US wants China's chip industry 5 generations behind cutting edge, head of equipment maker AMEC says at Wuxi conference

[tonyget]

Good digitimes article.

This sweet ironic paragraph

"Yin openly discussed the severe internal competition within the domestic equipment sector, resulting in harmful competition obstructing industry development. This includes illegally obtaining competitors' trade secrets and copying their products. Companies are involved in both chip manufacturing and equipment development, leading to counterfeiting of suppliers' equipment."

The irony being that it was fine to rip off US or Japanese vendors but ripping off their own, shocking.

"Companies are involved in both chip manufacturing and equipment development"

This sounds very strange to me，I have never heard of any companies make both chip and equipment at the same time in China.

But it also suggest that some leading domestic equipment manufactures already reached a high level of sophistication，a level that is worth for other manufactures to study，instead of study US or Japanese equipments.

 

[tonyget]

Can anyone share some insight on this point he made? Is it as simple as
1. The students he mentioned studying abroad do not have enough technical depth when they return to China to make a technical significance? Theres no doubt these are bright young minds but how much will it make a difference
2. Those who do have the technical expertise, what are their stands? I assume a lot of them have spent the past 20-30 years overseas will they consider leaving their current position to help China develop while handicapped by the US in technologies?
3. Assuming China develops the tools to catch up, I think some other thread mentioned, by then is it only a question of how far the US and allies can be ahead of China in developments?

I already talked about this phenomenon last year，check out these posts

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

Some Chinese firms try to clear their names from sanction list; others try to lure non-US foreign engineers Some Chinese semiconductor makers are reported to have taken the initiative to contact the United States embassy in Beijing after they were put on a trade watch list of the US Commerce...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

The hostility and suspicion towards Chinese researchers and technologists in the US now，is doing China a big favour. Remember Dr Hsue-shen Tsien（father of Chinese aerospace technology） didn't plan to go back to China before 1950，he eventually returned to China because he was persecuted in the US.

 

[Barnsley]

I already talked about this phenomenon last year，check out these posts

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

Some Chinese firms try to clear their names from sanction list; others try to lure non-US foreign engineers Some Chinese semiconductor makers are reported to have taken the initiative to contact the United States embassy in Beijing after they were put on a trade watch list of the US Commerce...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

The hostility and suspicion towards Chinese researchers and technologists in the US now，is doing China a big favour. Remember Dr Hsue-shen Tsien（father of Chinese aerospace technology） didn't plan to go back to China before 1950，he eventually returned to China because he was persecuted in the US.

Article 7 obligates Chinese individuals, organizations, and institutions to support national intelligence work.

Maybe back in the day it wasn't strictly enforced by CCP.
However Comrade Xi seems quite keen on stuff like this , so in recent years he could have put the squeeze on folk working overseas.

Its possible is it not?

 

[tonyget]

Rather than talk about boring politics: Consider Anji Microelectronics LTD, Shanghai, a Chinese CMP slurry and materials vendor to the semiconductor industry. It's a global player, growing steadily since 2004. Shumin Wang is the boss (yay Shumin!), who worked at Cabot Microelectronics (now part of Entegris) while I was there. And was one of the good ones who saw what was happening post-Matthew Neville and got out. Matthew was founder-like (although not truly a founder, it was part of Cabot Corp) at Cabot Micro.

Her story is similar to Morris Chang, in some small ways; success in the US leading to a return to Asia and having a major impact.

China is doing many things right. Right enough for people like Shumin to return there, do well, build a team. The US should be worried! But shouldn't take shortcuts! Sanctions don't work, and divert attention from investment deficits (Anji staff is 45% R&D: https://www.anjimicro.com/en/hexinnengli.html#advanced

There are probably many more Anjis in China, while, in the US, we have more and more consolidation. As Cabot Microelectronics being swallowed Entegris somewhat illustrates. The USA has a serious monopoly problem. China has a "USA political flavor of the month is tough on China" problem, which who knows, it could be serious too, but seems likely to be easier to overcome, and maybe isn't really a problem.

The monopoly is a good point. I talked about the difference in US and Chinese semiconductor markek. And why the highly consolidated market like the US，will drive motivated individuals in the industry away to places like China to start their own business ，where new players have a chance to thrive.

Had Shumin stay in the US，she would never establish a new CMP business and compete with Cabot Micro，not a chance

 

[freshshine1]

I already talked about this phenomenon last year，check out these posts

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

Some Chinese firms try to clear their names from sanction list; others try to lure non-US foreign engineers Some Chinese semiconductor makers are reported to have taken the initiative to contact the United States embassy in Beijing after they were put on a trade watch list of the US Commerce...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

Chinese chip makers seek way out of US curbs

UC Berkeley did the heavy lifting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor The potential of Digh Hisamoto's research on DELTA transistors drew the attention of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which in 1997 awarded a contract to a research group at UC...

semiwiki.com

The hostility and suspicion towards Chinese researchers and technologists in the US now，is doing China a big favour. Remember Dr Hsue-shen Tsien（father of Chinese aerospace technology） didn't plan to go back to China before 1950，he eventually returned to China because he was persecuted in the US.

Thanks for the link, great thread and opinions around

 

[M. Y. Zuo]

This discussion is pretty interesting and highlights the fundamental contradiction in the whole story behind the geopolitics.

Supposedly American companies are staffed by the best of the best, absolute world-beaters participating in a reasonably free market capitalistic society, etc., but then all these folks suddenly become naive bozos when their planes touchdown in Beijing.

So much so that they supposedly also need an enormous array of government departments and forceful intervention just to protect them from themselves and the hasty decisions of management.

Whereas Chinese companies mostly turn out low quality products as the lowest bidder and are often staffed with scammers, dupers, sometimes even outright frauds, etc., without much creativity to boot, but apparently are so powerful and frightening in potential that they need to be cut down to size.

Why would Washington even need to convince anyone of the righteousness of their cause if China was filled with so many scoundrels and if their leadership are so quick to undermine other countries to seize technological advantages, gain geopolitical influence, etc...?

They will alienate most of the world and go down in infamy by their own actions soon enough. And most of the world will stick to the obviously better side with barely a nudge.

The very fact that more than nudges are being used and still not even countries with active territorial disputes with China are willing to entirely commit to a side is telling.

Even the most favourable interpretation for Washington and the least favourable for Beijing, would be that the folks in Beijing are very crafty and are able to consistently outmaneuver by providing benefits to just enough countries on the fence, to stay on the fence. Thus preventing any solid consensus from ever forming.

Even if so, I don't see how America has a winning strategy, of course those countries on the fence would want more wealth, technology, etc., from America, via China, split up amongst themselves. It's not like Washington can credibly offer an even a better deal, at an even greater expense for American voters.

So are they even playing to win? Or is there a different game going on behind this one?

Or maybe geopolitics is like one of those Zen koans, where the more you think you know the less you understand.

 

[Paul2]

Whereas Chinese companies mostly turn out low quality products as the lowest bidder and are often staffed with scammers, dupers, sometimes even outright frauds, etc., without much creativity to boot, but apparently are so powerful and frightening in potential that they need to be cut down to size.

To my experience, scammers, dupers, and Co. are by far more sharper, and resourceful bunch than American entrepreneurs exactly because later grew up very pampered, and fall for the first spiked drink trick on the business talks in the mainland.

Indians on the other hand... come to the mainland, and mainland dupers cry.

 

[hist78]

This discussion is pretty interesting and highlights the fundamental contradiction in the whole story behind the geopolitics.

Supposedly American companies are staffed by the best of the best, absolute world-beaters participating in a reasonably free market capitalistic society, etc., but then all these folks suddenly become naive bozos when their planes touchdown in Beijing.

So much so that they supposedly also need an enormous array of government departments and forceful intervention just to protect them from themselves and the hasty decisions of management.

Whereas Chinese companies mostly turn out low quality products as the lowest bidder and are often staffed with scammers, dupers, sometimes even outright frauds, etc., without much creativity to boot, but apparently are so powerful and frightening in potential that they need to be cut down to size.

Why would Washington even need to convince anyone of the righteousness of their cause if China was filled with so many scoundrels and if their leadership are so quick to undermine other countries to seize technological advantages, gain geopolitical influence, etc...?

They will alienate most of the world and go down in infamy by their own actions soon enough. And most of the world will stick to the obviously better side with barely a nudge.

The very fact that more than nudges are being used and still not even countries with active territorial disputes with China are willing to entirely commit to a side is telling.

Even the most favourable interpretation for Washington and the least favourable for Beijing, would be that the folks in Beijing are very crafty and are able to consistently outmaneuver by providing benefits to just enough countries on the fence, to stay on the fence. Thus preventing any solid consensus from ever forming.

Even if so, I don't see how America has a winning strategy, of course those countries on the fence would want more wealth, technology, etc., from America, via China, split up amongst themselves. It's not like Washington can credibly offer an even a better deal, at an even greater expense for American voters.

So are they even playing to win? Or is there a different game going on behind this one?

Or maybe geopolitics is like one of those Zen koans, where the more you think you know the less you understand.

I'm wondering which country, especially the countries matter in the semiconductor industry, hasn't chosen side?

"The very fact that more than nudges are being used and still not even countries with active territorial disputes with China are willing to entirely commit to a side is telling."

 

[M. Y. Zuo]

I'm wondering which country, especially the countries matter in the semiconductor industry, hasn't chosen side?

"The very fact that more than nudges are being used and still not even countries with active territorial disputes with China are willing to entirely commit to a side is telling."

India, Vietnam, Singapore, Israel, etc...

 

[Jozo035]

The monopoly is a good point. I talked about the difference in US and Chinese semiconductor markek. And why the highly consolidated market like the US，will drive motivated individuals in the industry away to places like China to start their own business ，where new players have a chance to thrive.

Had Shumin stay in the US，she would never establish a new CMP business and compete with Cabot Micro，not a chance

I am from EU so I am not sure what do You mean. Environment here is so strictly regulated that I don't even know whether any research or investments are possible outside corporations or universities.

US is still significantly more friendly for startups while offering some degree of IP protection. China is ideal to make substitute of foreign companies with no IP protection, ecology, worker/human rights... and Your company is still owned by CCP. So i ques it is question of preference which advantages/disadvantages are best for You.

For example EU sucks in all of above but it works for worker protection (You can do abstract research without worrying of being fired). In US You can do research with best prospect of monetizing it but good luck building fabs. Which You can build in china over night but there is nothing that stops company next door to copy all Your research and IP and sell it cheaper thanks to less expenses... I think somebody already linked articles about chinese entrepreneurs complaining about this...

So none of these 3 models is ideal.

btw.: China is leader in AI but ChatGPT was created in US. I have seen few people in china questioning how is it possible.

 

[hist78]

India, Vietnam, Singapore, Israel, etc...

I don't mean to disrespect those countries you mentioned. But do they really matter in the semiconductor sanctions against PRC?

Most major semiconductor companies (foundries, fabless design, OSAT) in those countries are controlled or owned by the companies from countries who are in the US alliance.