The Birth of Semiconductor 2.0
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to several articles in the press, an Austrian company has opened a new chip printing factory. But there is a twist. The chips produced by this factory, dubbed Semiconductor 2.0 by the company, will be organic semiconductors, and will be produced by inkjet printers. According to the company, the new factory will be able to produce 40,000 square meters of semiconductors per year, mainly for the biotech, clean tech, and defense industries."
The feature size (10-100 micrometres) is 100-2000 times what you'll get from a modern silicon fab plant (50-100 nanometres). Call it 1000 times for the sake of argument. So for every organic transistor you could instead have 1,000,000 in silicon. It's not exactly going to be a revolution in processing power. (In fact it puts us back in the early 60s).
The market is apparently cheap, disposable logic. From the sound of it, the fab plants are about 100 times cheaper for the same chip-area/year output. That means each transistor will be up to 10,000 times more expensive; it's going to have to be very simple logic to be cost-effective.
The process sounds like it could be well suited to doing small runs, so I suppose that's something.
Ah well. I will go on record as saying that this is not hugely exciting. When in 50 years' time organic semiconductors have taken over you can all mock me as appropriate :)
2.0 is so 1.0 these days, isn't it time to move on to 3.0 yet?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...that you can wear!!!
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Have you ever been to a "developing" nation? Many of them are "starting" way before "1963". The technological revolution in Europe and the West came after most of the residents of those regions were reasonably well-fed, healthy, had some plumbing, indoor refrigeration for food, etc. That is not the case in much of the "developing" world. I was in Tanzania a few years ago, and traveled through some of the countries along the Western coast of Southern Africa a few years before that. I've been to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and have seen much of Central America. They wish they had 1963 technology in many of those places.
It's not about the level of technology, it's about how widespread it is among the population. Believe me when I tell you that just because the friends of the Prime Minister all have Mercedes, iPods, satellite phones and Playstations does not mean that their country has technology.
And just because the gluttonous creeps who run global corporations decide to set up factories or call centers or even code farms CERTAINLY doesn't mean that those countries have any technology. It just means that there's someone so despicable that they'd suck what little wealth is in those countries for themselves and their shareholders while taking advantage of the fact that the life expectancy is 49 so they won't have to worry about paying retirement benefits.
I wish I could write vividly enough to express how disgusting the exploitation of the "developing world" by global corporations is and how badly it's misusing the people in those places. And remember, once they can drive down the middle class here in the US so that Americans will accept those wages, they'll deign to come back here, but only after we promise never to utter the word "union" or "collective bargaining" again.
Strangely, what computers are in those countries mostly seem to be running Windows. Hmmm.
You are welcome on my lawn.