> By 2025, she foresees demand for around 185 million square feet of advanced substrate manufacturing space against about 145 million square feet built.
It's curious that the production capacity for substrate is expressed in terms of manufacturing space. Is that an industry-specific quirk?
Bear in mind that actual productive output, or how much a factory cost is quite possibly not public knowledge. But area is (just look at google maps). If you're an insider with some of these ballpark area ratios in your head, you can easily come to some conclusions.
I've likewise heard people talk about building particle accelerators in terms of cost-per-meter. In particular: ballparking the cost of a synchrotron light source as a million USD per meter.
The hardware designer said: “It is rumored that you are a great programmer. How many lines of code do you write per year?”
Master Foo replied with a question: “How many square inches of silicon do you lay out per year?”
“Why...we hardware designers never measure our work in that way,” the man said.
“And why not?” Master Foo inquired.
“If we did so,” the hardware designer replied, “we would be tempted to design chips so large that they cannot be fabricated - and, if they were fabricated, their overwhelming complexity would make it be impossible to generate proper test vectors for them.”
Master Foo smiled, and bowed to the hardware designer.
In that moment, the hardware designer achieved enlightenment."
- Master Foo and the Hardware Designer: http://catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/index.html
The work unit is completed wafers that later get binned into different device quality levels.
Makes sense when your biz is to blast plasma over mm2 of silicon
If the chip makers are investing this much money into the substrate businesses, why aren't they just purchasing some of these companies wholesale?
In a sense, buying the future substrate production is just a future substrate contract.
Do you know how building a power plant is financed today? Basically someone buys 10 years of gas futures, sells 10 years of equivalent electricity futures, and uses the profit (since electricity is more expensive than gas) to build the power plant that will turn the bought gas into the sold electricity.
I assume a random person can't just sell 10 years of electricity futures without some kind of collateral.
Comes to mind: "Be the change you want to see in the world, and get paid for it"
It also takes over three years to build the plant itself. We aren't even talking about the people you'd even need to employ, design, and run the place (highly specialized labor).
This is such a huge burdensome cost. It's not even a guarantee that that such an investment would even make sense once 5-years pass.
I do think there should be more fabs and having them located in one area of the world is already playing out to be a geopolitical nightmare. It's obviously going to become a national security issue for nearly every industrialized country on earth over the next decade if not sooner.
On top of that, can the Banana grower even get all of the items needed to grow the same sized crop as last year? All of the fertilizers, etc.? Those companies have been shut down during this time too. Oh, you're not the only company who needs those exact same supplies and the Potato farmer down the road is trying to purchase it too? After you've grimaced that the price has risen due to short supply and you had to source the items from 3x as many suppliers as you used to, now, you're relieved that your Bananas are almost done growing. You call the trucking company to deliver them to the distributor, who you learn is short staffed and prices have risen in order to attract truckers who are now in short supply, and factor in the gas price increases. Every single segment of the economy that the Banana grower relied on is going through the same thing, at the same time.
Making chips is several orders of magnitude harder/more complex than growing Bananas. Think about how many different companies products must be purchased to make a wafer. How many different highly specialized chemicals are used in addition to solid materials? If any single one of them is having supply or labor issues...
On the flip side, rather than demand decreasing as auto manufacturers expected, it actually spiked, and automotive manufacturers demanded more chips and were willing to pay $$$ for it. So other industries that use chips and accurately forecasted their demand were now bidding against automotive manufacturers for that fab capacity.
Supply chains in general are in shambles. We had mass COVID outbreaks at the ports that shut down unloading, as well as outbreaks at see. Truck drivers are quitting because it ain't worth their while anymore. Countries closed their borders. Patterns of consumer demand changed, so all the containers got stuck in North America.
Chips are the most obvious manifestation of this because the supply chains for them are long and complex, but we're going to see it in many other products as well once inventory buffers run out.
-- But chip manufacturers didn't shut down. That's even close to the immediate cause, which was that the anticipation of changed future demand on the part of other manufacturers lead to them decreasing and change future orders. If you're going to ELI5("explain this to me like a five year old"), at least give some reasonably analogous situation, jeesh.
I mean, I think people understand that supply takes some time to catch up with demand when you have a complex, interdependent economy. But the adjustment to this shock has taken longer than seems reasonable or seems like happened in the past so more data than X has to adjust for Y which has to adjust for Z is appropriate.
It hit me that the problem is the whole global system is now just one big Just-In-Time (JIT) system built from smaller JIT units of industry which is a collection of yet more JIT factories.
It's JIT all the way down!
And JIT doesn't work well when the spice isn't continuously flowing.
One car example, you should ensure you have 4 times as many tires available as you do cars, because an imbalance there becomes either a constraint (too few tires) or a waste (too many tires). But it's not JUST making those numbers match, you have to forecast, how many cars and I going to build, are my supplies for the cars ok, look at normal fluctuations, and then also look at potential supply chain FAILURES and plan for them. Maybe it's easy to get brake pads but the lead time on tires is 4 months. Well then, I don't need to stock as many brake pads in case of a disruption, but I should definitely have enough tires to carry me through a potential disruption (maybe not 4 months worth, maybe I stock 2 and slow down car production, or something).
All these companies kept their shelves bare, and when some companies slowed orders, they didn't stop to think that the manufacturers they bought from would look for other customers to take up capacity. They acted like TSMC would sit there by the phone waiting for some customer to come back. No, they're in the business of selling chips, not in the business of servicing DumbCorp. No one planned for what might happen if they stopped ordering parts, they just expected the capacity to be there.
I'm bringing 6 new sites online this year, and a 7th early in the new year. I just bought a bunch of network equipment for not just our existing sites, but the 7 to come. I looked at supply chain issues, and said to my CFO, this inventory is going to sit here for 6 months, but we get a larger quantity discount, and we'll get the new sites online faster and not worry about getting this equipment if we buy now. We COULD have saved that money now, but the advantages of having it when we need it is greater than having that money in the bank for 6 more months.
JIT means planning ahead, not just micromanaging inventory. Too many MBAs don't get that.
Maybe we all have something to learn from Doomsday preppers.
One immediate cause was that some manufacturers reduced their chip orders month in advance since they expected less demand but then the demand didn't decrease and they had to scramble, increasing general demand. Another immediate cause was that Covid has made some production lines shutdown or become unreliable.
But the reason that now a year or more on, we have problems, seems require more explaining. Larger causes I've heard; The chip supply chain is extremely long, long enough so you get a whipsaw effect or anti-whipsaw effect. A whipsaw effect means by the time demand catches up with supply, it goes beyond it and manufacturers lose money. But what seems to be happening is an anti-whipsaw effect - suppliers are avoiding any panic measures to catch up with demand and so lose money but this means the catching up is a long process.
This is something of a product of a highly capital intensive economy pushing manufacturers to only produce, invest and consume in a narrow range. Limiting investment in capital equipment is a way to make the investment you make is 100% utilized. Limiting consumption to the lowest priced items is a way to make sure all of your production is profitable. It seems like a new phenomena. Instead of a "deflationary spiral" these factors pushed to their extreme could result in a "decreasing production spiral" where physical continually declines despite demand. We're not there yet, of course but it seems like an interesting economic phenomena.
Then COVID triggered a collapse of nearly all JIT supply chains (not just medical). Try getting ANY industrial or consumer product - the supply chains are all broken right now. Some of this is China intentionally fxcking us. Some of it is over dependence on outsourcing. Most is due to inherent instability of JIT as a fundamental flaw that's long been ignored.
Many supply chains have both short and long feedback loops to themselves. For example ALL the equipment required to increase semiconductor capacity always require the very same semiconductor supply chain capacity (chip making requires chips being made).
The guy who runs my local bike shop is saying they still won't have enough bikes next year.
http://www.coppernews.io/2021/09/05/a-big-hurdle-to-fixing-t...
Demand for gaming PCs and consoles have nothing to do with inefficient software. Demand for automobiles has nothing to do with inefficient software. Demand for servers, networking equipment, and office PCs to support a suddenly-working-from-home labor force has nothing to do with inefficient software. Windows 11 not supporting 5-year-old hardware, crypto booms, and pathetically short support windows for smartphones have nothing to do with inefficient hardware.
My 6-year-old laptop and 5-year-old desktop handle Electron apps just fine. It would be nice if the software was more efficient, but practically nobody is rushing out to replace a computer that was any good to begin with because Discord and Skype take up an extra 50 MB.
Besides, making software more efficient is a long-term solution to a short-term problem.
I admit it's irrational since units are arbitrary and orthogonal anyway, but it seems... forced. Is it really necessary to use those units in a technical context in order to relate to your readers?
EDIT: Lots of America-centric people are jumping onto me for this initial comment, stating that WSJ is built for its /true/ target audience, /Americans/. What sparked my comment was the fact I was reading this article in Japanese. The aforementioned numbers and graph are expressed in feet, so this kind of forced conversion across industry domain and language barrier seemed contrived and got me started on this train of thought.
https://jp.wsj.com/articles/the-chip-shortage-has-made-a-sta...
Please follow the site guidelines, which include:
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28448249 and marked it off topic.
You have, and are probably using right now, a voice controlled computer that can convert anything to anything else, by just asking.
Is it really worth typing this every time an American site uses American language? We all get it, Americans with their imperial units, ha ha.
> It may as well be in hectares or "multiples of some lake somewhere", it's a massive number.
We're saying the same thing but arguing for the opposite. Like I said, no one in a technical capacity uses these units seriously. So then if the number is so conceptually massively big and the units don't matter, why go through the extra forced effort of converting to imperial? Just use the units that the specifications come in and the numbers that the factories use?
The more you play with vast unit conversions like this, the more you risk losing information across sources/citations. What if I want to do my own research later on? It's more work if I'm searching for specific numbers on Google. We also know just how terrible Google Search results are getting nowadays, so...
> We all get it, Americans with their imperial units, ha ha.
I think this is an uncharitable interpretation of my comment. I'm not trying to make fun of Americans, I'm trying to understand what the extra efort is worth for?
It's really very tired.
Americans don't even use Imperial units. We use United States Customary Units [1] which are more like siblings to Imperial units than offspring.
United States customary units have been based on familiar Metric units since the Mendenhall Order in 1893.
School children in the United States have studied the metric system for generations.
The United States was one of the original 17 signatories of the Metre Convention in 1875. As far as I can tell no commonwealth countries were early adopters.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units
There should be a browser plugin that automatically converts units behind the scenes.
Americans, myself included, generally acknowledge that the metric system is better but we are already familiar with US units. There's nothing really wrong with US units either in terms of accurate measurement. In an ideal world we would use metric, but transitioning would come at monumental costs - never mind the re-training of an entire population - just so we can make unit conversions a tiny bit easier.
I get it. You're not familiar with US units like we are so you have to do conversions to make sense of the measurements - probably with a calculator since the ratios aren't simple, whole numbers. But remember Americans have to do the same whenever we read almost any foreign publication. Difference is I never see HN or Reddit comments complaining about metric units.
"The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle"
That factor of ten is because we have ten fingers. There's no cosmic significance to ten or ten million. Or to the size of a line of longitude on our particular planet.
And a meter is almost exactly a yard, or three feet anyway.
The foot is directly based on a person's body part (which caused major issues when bordering jurisdictions used different sizes for a "foot"). The denomination used for meters is a lot more disconnected, its basis focused on the planet instead of on a body part. The choice for the decimal system is much more akin to the choice of 3/12/8/10 in the imperial system.
You can also quickly run into issues if you assume a meter is almost exactly a meter, there's a 9% difference there. The difference can quickly add up, and plenty of international orders have been messed up that way. The distances are similar enough that they serve the same use in day to day expressions, but they're certainly not "almost exactly" the same.
Cosmic? No. But social? For sure. 99.99% of math the layman will encounter is in base 10.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.