Add title in index pages, add reference in story

[gofetch.git] / test / expected / SLASHDOT / 0102636958

         COMPUTER CHIPS ARE STILL 'MADE IN USA' (AXIOS.COM)        \r
\r
  Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)\r
  from the how-about-that dept.\r
\r
  o Reference: 0102636958\r
  o News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1558206/computer-chips-are-still-made-in-usa\r
  o Source link: https://www.axios.com/computer-chips-manufacturing-america--10dcfe13-64f3-4ea9-ad4a-cb189a00429a.html\r
\r
\r
    For  all  the wishful thinking about manufacturing more laptops\r
    and   iPhones  in  the  U.S.,  there  is  one  sector  of  tech\r
    manufacturing  where  America remains a leader: computer chips.\r
    From  a  report:  Some  $44 billion worth of semiconductors are\r
    exported  from the U.S. each year, making them America's fourth\r
    leading  manufacturing export after cars, airplanes and refined\r
    oil.  There  are roughly 80 wafer fabrication plants (aka fabs)\r
    in  the  U.S.,  spread  across 19 states. [...] An even greater\r
    share  of  the world's computer chips are designed domestically\r
    and  made  overseas  by  companies  including  Qualcomm, Apple,\r
    Broadcom  and  Nvidia.  A bunch of the high-tech gear needed to\r
    produce chips is also designed and/or made in the U.S.\r
\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by bobbied ( 2522392 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Why?\r
        Politics of course..\r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:2)\r
           (by Alwin Barni ( 5107629 ))\r
\r
           \r
           > Why?\r
           > Politics of course..\r
           Could you please expand?\r
\r
           ** Re:Why is it "wishful thinking"? (Score:5, Funny)\r
              (by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ))\r
\r
              \r
              >> Why?\r
              >> Politics of course..\r
              > Could you please expand?\r
              P o l i t i c s o f c o u r s e.\r
\r
              ** Re: (Score:2, Funny)\r
                 (by Anonymous Coward)\r
\r
                 \r
                 >>> Why?\r
                 >>> Politics of course..\r
                 >> Could you please expand?\r
                 > \r
                 > P o l i t i c s o f c o u r s e.\r
                 > \r
                 I'm not sure if I should laugh, or hunt you down and\r
                 smack you upside your head with a 2x4.\r
\r
                 ** Re: (Score:3)\r
                    (by Highdude702 ( 4456913 ))\r
\r
                    \r
                    I mean, I thought it was hilarious, and it wasn't\r
                    the name calling garbage you see here too often.\r
\r
\r
\r
              ** Re: (Score:2)\r
                 (by Alwin Barni ( 5107629 ))\r
\r
                 \r
                 :-)\r
                 However:\r
                 expand ikspand/\r
                 verb\r
                 verb: expand; 3rd person present: expands; past\r
                 tense: expanded; past participle: expanded; gerund\r
                 or present participle: expanding\r
                 * become or make larger or more extensive\r
                 * give a fuller version or account of.\r
\r
                 ** Re: (Score:2)\r
                    (by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ))\r
\r
                    \r
                    > :-)\r
                    > However: expand - verb  ...\r
                    > (1) become or make larger or more extensive\r
                    > (2) give a fuller version or account of.\r
                    Yup, I know; I was married to an English teacher\r
                    for 20 years, but using the first definition was\r
                    funnier.  :-)\r
                    [1]Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]\r
                    \r
                    \r
                    \r
                    \r
                    [1] http://remembersue.tumblr.com/\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: Why is it "wishful thinking"? (Score:1)\r
        (by Anonymous Coward)\r
\r
        \r
        The only reason is automation. Jobs were never going to come\r
        back from chip manufacturing.\r
        They have a factory crew for setting up the parts and feeding\r
        the machines. Pretty cheap, doesn't actually make much money\r
        for anyone but the corporation running it. It's all\r
        "unskilled" and low pay...setting up all those machines,\r
        getting material dimensions in spec and running the machine\r
        is just considered general labor.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:3)\r
        (by YuppieScum ( 1096 ))\r
\r
        \r
        > If the US leads in chip manufacture, why can't it be\r
        > competitive in putting the pieces together?\r
        Because most of the CPU silicon used in the commonest devices\r
        - phones and laptops - is fabbed in Asia.\r
        \r
        Because most of the parts - like screens, RAM and flash\r
        storage - are also made in Asia, so it's cheaper to bolt it\r
        all together in a location closest to the source of the most\r
        parts.\r
        \r
        Because final assembly of something like an iPhone is a\r
        manual process that requires the dexterity of nimble fingers.\r
        It's not quite the same as bolting doors onto a Chevvy.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Because it hardly has any of the pieces right now - it would\r
        be a massive effort to put all the supply chains in place for\r
        the various electronics components needed for a whole\r
        computer when the US currently makes little more than chips.\r
        Currently those supply chains are in Asia (which also has the\r
        advantages of cheap labor and lax environmental laws). I'd\r
        compare it to going from just making engine blocks to making\r
        a whole car, but that underplays the difficulty too much.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Re "why can't it be competitive in putting the pieces\r
        together?"\r
        Think back to the 1970 and 1980's when the CPU thing needed\r
        new production lines and was no longer low yield skilled lab\r
        work.\r
        Non first world nations part pay their workers in food,\r
        dormitories. Their introduction to work is free as its part\r
        of the nations free "education".\r
        Tax reductions and industrial export support then further\r
        supports the electronics brand in the poor nation.\r
        No unions. Lots of pollution.\r
        \r
        The big brands moved to ver\r
\r
\r
  ** But for how long? (Score:2)\r
     (by DMJC ( 682799 ))\r
\r
     \r
     Sure they still do, but China is beginning to manufacture X86\r
     CPUs directly. It's only a matter of time until they catch up\r
     and crush Intel and AMD through undercutting, and throwing money\r
     at the problem. [1]https://www.tomshardware.com/n...\r
     [tomshardware.com]\r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     [1]\r
     https://www.tomshardware.com/news/china-zen-x86-processor-dryhan-\r
     a,37417.html\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by Dallas May ( 4891515 ))\r
\r
        \r
        In the long run, yes. Probably not really soon. There are\r
        plenty of significant advances happening that space right\r
        now. They might market to the far low end PCs, but they\r
        aren't the market AMD and Intel really want anyway.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by jon3k ( 691256 ))\r
\r
        \r
        By then (10-20 years, if they're lucky) the desktop will be\r
        commoditized and mobile (ie laptops) mostly replaced with\r
        ARM. All the growth is in the server market and China is a\r
        long, long way from producing an X86 CPU that can compete\r
        with Intel Xeons. Who knows what the landscape will look like\r
        by then.\r
\r
        ** Re: But for how long? (Score:2)\r
           (by adolf ( 21054 ))\r
\r
           \r
           This will also be the year of Linux on the desktop!\r
\r
           ** Re: (Score:2)\r
              (by tsa ( 15680 ))\r
\r
              \r
              Yeah, paradise is near!\r
\r
              ** Re: (Score:2)\r
                 (by adolf ( 21054 ))\r
\r
                 \r
                 We're on the home stretch, boys!\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r
\r
        \r
        As long as the NRO needs hand crafted space CPU products.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by CaffeinatedBacon ( 5363221 ))\r
\r
        \r
        But who will people trust to make their CPU's. Intel with\r
        their "management engine" and AMD etc all with the same is\r
        already freaking enough people out.\r
        Who is going to want a Chinese CPU with who knows what\r
        running on it that you will never be able to see, has access\r
        to everything, and can do anything it wants to "your\r
        computer" and "your data".\r
        Most countries would probably just ban them like they are\r
        [1]doing for 5G telecom equipment already.  [nytimes.com]\r
        \r
        \r
        \r
        \r
        [1]\r
        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/technology/huawei-banned-a-\r
        ustralia-5g.html\r
\r
\r
  ** Yeah, but . . . (Score:5, Interesting)\r
     (by dtmos ( 447842 ) *)\r
\r
     \r
     . . . computer chips with state-of-the-art lithography soon all\r
     will be manufactured overseas. Specifically, they will be made\r
     by exactly two companies, [1]Samsung [samsungfoundry.com] and\r
     [2]TSMC [tsmc.com], with GlobalFoundries' recent announcement\r
     that it is [3]stopping development of its 7nm process\r
     [anandtech.com]. GF operated the old IBM facility in Fishkill,\r
     NY, and AFAIK was the last company offering state-of-the-art\r
     foundry services with a fab in the US.\r
     Intel is still in business, of course, and even has a [4]foundry\r
     business [intel.com], but it cannot seem to successfully operate\r
     it -- substantially all of its wafer starts are chips of its own\r
     design. With the capital cost of each new-generation fab\r
     reaching $20 billion, it's only a matter of time until Intel --\r
     which has only its internal product base of chip designs to fill\r
     its fabs, while Samsung and TSMC make chips for the entire\r
     industry -- can no longer afford the move to the next\r
     generation.\r
     If the rest of the semiconductor industry (or the US DoD) wants\r
     high-performance computer chips, there's now nowhere to go\r
     except Samsung and TSMC. It will be interesting to see what\r
     politicians do when they realize that the best digital chips can\r
     no longer be manufactured in the US. The choice seems to be\r
     either (1) have our economy -- everything from cell phones to\r
     missiles -- dependent on chips manufactured overseas, or (2)\r
     subsidize Intel's foundry business and the semiconductor\r
     equipment manufacturers to the tune of tens of $billions, just\r
     to keep a US source of high-performance semiconductors.\r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     [1] https://www.samsungfoundry.com/foundry/homepage.do\r
     [2] http://www.tsmc.com/english/default.htm\r
     [3]\r
     https://www.anandtech.com/show/13277/globalfoundries-stops-all-7-\r
     nm-development\r
     [4] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.html\r
\r
     ** \r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:3)\r
           (by Dallas May ( 4891515 ))\r
\r
           \r
           The same reason they haven't produced a car yet. They\r
           could, but they don't want to. They have good deals with\r
           their current suppliers, so why make that investment?\r
\r
           ** The normal Transition of economies (Score:2)\r
              (by aberglas ( 991072 ))\r
\r
              \r
              1. Primary production\r
              2. Manufacturing\r
              3. Services\r
              Services will keep things going fine. Lawyers, tax\r
              accountants, retail and beauty consultants. That is\r
              where the growth will come from.\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** \r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:2)\r
           (by nateman1352 ( 971364 ))\r
\r
           \r
           TI doesn't have state-of-the-art lithography for digital.\r
           They gave up on the Moore's Law race 10 years ago after\r
           they reached 45nm. TI realized during the development of\r
           WinRT that building CPUs requires very expensive fabs and\r
           if you are not an x86 supplier then your only option is to\r
           make ARM chips, which is a race to the bottom with very\r
           thin margins. TI realized they can make more money\r
           building mixed signal designs on older process.\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** Re:Yeah, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)\r
        (by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) *)\r
\r
        \r
        State of the art lithography is not a synonym for\r
        high-performance computer chips. In fact for a lot of uses,\r
        DoD included, state of the art lithography is nowhere in the\r
        requirements. Hardened chips on robust/insulated substrates\r
        is more important in many uses than smaller die traces.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by KalvinB ( 205500 ))\r
\r
        \r
        They'll be subsidized under issues of national security if\r
        they're really needed by the government. The government\r
        generally doesn't run bleeding edge technology so the chips\r
        that can be produced in the US will be plenty sufficient for\r
        government needs. If the government ever needs a $20 billion\r
        plant, they'll cut a check under the national defense budget.\r
        We've been comfortable with foreign made chips for decades in\r
        the consumer market. Unless there is a severe national\r
        security issue that won't change.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by nateman1352 ( 971364 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Intel has the same fundamental problem with foundry that AMD\r
        had 10 years ago. Every 3rd party company does not trust\r
        Intel to prioritize their products over Intel's own products.\r
        Intel will always build their own products on the latest\r
        process node first. If you fab with Intel then your wafers\r
        will always get 2nd priority over Intel's own wafers. The\r
        only way that is not the case is if you are such a huge\r
        customer that your contract requires Intel to construct an\r
        entire new factory just for you. Then you h\r
\r
\r
  ** Poor writing in TFA (Score:5, Informative)\r
     (by whoever57 ( 658626 ))\r
\r
     \r
     "An even greater share of the world's computer chips are\r
     designed domestically and made overseas by companies including\r
     Qualcomm, Apple, Broadcom and Nvidia."\r
     This reads as though Qualcomm, Apple, Broadcom and Nvidia are\r
     making chips. What would be clear and accurate is:\r
     "An even greater share of the world's computer chips are\r
     designed domestically by companies including Qualcomm, Apple,\r
     Broadcom and Nvidia and made overseas."\r
\r
     ** Still somewhat misleading... (Score:4, Informative)\r
        (by YuppieScum ( 1096 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Don't forget, a hefty chunk of Qualcomm's - and pretty much\r
        all of Apple's - designs are not original, but instead are\r
        based on IP from ARM, a British company (although recently\r
        bought out by SoftBank).\r
        \r
        In fact, Broadcom and Nvidia are also licencees of ARM IP as\r
        well, but less of their overall product range derives from\r
        it.\r
\r
\r
  ** Are you sure? (Score:3, Interesting)\r
     (by Gabest ( 852807 ))\r
\r
     \r
     TSMC and Samsung are the leaders in chip making. And second\r
     class Intel and AMD both have shady Middle-East ties from Israel\r
     and Dubai.\r
\r
  ** 13% market share is not good (Score:4, Interesting)\r
     (by Goldsmith ( 561202 ))\r
\r
     \r
     This is a crazy article. At the end, it meekly points out that\r
     the US has a 13% market share in chip production. Given that the\r
     US started this industry, leads in design in this space, leads\r
     in capital available for high tech industry, and that the US\r
     accounts for 15% to 18% of global GDP, a 13% market share in\r
     chip production is very poor performance. This is below what you\r
     might expect for a simple commodity that depends only on\r
     domestic market size and way below what you'd expect for this\r
     industry.\r
\r
\r