You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I would be nice for customers if there was a leading foundry like TSMC. But TSMC moved ahead based on skill and execution, So you cannot mandate a competitor. Everyone is free to choose Intel (no one chose them) or Samsung or UMC or GF. TSMC is a much better company. Just like Nvidia is a much better computer company.
Intel is fully enabled to be a competitor as is Samsung. UMC and GF could use some help to pay for leading nodes but they probably will not execute much better.... plus the equipment ecosystem likes one leader.
If a company is just outperforming everyone, they are not going to have competition.
I have said for awhile there is no such thing as a "NOT market leader" market.
Yes companies like to have a second source, but the second source is generally the cheaper option that might not be quite as performant. In this case the second source is competing on price while the primary source is competing on performance and customers throw the second source a bone once in awhile to maintain price competition in the market. To some extent this is what Samsung has been doing historically, but the performance gap got too large.
Intel cannot be a second source if they are more expensive than TSMC. They either need to beat TSMC on performance, or provide acceptable performance at a better price. They cannot win by simply being "NOT TSMC". Nobody will pay Intel more money for less performance on the virtue of being NOT TSMC.
I get your point. But I remember reading about there was a time the industry ( or is it IBM)mandating a second source x86 manufacturer and that’s AMD. I mean if the second source weren’t mandated, we would probably have a lot less choice now.
AMD struggled financially and technically for a long time when it positioned itself, perhaps unintentionally, as merely an alternative to Intel, a so-called "not-Intel" second source.
It finally broke free from that trap when it began establishing itself as a distinct business entity. AMD started developing its own innovative and competitive products, and even spun off its manufacturing division, which became GlobalFoundries.
Today, AMD can command premium prices and generate strong profits because it is THE AMD, not a duplicate or an afterthought.
AMD struggled financially and technically for a long time when it positioned itself, perhaps unintentionally, as merely an alternative to Intel, a so-called "not-Intel" second source.
It finally broke free from that trap when it began establishing itself as a distinct business entity. AMD started developing its own innovative and competitive products, and even spun off its manufacturing division, which became GlobalFoundries.
Today, AMD can command premium prices and generate strong profits because it is THE AMD, not a duplicate or an afterthought.
Yes. But perhaps without the x86 license, all these may not be possible. Everyone got to start somewhere and I am thinking , second source , could be a reason good enough for ppl to at least take a leap of faith and try the products , providing the chance to at least prove themselves
I have said for awhile there is no such thing as a "NOT market leader" market.
Yes companies like to have a second source, but the second source is generally the cheaper option that might not be quite as performant. In this case the second source is competing on price while the primary source is competing on performance and customers throw the second source a bone once in awhile to maintain price competition in the market. To some extent this is what Samsung has been doing historically, but the performance gap got too large.
Intel cannot be a second source if they are more expensive than TSMC. They either need to beat TSMC on performance, or provide acceptable performance at a better price. They cannot win by simply being "NOT TSMC". Nobody will pay Intel more money for less performance on the virtue of being NOT TSMC.
AMD struggled financially and technically for a long time when it positioned itself, perhaps unintentionally, as merely an alternative to Intel, a so-called "not-Intel" second source.
It finally broke free from that trap when it began establishing itself as a distinct business entity. AMD started developing its own innovative and competitive products, and even spun off its manufacturing division, which became GlobalFoundries.
Today, AMD can command premium prices and generate strong profits because it is THE AMD, not a duplicate or an afterthought.
Yes. But perhaps without the x86 license, all these may not be possible. Everyone got to start somewhere and I am thinking , second source , could be a reason good enough for ppl to at least take a leap of faith and try the products , providing the chance to at least prove themselves
But haven’t Samsung and Intel already screwed up or walked away from so many golden opportunities over the years? They’re not startups, they’ve been around long enough and have already burned plenty of bridges and cash. So why, all of a sudden, should we treat them as if they’re weak and naive newcomers?
But haven’t Samsung and Intel already screwed up or walked away from so many golden opportunities over the years? They’re not startups, they’ve been around long enough and have already burned plenty of bridges and cash. So why, all of a sudden, should we treat them as if they’re weak and naive newcomers?
Hmm. I don’t think we should treat them as newcomers but the need for second source or perhaps more so, the wants to avoid monopoly is still there. And they probably has more chance than startups
But haven’t Samsung and Intel already screwed up or walked away from so many golden opportunities over the years? They’re not startups, they’ve been around long enough and have already burned plenty of bridges and cash. So why, all of a sudden, should we treat them as if they’re weak and naive newcomers?
I get your point. But I remember reading about there was a time the industry ( or is it IBM)mandating a second source x86 manufacturer and that’s AMD. I mean if the second source weren’t mandated, we would probably have a lot less choice now.
Second source is more than nice. Without it innovation will slow down. Do you think if AMD didn't have a better design Intel would have abandoned Netburst when they did and develop Core Duo? Personally I don't think so. I'm also pretty sure if you look at BSPD you will find that TSMC moved it up on their roadmap after Intel committed to 18A. I'm not saying TSMC will not innovate without competition, but I am saying that innovation is accelerated by competition and for that you need a second source.
Second source is more than nice. Without it innovation will slow down. Do you think if AMD didn't have a better design Intel would have abandoned Netburst when they did and develop Core Duo? Personally I don't think so. I'm also pretty sure if you look at BSPD you will find that TSMC moved it up on their roadmap after Intel committed to 18A. I'm not saying TSMC will not innovate without competition, but I am saying that innovation is accelerated by competition and for that you need a second source.
Hmm. I likened second source as seeking second opinion on medical issues, especially the major ones. Sure not all medical issues warranted a second opinion. But when it matters , it matters tremendously
Second source is more than nice. Without it innovation will slow down. Do you think if AMD didn't have a better design Intel would have abandoned Netburst when they did and develop Core Duo? Personally I don't think so. I'm also pretty sure if you look at BSPD you will find that TSMC moved it up on their roadmap after Intel committed to 18A. I'm not saying TSMC will not innovate without competition, but I am saying that innovation is accelerated by competition and for that you need a second source.
