Remix.run Logo
▲ bsoqk 3 days ago

> So far, however, the law has done little to spur the construction of new semiconductor factories in Europe. The European Court of Auditors concluded last year that the EU is unlikely to achieve its goal of doubling Europe’s share of the global chip market by 2030.

They should make another law and probably a few more commissions of auditors.

▲ 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲Epa095 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism. It was, from the beginning, a project of the Taiwanese state, and without significant public influence there is no way it would have become what it is. Are the EU laws what's needed? IDK. But without a proper public industrial policy besides "low taxes and few regulations" there is no way Europe will be able to get significant semiconductor-production up, the rich-get-richer phenomenon is just to strong.

▲brookst 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the point is that laws alone mean nothing. As you note, Taiwan was more active than just having commissions and signing papers.

Airbus proves the EU can do this. It remains to be seen if they still have the ability to take constructive action, or if “add more bureaucracy” is the only tool remaining in the toolbox.

▲egorfine 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Airbus proves the EU can do this

*could.

Airbus has been grandfathered into the current legal situation. Today a future Airbus would not be able to even start collecting data for its initial Environmental Impact Study.

▲lm2s 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve seen someone explaining why it’s not as easy with semiconductors: Airbus can spread several different factories for different components around the EU. For semiconductors that’s not as feasible. Thus countries would fight which one would have the semiconductors factory. I think it was more or less this argument, which seems to make sense.

▲overfeed 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Airbus proves the EU can do this

And Boeing's rampant carelessness proves European laws can be beneficial. "Hurr durr, how about them European laws" is a low-effort comment that adds nothing to the discussions.

The argument that a slack regulatory environment is sufficient was disproven when the US government subsidized new fabs via the CHIPS Act (a new law!), and then went further and partially nationalized a failing Intel to prop it up.

▲AdamN 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Another interesting fact is that Che-Chia Wei (the man who made TSMC what it is) received zero equity. Everything he has he bought himself at the market rate.

▲thesmtsolver2 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism.

Nobody said that. That is a strawman

▲philipallstar 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲Grimburger 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I get its sarcasm but TSMC has done so much to try to get the Americans getting some decent yields in their new factories and it's failing so hard, there's real questions about whether they can ever meet their targets. They've sent thousands of existing Taiwanese workers to help at this point and from anecdotal things I hear it's not going well. (I live in Taiwan)

This stuff is all blood, sweat and tears to get it done, and to be honest a culture.

You can't just buy it off the shelf. If that was possible everyone would have gone paid for it like an Ikea product years ago.

▲skippyboxedhero 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Investment is risky and uncertain. If you did not do anything because it might fail, you would do nothing at all.

The inability to cope with failure is a culture that is common in Europe. Failure is so personally devastating, so destructive to social and cultural standing that not only must you not take risks but other people must be actively prevented from taking risk.

Maybe the US investment doesn't work, but the US will have tried at least. Taiwan is, ironically, the perfect example of where the initial impetus came from the government because there was no culture of risk-taking. Parts of Europe have a savings culture that is very similar to Taiwan and led to very poor growth and very high inequality.

If the US keeps trying, they will succeed. On here, the view was that China could never build out this capacity, they did. The only way to guarantee failure is to never try.

▲charlieyu1 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s more about not being able to hire PhDs for $50k a year, tell them it’s a lot of money and make them work Asian hours and efficiency

▲nixon_why69 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's part of the culture OP was referencing. Another part is not having ad tech jobs easily available paying 5-10x as much for easier work. A big part of Asian success at hard tech fields is just not having better options.

▲361994752 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

then just hire them in asia.. and stick to globalization...?

▲mitxela 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are businesses and business failures and government project failures in Europe all the time.

▲skippyboxedhero 11 hours ago | parent [-]

From neglect, not enterprise. The level of failure is also too low.

▲0l 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-24/tsmc-s-ar...

Older article, but seems like things are going pretty ok?

▲Grimburger 13 hours ago | parent [-]

They've got huge monetary losses, if you're ok with that sure but its not like any other chip fab on the planet is losing cash.

The Taiwanese are doing a lot to try get it up but all the reports on the ground level are rough.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/ts...

▲petcat 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They've got huge monetary losses, if you're ok with that

USA passed the CHIPS Act and is spending close to a trillion dollars to strategically re-home all of TSMC's most advanced fab technology to Arizona as a matter of national security. Monetary losses don't matter when the point is to not be reliant or China in the event of South China Sea conflict.

I think the point of this article, and the warnings from ASML, is that Europe is not making the same effort.

▲Grimburger 12 hours ago | parent [-]

But that's sorta of hits to the heart of my comment, it's not particularly working well. TSMC has 2 fabs in China and yields+costs are a fraction of whats coming out of Arizona, let alone in Hsinchu.

Like are you really going to buy a chip that costs 70% more out of national pride? Might work on some but think that very few else will sign up for that.

▲petcat 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Pride has nothing to do with it. It's about being able to get the chips at all when an adversary controls the supply.

▲Grimburger 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Will you buy a computer chip with the same specs that costs 70% more? Please be honest with us all.

You'll do that because of national adversity?

▲sampullman 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

70% extra on top of a trillion or two in investment is a relatively small price to pay when faced with the possibility of that being your only option at some point in the future.

▲jimmydorry 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People are spending more than 70% more on memory because that's all that is available. Everything seems to indicate that people will pay a lot more.

▲ 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲stefanfisk 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'll admit that I haven't followed the chatter about TSMC Arizona at all. But how does what you say square with https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/tsmc-overseas-fabs-see-pr...?

▲Grimburger 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't want to speak bad about them but it's just general demand for semiconductors at this point, everyone is just buying it all up because they can. The Arizona plant still doesn't seem to be pumping out and the self-sufficiency target for the US doesn't seem all there. Im sorry to be the bearer of bad news but honestly it's a culture that's hard to replicate and its how it somehow gets done in one country on Earth. The 2030 target for the states surely isn't happening, it's way too ambitious.

People really don't understand how this stuff is borderline magic turning silicon into these things. There's so much that can go wrong at every step, it's the most advanced manufacturing process on Earth.

Once upon a time chips went down in value but I don't think that's happening anymore, lot of other people seem aware of that. Not to mention the semiconductor talent is getting eaten up like pancakes everywhere.

▲dgellow 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you have local sources we can look at? I’m not familiar with Taiwan but would be interested reading more about the issues

▲irishcoffee 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

First time I saw that. The phrase “regulate growth” seems like the definition of an oxymoron. That’s a hell of a thing.

▲philipallstar 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Every ridiculous thing Labour does in the UK is a hilarious slap in the face to the Tories who are still not preferable to all this stupidity.

▲holbrad 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, we're stuck between a left-wing party and a left-wing party, both of whom, despite what they say, hate economic growth and try to restrict it at every opportunity.

And that's largely because the average Brit has terrible beliefs that actively make them poorer. A shockingly high percentage of people believe that building more houses won't lower costs.

▲Toynbeeidea 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I live in amerifatland. They're building new houses all the time, everywhere I look, entire complexes of them. "McMansions," we call them.

I make average US wages, have my entire adult life. I cannot afford a house in my city unless I buy a literal ruin in the ghetto. The suburbs are far more expensive, and that's where the McMansion complexes are. I don't know who's buying them, but it isn't me and likely never will be.

▲Schiendelman 12 hours ago | parent [-]

That's because we regulate growth. Seriously. It's exactly the same root cause. Have you heard about why zoning drives up housing prices?

▲irishcoffee 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you want a strip club or a dispensary to open up next door to where you live? Or maybe a glue factory down the street? There are reasons zoning laws exist, and it isn’t to regulate growth in the sense you’re implying.

Very disingenuous counterpoint.

▲Toynbeeidea 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Actually, yes. I would unironically like the first two things, and what's the issue with the glue factory?

▲irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Smell

▲HPsquared 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A shockingly high percentage of people don't want house prices to fall.

▲skew-aberration 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Left-wing in what sense? Who is opposing building houses?

▲dgellow 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Home owners

▲skippyboxedhero 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For left-wing governments in Britain, building houses is putting yourself out of a job.

Scotland is a good example: every government since the mid-2010s has been elected on the explicit promise to build more houses, they cannot do so because of the electoral consequences so they attempt to build council houses, it is impossible for the government to build enough council houses to make up for multiple decades of underbuilding (this problem has accelerated significantly whilst they have been promising to build housing, had explicit targets, etc.), but at the next election they make the same promises (and people vote for them because there is no alternative).

The really strange thing is that people also see the massive growth in student housing in Scotland. Again, very good for politicians: more conservative foreign students can't vote, domestic students will vote left-wing.

The politics of this topic are very strange. The public is still at the stage where they think in vague terms that the problem is a lack of housing.

I believe the problem is worse in Scotland because the growth in council housing in the 60/70s was organised in order to create this permanent bloc vote. The same has happened in London where you have whole constituencies where 70% of the effective vote is void.

▲p_j_w 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> every government since the mid-2010s has been elected on the explicit promise to build more houses, they cannot do so because of the electoral consequences

This doesn’t add up. Promising to get more housing built is getting these people elected, but they can’t make good on this promise because then they will lose their election?

▲skippyboxedhero 11 hours ago | parent [-]

It depends what you mean by add up. Logical? No. Reality? Yes.

Politicians continue with the lie that they will build council houses. Voters continue with the lie that voting will change the outcome.

▲tolien 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The really strange thing is that people also see the massive growth in student housing in Scotland. Again, very good for politicians: more conservative foreign students can't vote, domestic students will vote left-wing.

That's a conspiracy theory and a half!

A lot of the new student accommodation being built is privately owned. They're chasing the (pre-Brexit/pandemic) overheating market for student accommodation that resulted from the universities targeting international students for the inflated tuition fees they can charge, and in some cases have features explicitly advertised to international students as positives (e.g. some of the ones in Nottingham have built in rice cookers as standard).

However, some of the properties are at risk of becoming unviable (i.e., lying empty or having to be turned over to housing non students [0]) because of a combination of Brexit and tightened immigration rules reducing international student numbers.

If they're being built as some kind of social engineering it would be a really convoluted way of going about it.

0: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3l09p664ro