schmidtbag:

Governments pressuring TSMC to "do something about it" really goes to show how out-of-touch they are. That's like telling governments to just make covid disappear. Yeah, ok, I'll just snap my fingers and suddenly all the world's problems are gone...

Kaarme is simplifying what's happening but obviously no government is like calling up TSMC's CEO and saying "Do something about it". TSMC has options to help re-allocate supply but it's going to cost TSMC money, various governments are willing to cover these costs (typically indirectly) but then it comes down to how effective these changes will be in aiding supply shortages to various sectors (cars are a big one for example and a large focus), for what cost and on what timeline - which in itself takes some time to figure out.

Denial:

Kaarme is simplifying what's happening but obviously no government is like calling up TSMC's CEO and saying "Do something about it". TSMC has options to help re-allocate supply but it's going to cost TSMC money, various governments are willing to cover these costs but then it comes down to how effective these changes will be in aiding supply shortages to various sectors, for what and on what timeline - which in itself takes some time to figure out.

That doesn't really sound a whole lot different to me. TSMC is losing money for all the overhead they can't produce. They know everyone is watching them angerly as prices skyrocket due to their supply not keeping up. It's in their interest to fix this and I'm sure they know what would be the ideal solution. The problem is there's no quick solution, so regardless of context, pressuring TSMC to do something is moot.

schmidtbag:

That doesn't really sound a whole lot different to me. TSMC is losing money for all the overhead they can't produce. They know everyone is watching them angerly as prices skyrocket due to their supply not keeping up. It's in their interest to fix this and I'm sure they know what would be the ideal solution. The problem is there's no quick solution, so regardless of context, pressuring TSMC to do something is moot.

The problem isn't total supply - it's allocation of supply. TSMC would rather spend capital expanding chip production on cutting edge, highly profitable nodes, then production for chips that go into say, cars. Also there are some quick solutions but they are costly and TSMC cannot/does not/will not spend the money on it. There are like dozens of articles on this btw that go into a ton of detail about it - and there has been a lot of back and forth negotiating from TSMC and other fabs to, for example, the US government. So idk, for example TSMC wants tax incentives for their Arizona plant expansion in turn to make some of these changes to help other sectors out. So to sit here and say "oh yeah TSMC would just do this if they could because it's profitable" is kind of weird when TSMC is literally negotiating with the US government on incentives to reallocate supply and implement quick fixes. They either clearly can't do it - or don't think it's in the best interest of the company and are requiring incentives to make the changes.

Denial:

The problem isn't total supply - it's allocation of supply. TSMC would rather spend capital expanding chip production on cutting edge, highly profitable nodes, then production for chips that go into say, cars. Also there are some quick solutions but they are costly and TSMC cannot/does not/will not spend the money on it.

I would argue that's not TSMC's problem. They're not the only ones around. Cars are notorious for using outdated tech - I don't think going with GF's 12nm is going to be such a loss to them.

There are like dozens of articles on this btw that go into a ton of detail about it - and there has been a lot of back and forth negotiating from TSMC and other fabs to, for example, the US government. So idk, for example TSMC wants tax incentives for their Arizona plant expansion in turn to make some of these changes to help other sectors out. So to sit here and say "oh yeah TSMC would just do this if they could because it's profitable" is kind of weird when TSMC is literally negotiating with the US government on incentives to reallocate supply and implement quick fixes. They either clearly can't do it - or don't think it's in the best interest of the company and are requiring incentives to make the changes.

The T in TSMC stands for Taiwan. They can't just demand a different country give them land for a new factory, and for anyone who knows geography well, building more factories in Taiwan isn't the most realistic/good idea. To build one in a western country like the US means they're likely going to have to pay more, which isn't helping their profit margins (hence the negotiations). They're a business - attaining profits is more important than catering to the needs of businesses that depend on them. TSMC knows how important they are in the global market so they have all the leverage. They just have to make sure they remain competitive and productive enough as to not get people to switch to someone else, like Samsung. Seeing as that didn't work out well for Nvidia, that has only fueled TSMC's ego. Based on what I read, the Biden administration was offering tens of billions of dollars for new domestic semiconductor manufacturing that, to my understanding, wasn't specific to TSMC. Both TSMC and the US have an interest in solving the underlying problem, but they're not looking specifically to solve each others' problems. Otherwise, TSMC wouldn't be looking for tax incentives, and the government would have just gone straight to TSMC.

schmidtbag:

I would argue that's not TSMC's problem. They're not the only ones around. Cars are notorious for using outdated tech - I don't think going with GF's 12nm is going to be such a loss to them. The T in TSMC stands for Taiwan. They can't just demand a different country give them land for a new factory, and for anyone who knows geography well, building more factories in Taiwan isn't the most realistic/good idea. To build one in a western country like the US means they're likely going to have to pay more, which isn't helping their profit margins (hence the negotiations). They're a business - attaining profits is more important than catering to the needs of businesses that depend on them. TSMC knows how important they are in the global market so they have all the leverage. They just have to make sure they remain competitive and productive enough as to not get people to switch to someone else, like Samsung. Seeing as that didn't work out well for Nvidia, that has only fueled TSMC's ego. Based on what I read, the Biden administration was offering tens of billions of dollars for new domestic semiconductor manufacturing that, to my understanding, wasn't specific to TSMC. Both TSMC and the US have an interest in solving the underlying problem, but they're not looking specifically to solve each others' problems. Otherwise, TSMC wouldn't be looking for tax incentives, and the government would have just gone straight to TSMC.

My point is the government didn't just call up TSMC and say "hey fix this" - The problem itself is larger than just cars, it's larger than just this specific instance of shortage. There is a bunch of back and forth going on between all the companies and various governments (India for example is offering $1B for domestic fabrication too) and now the US is specifically targeting $37B towards helping solve the automotive industry problem itself. TSMC, as an example, identified areas where they could make improvements to help alleviate constraints in specific supply chains but wanted incentives to do so. The US government as an example, is aiding in that process via tax additional breaks in their Arizona expansion. I'm not sure what the T in TSMC has to do with anything, the point is it's just a small example of how governments are trying to solve the problem. I just feel like saying "government said hey fix this" is undermining all the work and nuance that's actually going on to try to solve some of these supply problems.

Mundosold:

Apple is Niche product? LMAO.

Yes, apple is a niche product company, as they are the only ones allowed to use said processor mentioned and don't have nearly the scale of operation that the entirety of x86 processors have, they don't have the sales volume, etc. Am i saying apple isn't successful? No. If you don't understand how a company only allows itself to make their own hardware for their software and allows no third party companies (example: HP, Dell, etc.) Into the mix means its a niche product on a GLOBAL scale, then i can not help you. Apple does not have the volume, and is on 5nm node, and can't even remotely be compared to any x86 processing companies needs. Apple has 11% of the global phone market = niche, they don't have to take in account of the rest of the 89% manufacturing needs. Apple has 16.5% of the global computer market = niche product, they don't have to take in account for the rest of the 83.5% manufacturing needs. And this doesn't even take into consideration consoles, which would take apples manufacturing needs into the single digits on a global scale. Yet you are here trying to compare apples globally, relatively, factually fraction of the manufacturing needs and saying they are doing better then AMD.... Please, show me where Apple needs anywhere near the volume that intel or amd or nvidia need, all three of these companies are having shortages even with Intel having their own fabs and nvidia using samsung fabs. Please show me where your brilliant idea is coming from.