Huawei builds up 2-year reserve of 'most important' US chips
asia.nikkei.com
asia.nikkei.com
The US government has identified EUV lithography as a bottleneck in the semiconductor industry, and is trying to keep that bottleneck in place, as a pressure point that can be used against China in the future. The Brookings Institution has laid out the strategy.[2]
Of course, that means that the Chinese government will now probably invest heavily in domestic lithography companies. The Brookings Institution thinks that the US can shut China out of high-end semiconductor production indefinitely. That seems like a pretty foolish conception to me.
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asml-holding-usa-china-in...
2. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FP_2020...
That said, the caveat here is the "neither US nor China" part, why would ASML, a Dutch company, align itself with US?
ASML didn't have a choice in the matter. The US government pressured the Dutch government to withdraw the export license. That's at the diplomatic level, way above the heads of company executives. The Netherlands is part of NATO and is more closely aligned with the US than with China. But the Netherlands could at some point decide that it just wants to do business with everyone.
The second issue here is Europe's continued weakness. If ASML controls EUV lithography then Europe should be much more assertive.
Just one example: the French government has made noises about doing something to counter the United States' extraterritorial application its sanctions regime. US sanctions against Iran effectively apply to European companies, even if they have basically nothing to do with the US. The US can unilaterally force the EU to stop doing business with Iran. The French see that as a violation of their sovereignty.
The problem is, if France proposes to do anything about it, Germany will object, because Germany fears that the US will retaliate against the German automotive industry.
Imagine if the US could only take action when 50 states all agreed. There's no powerful central government in Europe that can decide to temporarily sacrifice some interests in order to achieve something more important - establishing independence of action from the US on sanctions policy.
I was under the impression that Germany is generally on board with the idea of using the INSTEX special-purpose vehicle to trade with Iran despite US sanctions. Of course the first (and only?) transaction was only completed this year, so the mechanism doesn't look too successful so far: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/instex-tran...
The EU would have to take much stronger measures if it was really serious about preventing the US from imposing its sanctions regime on European companies. I'm not an expert, so I can only guess at what sort of measures Europe would have to take, but I imagine they would involve reciprocal retaliation for any measures the US takes to punish European companies.
I don't think that the US's aggressive stance is in Europe's interests to follow. Standing your ground, sure, but this confrontation seems counterproductive in the long term and, again, is simply trying to delay the inevitable, IMO.
Why do you think the EU wants to throw all of this good away?
It seems like Europe will have to build up its military if it wants to be able to stand alone. Not that I think a multi-polar world is good for stability. I think US leaders used to keep that in mind a bit more before trying to leverage their position.
(Διογένης, I like your "bottleneck" much better than Brookings' word choice)
Examples abound. Look at what happened to BNP Paribas. This is how it looks in a press release:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-se...
"Georges Dirani, BNP’s general counsel, told the judge that the bank accepted “full responsibility for its conduct"
"There’s no question the organization will not tolerate the kind of behavior we have seen in this case,” Dirani said."
Am I missing something or did you just submit a terrible example for your allegation?
The issue at stake is how extraterritorial the US legislation is.
Should the US government be able to determine that an EU company cannot do anything anywhere anytime involving US dollars if it has Iranian clients for example?
"BNP Paribas has been present in the United States since the late 1800s and currently has over 16,000 employees in North America." [1]
From the article: "The sentencing followed BNP Paribas’ guilty plea in July to conspiring from 2004 to 2012 to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act."
You violate Acts and you want to operate in the US, you get sentenced. If they want to play ball, they need to follow the laws.
"Authorities said that BNP essentially functioned as the “central bank for the government of Sudan,” concealing its tracks and failing to cooperate when first contacted by law enforcement."
You had written - "The US have a long track record of using soft power and extraterritorial law to punish foreign states and companies, including supposed allies"
Again, you submitted a terrible example.
I suppose that much of the tech is already in the scientific literature, and the "only" problem left is putting the pieces together.
So even if the 'only' problem is putting the pieces together, that doesn't mean it is even possible. Look at it another way-- same thing can be said about Nuclear Fusion :D
I suppose that Apple or Google would be able to pull it off though.
ASML people like to describe it as "a bit like having robot controlled helicopters tie a rope around a skyscraper in a heavy storm, while not crashing nor pulling the skyscraper over" iirc.
This is because at nanoscale, every vibration is a huge movement, and even the flattest surface is mountainous. An ASML machine is basically little more than tons of little sensors and control mechanisms to detect all these vibrations and surface shapes and to adjust the light beam positioning accordingly.
Because of this, nearly the entire company (several thousand people R&D staff) is focused on "putting the pieces together". Eg they do comparatively little deep research. It's all engineering.
Are you kidding me? Why do you think we ( the Dutch ) are in Iraq and Afghanistan?
If the US asks, we ask : how high?
Currently: not so much. The value of the US with shared 'western' values is greatly declining, since they are retreating from almost every partnership.
Completely agree. America has a lot to do to gain it back; it's a long process.
"Squeezing allies" sounds interesting. Maybe they shouldn't be "squeezed" in the first place, so it's good that they can't? On the other hand, if, for example, Europe sees the benefits in countering some specific China expansion issue, USA won't need to ask too much for a concerted response.
And frankly, Western alliance has no alternative today; maybe only going alone - or as a European Union, but USA (and Canada to a degree) are still the best partners. That doesn't mean, of course, that USA doesn't make bad mistakes lately.
Not sure how to read this.
> Western alliance has no alternative today
Of course not, every single alternative is considered an enemy by the USA and any attempt to have a relationship with them has to be sanctioned by the USA or face punishment. If these were companies the move would be monopolistic, anti-competitive, exclusive dealing, all illegal. But it's not companies, it's international relations, where some are still free to consider torture legitimate and moral.
Putting aside the arbitrary choice of who's a terrorist state and who's a "trusted ally" (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia?), trying to cooperate with countries like Iran, Russia, or China can be arbitrarily (depending on interest) seen as an aggressive act of "disobedience" and is punished. Even if the sanctions were unilateral and with no agreement from other allies.
- throw its lot in with the u.s and take it when it hurts
- throw its lot in with another aspiring hegemon and take it when it hurts
- do what it taker to go it alone.
the second does not seem particularly appealing; between putin russia, a xi prc and a trump u.s, i think the u.s is best of a bad bunch. and its fair to say they have more upside than down; i would favor good government returning to the u.s and be reluctant to favor improving government returning to china or russia.
small, isolated western countries like au and n.z have effectively no choice in the matter: they get to pick china or the u.s, and china have made it clear they intend that choice to be hobson's choice.
the e.u has a choice. will they take it?
It's always about the ratio between the benefit and the "taking it when it hurts". With other presidencies the ratio was OK. But with the rise of populism the moves are left to someone playing to please people with no understanding of the small or big pictures. And it's hard to forget when "friends" decide to abuse the stick because the carrot didn't sit well with their voting base.
Assuming that current will be not be the same as next one.
Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that there is more to the USA than Trump and co. I think most Europeans are well aware of the "battle for the soul of America" within USA. The retreats from partnerships are most likely only a temporary glitch.
Netherlands is a founding NATO member. It boggles my mind how this is even a question to anyone.
Tons of high profile people have been talking about how it is not tolerable that the US is unilaterally forcing embargoes using the $US and tech as a weapon. Development of alternatives take time, but this has already started.
The goal is not to replace the US with China. Not only things are not reducible to a single dimension, but even if they were, it does not make the need to enforce our own sovereignty disappear.
France has always been kind of contrarian. For example, they are NATO members but unbelievably they were also selling Russia a couple of Mistral landing platform docks.
France left once, and came back. They used to pander to communist regime during the Cold War. During the NATO bombing during the Yugoslavian dissolution, a French General was caught giving out the bombing plans to the enemy.
No wonder nobody likes their foreign policy, and Macron is puzzled why the other EU countries don’t follow France in creating a Common EU military force.
The other countries know when push comes to shove, the US is a reliable partner, while France is not.
Plus it might be insanely profitable to stand with China when it comes to chip and gadget production.
So a decision to deny US interests would both have a huge upside and be popular with the majority of voters.
https://www.politico.eu/article/josep-borrell-chinas-move-in...
Given how the EU allowed Russia to steamroll the Ukraine, why would the Chinese regime's attacks on Hong Kong would deserve more attention.
China is systemically stealing IP from European companies, research from European universities, and forcing labor into a race to the bottom. Europeans would be wise to stand with Trump on this.
There is nothing wise about "standing with Trump" on any issue. His impact on allies is a kin of a moped doing figure 8s on a pigsty.
And no country stands with Trump on anything. At most they stand with the current US administration, which happens to be presided by Trump. Trump the citizen is repellent and has no redeeming qualities.
And by the way, Europe has its best interests in mind, and the current US administration already made it quite clear that the US under the Trump administration is a highly unreliable ally, and even a potential liability that's compromised by Europe's current biggest threat.
My point here is that most of these issues look easy from the outside, but it's still difficult to do the right thing once you are involved.
There are a lot of decision-making processes in governance that involves a lot more than 'we don't like the current president'.
What the US seems to expect is other countries to side with the US over their own interests.
Semiconductor industries has been growing into a very tightly coupled and globalized eco-systems these days. No one country can own or domesticate the entire ecosystem or supply chains, albeit companies headquarters in the U.S. still own a significant portion of the technologies and intellectual properties.
It will be interesting to see if European countries begin to try to push back against this policy. Imposition of American sanctions against Iran on European companies have already caused a good deal of consternation in Europe. But so far, the EU has been too fractured to do anything serious about it.
The Netherlands has benefited greatly from 400 years of the dominance of western civilization, and I assume they would want to see that continue?
This is not moral suasion, this is pure and simple bullying.
I know quite some people at ASML and I worked a bit in lithography in the past. Yes, it's extremely hard to make a machine that can compete with ASML's. But given enough smart people, I'm convinced that it's totally possible. Making a machine that can compete with what ASML could do, say, 20 years ago is a matter of 10 people and 2 years (I did some contracting at a company that did just that). If you start there and then just keep adding the right kind of talent, then I bet in 10-15 years you can get impressively close.
Don't underestimate the enormous amount of technical and engineering debt ASML has accumulated through decades of mad deadline pushing. Nobody has time to invest in eg automated tests or anything that lets you guard code quality because all the good engineers are needed on the critical path to make the next deadline, and there's always a next deadline and it's always 3 months sooner than in any way reasonable. This is how they became a world monopoly, effectively. It's been a good strategy. They ship so early that the machines they sell simply don't work yet, so they put two engineers inside the box with it who (together with 50 more engineers back home) make the thing actually work while the customer sets it up in their fab.
As a result, their codebase is a steaming pile of shit. Copy & paste galore. An example: the code is so bad that you can't just fix bugs. If you find an off-by-one error in the code and you want to fix it, you first write a "risk assessment document" where you describe what the bug does and whether any code could potentially rely on the presence of the bug. Then multiple layers of risk assessment officers assess whether you get a go. Then, if you get a go, you can go and fix your off-by-one error in similar-but-not-the-same C files across 7 product families.
To be honest I don't know if the same holds for ASMLs mechanical engineering, physics, electro etc departments, but their software dept (a large percentage of their entire R&D) is easily 10x less productive than similarly sized and skilled software teams elsewhere. It's really mind boggling.
I'm convinced that a good startup with a good mindset, plus sufficiently good funding, can totally build a competitor. China just has to fund 20 litho startups so that 19 can mess it up and 1 makes it big.
We got to a .8 micrometer error margin, which is "an enormous valley" by ASML standards but still fine for the top ~5 layers of normal semicon designs, where there's typically way fewer lanes, placed more widely apart. Again, I don't know much about chip design so I probably got all the details wrong.
Basically, yes there's a market. It's not at all as big as ASML's but it doesn't need to be. There's also a market of refurbishing old ASML/Canon/Nikon machines and repurposing for different parts of the production process (either chips or other semicon stuff like LEDs), which is what a new litho startup would compete with I think.
Note that all my knowledge about this is 5 years outdated, I now run a chat api startup :-)
To me, the semiconductor fabrication world is like an opaque industry where you need a significant amount of capital to do anything useful. Very happy to learn that startups are getting a chance too. Super curious to know if the company made it.
I know it's easy to say "we did great but the HQ fucked it up" so I don't want to make that claim. I honestly don't know where it went wrong (and I was way less interested in sales and marketing and entrepreneurship then, so I didn't ask).
I learned everything I know about lean and agile and just shipping from our R&D lead though. He was ex-ASML and they definitely know how to ship.
If China simply throws enough money at it.
The US maybe is able to prevent a Dutch company selling to China. But what if China goes "Hey mr. Dutch lithography specialist and mr. Taiwanese electrical engineer. Come work for us for couple of years and help us build this. Nice flat here in Shenzhen and plenty of money. Bring your family as well."
How can the US prevent that?
If you look at the next-generation lithography road maps, even in the early 90s EUV was just beyond the horizon, but it was on the road map. By 2014 more than twenty billion dollars were spent by various governments and private research when ASML began to ship these https://web.archive.org/web/20150920221539/http://www.asml.c... and even so it was another four years before the first actual devices using EUV CPUs shipped. And, let's not forget, the first device was the A12 Bionic for the iPhone XS/XS Max/XR and some iPads. In the fourth quarter of 2018 alone, Apple sold 46.89 million iPhones worldwide. And there were other companies jumping on the bandwagon but that's a lot of preorder money to help bootstrapping this.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2162684/tai...
Taiwanese engineers lured to mainland China as chip makers go into overdrive
"More than 300 senior engineers from Taiwan have moved to mainland chip makers so far this year, joining nearly 1,000 others who have relocated since Beijing set up a US$22 billion fund to develop the chip industry in 2014"
Even with the "chokepoints" it is just a question of time and money, no? In particular now that China essentially is being forced to be self-sufficient.
The hardest thing about producing the atomic bomb itself, was to determine if it was actually possible. But once it was achieved, then everyone knew it was possible. So all you had to do was throw more time and money into cracking it. And a little espionage probably didn’t hurt too.
The 5nm EUV, while it sounds cutting edge today, may just need enough time, money, and focus to achieve it.
Someone already achieved it, so we know it is possible. And SMIC may go a different route to achieve the same result, thus giving China independent Intellectual Property rights to it.
EV is not that bad but yes, it's quite bad.
And the possibility was always known, the devil really is in the details.
If the hardest part was knowing nuclear weapons are possible then the world would be a giant glass parking lot by now.
This is true in the modern era. However it should be noted that the Manhattan Project did not use gas centrifuges to produce their enriched uranium. Centrifuges were apparently considered but ultimately gaseous diffusion was used. Gaseous diffusion requires larger facilities and more energy, but I suppose the process doesn't require such tight tolerances as modern highspeed centrifuges.
Of course in reality it's much more complex, my point is that not everything can easily be resolved by "throwing enough money" at it...
Cheers.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-bein...
Previous admins all used the carrot much more than the stick with other countries regarding their relationships with China. The current admin is all stick. There’s a point where you overshoot and lose allies.
Does the US really want to antagonize 1.5 billion people?
NAND, DRAM, and CPU / SoC from TSMC are all going to or already need EUV. There is no shortage of sales even if you exclude SMIC. ASML currently only produce ~30 of their TwinScan EUV System per year, which is behind their target in 2019, and behind their original target in 2020. And that is without the pandemic shutting down the production for months. The backlog orders are already going all the way to 2022. And if Intel were to keep up with their promise of 7nm EUV you can expect 2023 and 2024 orders are filled as well. All of these are excluding the use of EUV on DRAM and NAND which Samsung is actively researching and testing.
Basically ASML can just say their orders are already filled up to 2025 and tell SMIC to come back later.
U.S. had done that to Japanese Semiconductor industry in the 80s and 90s[1], which was why South Korean semiconductor industries flourished and Samsung became the king of Memory chips (it used to be Toshiba etc.) And today it's Huawei. Who's gonna be the next in the future?
China will not accept US market dominance in chip production, or frankly, US dominance in any industry.
These are questions Chinese people often ask: why is that a factory worker in China makes 4000rmb(560usd) per month, while a US worker makes 2000usd per month and work for less hours. Why is that pay for software engineers and researchers in China average are much lower than the US and the hours are much longer? The fundamental issue is that US companies can drive much higher margins than Chinese companies, and one of the reasons is they have much better technology. Technology increases the barrier to entry and increases the value add to a product. If we look a IPhone, Chinese companies and its workers only assemble the phone. While all of the high tech components that makes an Iphone what is, like chips, camera senors, display, even the glass panel are made in other countries. I don't remember the exact value, but its safe to say that out of a $1000 iphone, $300 is BOM, and Chinese companies and its workers gets $2 for assembling the phone. The rest all goes to high tech suppliers and Apple itself. This is true across a wide range of industries. If you think about it, in today's global economic system, China actually gets a small share of the value add in the economy chain because it only plays the low end. Industries that can generate high value add also benefit incomes of nearby industries because money flows. This is why restaurant workers in California earns more than the person doing the same job in Nebraska. (Btw, when US counts trade with China, an Iphone is counted for the export price from China to US, for example, $300 for the BOM. But China imported most of the most valuable/high margin components from outside, it only earned $2 for assembling the phone. US thought China made $300 making the phone, but it didn't. Also corporate earnings US companies makes in China are not counted in the US-China trade. So in my opinion, its not true to say China is ripping off the US in the China-US trade relationship because of the trade deficits)
If you go to China, or other developing nations, for example, in South America or South Asia, you know that there is huge quality of life difference. Dont look at lives in Shanghai, look at Mid west of China. China is huge, while the median income today is 30,000 yuan/year, about 600million people still have 12,000 yuan/year (1600 usd). And Chinese people all ask "we are humans, why should there be such a massive quality of live difference. And how could we work towards to close the gap?" And given the world's economy system today, which is a free market, capitalist and "best product sells" systems, then the only way to increase qualify of life is to climb to value add chain.
But that doesn't mean its a zero sum game, its China or US. Increasing income will increase people's buying power, making the market larger. Think about it, in 1990, GDP per captia in China was 300 USD, if Apple tries to sale a $700 iphone, no one in China will be able to afford it. Apple will not get any revenue. Today with 30,000yuan/year median income, its said that China has about 200million people that can be considered middle class by PPP standards. Apple and a host of US companies can sell to this population, and China contributes a large percentage to Apple's revenue. Also in turns, Apple uses this revenue to continue invest in R&D, increasing the barrier to entry and competitiveness of its product around the world, earn more money in the process. Also, cheap assembly cost in China contributes to Apple's margins too. So its a collaboration, not a zero sum game. For past 20 years of Chinese industries increasingly competed with the outside industries, making more and more similar products, US GDP has continued to grow. Corporate revenue of the s&p500 has continued to increase to record levels. Also, its interesting that GM has not being that competitive in the US market, but is making a lot of sales in China. Also Tesla, if you look at the recent bullish analyst cases, China sales is one of the pillars.
China never has a problem with US companies being successful. Its not like government is jealous of the US industries and want them dead. "oh the Americans shouldn't make money". But its "how should our people survive and live, how should their quality of life improve?". From an economic system and social development standpoint, its bound that the Chinese society will go up in the value add ladder. Chinese people want good jobs that pay well and have good work life balance too. But these things don't come from the thin air. In the world of free competition, the best product sells. These things have to be supported by a industry that can compete in the global marketplace.
If you look at Chinese government's work during the last 40 years, starting from the reforms in the 80s, one of the primary goal is poverty alleviation, and build sustainable income sources for households under the principles of the market economy. That work is still going on today. Today the work is centered around the villages and poor neighborhoods in remote areas which faces systematic discrimination in the market economy. Solve the blockers that prevent them from joining the market economy, and jump start their place in the market economy. The result of this process is ordinary households have more income that they can earn by themselves, and they can choose to spend that money in a free open market however they want. And many spend their money on American products due to the superiority of the products. Also, if you look at the government's policies from the past and going forward, continue to increase foreign companies access to the Chinese market was and will continue to be a fundamental policy. Look at how quickly Tesla could set up shop in China, and much sales they are getting from Chinese market just after a few months. Also IP protection is getting much stronger as well. You can also look at the situation this way, the government invests in the people by doing things like: building bridges, improve educations and allow them to find work. That investment later becomes personal incomes, which flows to the domestic and the world's economy (including US). In summary: I think that US-China economy is not a zero-sum game. For us to win they have to lose. It could be a win-win situation.
Folks wave their hands and imagine some better future where they do more useful things. But the number of useful things is actually rapidly diminishing. Creation of products and materials doesn't need actual humans, not in the numbers they historically did.
So whatever China did in the last 40 years, they will have to do something completely different in the next 40 (or 20 or 10). The problems are different. Never mind "the people control the means of production". The people will have nothing to exchange of value to the new industrial complex, when labor becomes useless and meaningless.
On the one hand, the world is full of horrifying inequality, which you highlight and indeed perhaps understate. Inequality within America, inequality within China, inequality between Americans and Chinese, and of course a multiplicity of other permutations. As you say quite correctly: "Chinese people want good jobs that pay well and have good work life balance too." And so they should!
On the other hand, there is imperialism. The Chinese government is an imperialist government, I think there is no doubt. It makes sense for governments of other nations to attempt to limit the growth of power of that government. Of course, those last two sentences make just as much sense when describing America, too.
My point is that most of the conversation, in the article and in the comments thread, is about the relationships that societies have to each other. And most of your comment is about the relationships that individuals have to their lives. I agree with the majority of what you said, I just don't think it's directly relevant.
I'm not even saying that China "shouldn't be" imperialist (though I wish China and America were both less imperialist, but I might as well wish to fly by flapping my ears). I'm only saying that if you think you'd enjoy patting a tiger, and you think the tiger would enjoy the pats (the pats could be win-win!), that doesn't mean that you go pat the tiger. (is China the tiger and America the would-be pat-er, or vice versa? doesn't matter!)
That US worker is also paying a much higher price for everything. Comparing economies dollar-for-dollar makes literally no sense.
However, in the "Star Wars" franchise, there is the concept of the antagonistic Sith. These always come in pairs — "one to embody power, one to crave it". When one runs across people who believe in zero sum games (or worse yet: seek a bigger slice of a smaller pie), I guess they are attempting to apply the movie concept of a Sith lord to real life.
PS. I enjoyed the 1961 大鬧天宮. Orwell's "Animal Farm" starts out similarly, being a story about animals vs elites, but ends much more cynically. It is depressing, but provides wonderful insight into anglophone politics.
That's a nice thought and I think you're right that it could be, in theory.
I'd say the people running those countries don't have such goals though.
Instead they're looking for more power and square meter land, And look at Trump and his statements related to opening fire on the protestors. The leaders don't have in mind to create a world with happy people, they'd rather burn in to get more power
I think it all can be traced to this - https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-... this party has essentially been the defacto leader of Japan and it's policies.
I don't see how it is mind boggling that the winner of an armed conflict would try to install a friendly post war government. Or that the US still had influence lasting decades after the conflict.
But can you elaborate on what you are trying to say and what supports it?
But wasn't the point of Marshall Plan to not repeat what Treaty of Versailles led to? If you keep demanding an eye for an eye the wars will never end. It does not justify what US did to Japan or other countries.
Yes, plus the danger from the USSR.
> If you keep demanding an eye for an eye the wars will never end.
Never do an enemy a small injury. From a realpolitik point of view, either make them a friend or smash them for good.
The strategy used to great effect by Rome.
What are they teaching in school these days?
Also, I'm not sure how this leads to Japan. Japan broke the Washington Naval treaty (related to but separate from the Treaty of Versailles) which was meant to prevent a naval arms race.
As for influence lasting decades after, I am still searching for a reason that the Japanese would have benefited from signing the Plaza Accord. Anyone have one?
...and also before WW2, which pushed Japan into war.
The Coming War With Japan, 1991 by George Friedman https://www.amazon.com/Coming-War-Japan-George-Friedman/dp/0...
Ronald Reagan asked in his campaign “What do we want our kids to do? Sweep up around the Japanese computers?” "an economic Pearl Harbor" was a term used.
While the US was fighting double digit inflation Japanese were buying American companies and real estate like candy. Sony bought movies studio, someone else bought Rockefeller Center. Japan's 5th generation computer systems and AI was seen as threat to the US. Japanese management philosophy was seen as superior.
Even in popular culture movies like "Back To The Future 2", "Die Hard" etc. Japanese dominate.
Japanese cars became mainstream. People started to become interested in anime. Nobody remembers or noticed what Reagan said, unless the hivemind/AI decides to resurrect it now and pound cherry picked things into our heads until we assent that Eurasia was always at war with Eastasia.
You can debate until you turn blue, but it's lazy revisionism.
You can debate until you turn blue, but it's lazy revisionism.
* At least he hasn't said "We begin bombing in five minutes".
(besides, can't have Oceania at war with Eastasia until you all get Airstrip One back from Eurasia, innit?)
Also, I think maybe younger people don't appreciate how much less people were plugged in to a very narrow channel of hysteria and BS before the late 2010s and the rise of ad-tech.
For a hint of what it was like, look at your local newspaper if it still exists or current events on Wikipedia.
Other than that, it doesn't sound like we had much in common. I was going to search old USENET for (Reagan|Raygun) references, but those archives seem to have gone down the memory hole.
Maybe we're from different timelines? I do see an amazing number of people around with goatees. Do you know how I can get back to my timeline? Should I ask evil Spock or evil Cartman for help?
Well, you have to realize that MITI (at the time, now METI) was absolutely doing a number on American businesses (some of it deserved--see US auto manufacturers) with its subsidies. It damn near killed the US semiconductor industry.
If it weren't for the US government and VHSIC, the US semiconductor industry would have died.
Given the pace of chipmaking die shrink, I wouldn't be surprised if they can retard the ability of China to get up to speed on 7nm before the next lithographic generation becomes common.
What is happening has probably made catching up one of their top priorities, and thus this will, ironically, shorten the time it will take for them to rise in that industry. That will also diminish Taiwan's strategic importance, which some might argue can increase the probability of forceful reunification.
They will likely
1. Close the gap at a faster rate
2. Make life difficult for Taiwan unless Taiwan relents
We’re probably entering into a rough patch of human history for a lot of people.
[1] https://chinatalk.substack.com/p/huawei-banned-so-lets-invad...
MediaTek’s flagship Dimensity 1000 5G Chipset is fine, so is Exynos 990. They are just slightly behind Snapdragon 855+ and A13
Edit: in case it's not clear, FPGA's are used in wireless base-stations.
Maybe more shift to more to DSP, make low volume ASICs on older nodes cheaper and cycle faster, put up with more card swaps since you can't update certain things in firmware so easily.
You can still do all the things but maybe the design takes longer or you sacrifice some performance (designer gets to choose the tradeoff).
My guess is the main "real" impact is cycle times, design retooling and having to pause and rework existing designs suffering from supply chain disruption. Potentially all problems you can fix scalably by throwing enough bodies at them since the money is clearly there.
Would be interested in perspectives from anyone working in a related area.
Same with the Google Play Store embargo on Android. It just robs American companies of a market where they had a lead while it accelerates China's ambitions.
It might accelerate this a bit, but China already had its sights on a domestic semiconductor solutions years ago.
The idea that they were going to ever let the US just "have the market" isn't how China does things. One way or another, China is going to copy everything the US does. It's just kicking the can down the road another 5 years or so.
It's not a solution.
Having network infrastructure with your designs installed on every network interconnection worldwide is very useful if you want to, say, have access to tap any conversation anywhere in the world...
The funny thing is the US has missed the boat... Hearts and minds is what matters far more than network infrastructure, and tiktok has won there...
There is a security argument of course, and the US government is well aware of smartphones and related technology being perfect spy machines, but I think you have to look at this in terms of great power competition to get the full picture.
Disclaimer: I work for a major West-based supplier to Huawei.
I read somewhere that the simplest counter measure Huawei can take is to show it's a private company, by publishing its shareholder structure, thus renders the crack down illegal.
But Huawei won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Ownership
It may ostensibly be owned by the employees but there's a more complex ownership structure involved than what a normal company would have.
" Scholars have found that, after a few stages of historical morphing, employees do not own a part of Huawei through their “shares”. Instead, the “virtual stock is a contract right, not a property right; it gives the holder no voting power in either Huawei Tech or Huawei Holding, cannot be transferred, and is cancelled when the employee leaves the firm"
Though notionally a private company, Huawei (notably its founder Ren Zhengfei) has many complex and often opaque links with the Chinese government and the Chinese military.
More than a decade ago, Huawei admitted that it unlawfully copied Cisco source code regarding the switches and routers that are the backbone of the internet.
Huawei does not disclose details about Chinese-made components it uses in its devices and has admitted that these may be more vulnerable to hacking than some western competitors.
The US basically asked point blank to define their organizational structure, connections to the CCP etc. Huawei basically balked and ignored the ask.
> It (Huawei) is preparing stocks for wartime
Strange word/terminology to use for something they have apparently been doing since end-2018
Obviously if the alternative is to not have CPUs, it's the only choice they have, but its going to put them in a rough place competitively.
obviously, for new designs they won't choose to integrate chips that they can't source, but having a supply of chips they can no longer source means they can continue to manufacture their current models.
According to the Phase-1 agreement, China should buy at least USD 68B of US services in 2020. If they were to spend most of it on counsel, that'd be a lot of nastygrams, even at common-law billing rates.
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-lawmakers-unveil-...
Google publicized about it, is China at the same level?
However, I wouldn't count on this happening since the U.S. knows very well the power of being able to spy on adversaries and allies using network and telecom equipment. I don't believe Trump will back down on Huwawei no matter what the Chinese government offers.
Mind you that other Chinese smartphone makers do not (as of yet) face the same restrictions and are able to purchase the newest parts. What chance does Huawei stand against them, even in the Chinese market? I'd say very little.
It's not a foregone conclusion that Trump will still be president in a year's time.
We live in interesting time.
Cheers.
I will not count on difficulty of technology to stop a country progress for long. China mastered bullet trains and surpassed the original designs from German, French and Japanese designs, so given time and resolve they will be able to solve given, at present USA closing doors and China opening doors for educated immigrants.
I hope the world instead of focusing on differences, focus on collaboration, USA and its system has its own pros and cons so is China’s system. Also in general I believe no meaning in forcing Chinese to accept what’s right for them based on US ideas, let them have their own freedom to choose and work or change their system. As US has black minorities and Puerto Rico (overseas territory), so does China (Hong Kong and Taiwan). Let them figure out in their own way how to work out between their majority and minority. This is what US or any sovereign country irrespective of system will expect. If China tries to teach USA how to treat and respect its minorities and overseas territory they won’t agree, same is China.
As I said like China is imperfect in treating its minorities with differing opinions (Tibet, Uighur, Hong Kong and Taiwan), so is many large democracies be it USA or India (where majoritarian politics works the same way as China, trampling on the rights of minorities finding loopholes in systems and bypass all safeguards with majority support). We all have a right to disagree with Chinese system, but don’t have a right to force it on majority of Chinese who believe in their own system.
Even in HN by downvoting comments minority view is turned unreadable, this is same in USA, India or China where systems work based on majoritarian politics.
Retrospective law does not exist in civilised societies.
[1] "... Huawei has not been able to directly buy chips from American companies without special approval since last May. However, it has been able to continue building its inventory of American chips through other available channels -- such as local chip distributors and traders, or even asking its own suppliers to buy the chips for it, sources familiar with the matter said. Huawei has been willing to pay far higher prices than normal for the chips, despite the fact the company can only secure "off-the-shelf" versions without customization or technical support, they said."
[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/san-francisco-man-and-c...
They exist in "civilized" societies when it suits their interests. The most famous being the nuremburg trials.
Edit: In case the downvoter truly didn't know ...