s more noteworthy is the shift in
emphasis towards their Foundry Service (instead of just fabbing their own
products).

 

[boB]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:27:12 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 4/12/2022 6:25 PM, boB wrote:

I will feel a little better when TSMC is up and running in AZ...

Classic shortsightedness...

“computer chips, potato chips, what’s the difference?”

— George H.W. Bush Sr.’s Chairman of the President’s
Council of Economic Advisers, Michael Boskin.

Obviously, Detroit\'s problems could be solved overnight -- if
they would just use POTATOES in their new vehicles!

I think that first, it is the know-how but here in the US, I fear they
won\'t be able to hire enough smart people to work there.

Intel announced setting aside some extra monies for \"staff retention\"
as they undoubtedly expect a bit of talent-poaching.

But maybe TSMC knows how to hire people too ?

Or, a sudden increase in number of H1B visas issued...

And, if Taiwan was \"having a China problem\", I suspect there would
be a fair number of skilled professionals BANGING on our door...

I have driven by their facility here near Phoenix and it looks
impressively huge.

As is the (growing) Intel facility. What\'s more noteworthy is the shift in
emphasis towards their Foundry Service (instead of just fabbing their own
products).

I have seen the Intel buildings in Chandler. I guess their new ones
aren\'t quite in the same area. No enough room there ?

Are you in AZ, Don ?

boB

 

[Don Y]

On 4/13/2022 9:04 PM, boB wrote:

As is the (growing) Intel facility. What\'s more noteworthy is the shift in
emphasis towards their Foundry Service (instead of just fabbing their own
products).

I have seen the Intel buildings in Chandler. I guess their new ones
aren\'t quite in the same area. No enough room there ?

Going on the Chandler (Ocotillo) site -- to bring that to 6 fabs, there.

> Are you in AZ, Don ?

The Old Pueblo. \"At the base of the black hill\" :>