TSMC already dethroned Intel in fab capacity. TSMC is now in the process of dethroning Intel in transistor density, and after that comes dethroning Intel in clock frequency.
dominance of TSMC's business model is inevitable and probably being driven by the industry's fall off of the Moore's Law curve
Mostly driven by the mobile ARM market eclipsing the x86 PC market. But flattening of Moore's law is certainly a contributor, it means everybody is working with exactly the same fab equipment, it all comes from the same place.
It seems that the modest 10% difference was enough to do Intel in, because they were right up against the limit of what deep UV can do. TSMC was a bit more conservative and that saved the day. I think. Because we don't really know yet that TSMC 7nm actually did ramp up successfully. Apple supposedly has weak sales for Iphone XS, but is it really because customers don't want it, or is it that Apple can't produce it?
I'm not even going to count the pathetic i3 they trotted out and relegated to the bottom end of the Chinese market.
I don't think they even make it any more, they never did manage to get the defect density to a commercially viable level. I think they essentially just bulldozed that fab line and went back to square one.
Obviously these are not comparable companies. We're comparing the efficiency of a vertically and horizontally integrated manufacturing models.
TSMC has proved that sticking to your knitting is a more efficient business model than Intel's vertical integration. In the past it was always Intel's Wintel-fueled R&D budget that kept it one process node ahead, but the ARM wave gave TSMC a comparable budget and they focused it more efficiently. With TSMC now a business of comparable size and growing faster, there is little hope of Intel ever getting the lead back. Eventually Intel is just going to have to face reality and divest its fabs like AMD.
What a great video. My niggles: 1) dirt on the lens. Surely with all our science? 2) Iris takes too long to open when crossing into night. I was surprised how fast the orbit precesses, had to look up how that works (it's because Earth isn't a sphere.) The lightning flashes over the Pacific are super cool.
Apple has something like 30% market share in smartphones. In what universe is that a monopoly.?
Wrong question. The correct question is, did Apple break federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to overpay.
Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones?
This lawsuit is about "breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications." So, exactly which alternative I-phone did you have in mind?
The Sherman act doesn't care. The question is whether Apple has monopolized, attempted to monopolize or conspired to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Case law goes on to define a coercive monopoly as "a firm that is able to raise prices, and make production decisions, without risk of competition arising to draw away their customers." Sounds like Apple? You betcha.
antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly
Right. Let's go straight to the source. The Sherman defines "every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" as a criminal needing punishment. In fact, that's almost the entire thing. Very short, very broad. (Of course it's backed up by a huge body of case law.)
Nothing about monopolies there, it's about monopolists and what they do or attempt to do. The usual mob of deniers ought to keep that in mind, instead of wanking on about what is and is not a monopoly.
I don't blame the UK Parliament for unusual conduct in doing this considering the bullshit Facebook has pulled already with the EU. Facebook is telling everyone to trust them and when everything goes to shit they claim it's all fixed now when it's clearly not.
This is compounded by Zuckerberg assigning a powerless peon to tell the lies in his place and flipping off the committee's request for personal testimony. It's hard to see how this doesn't escalate. Zuckerberg seems to think that the nations in which Facebook does business have no power over foreign corporations. He is likely to be disabused of that fiction. He may be correct in thinking that the UK parliament has no legal power to compel the testimony of a foreign national outside UK territory, but there are other ways.
Probable cause isn't the correct legal standard here because that is an element of criminal law. Annoyingly, the new reports don't say anything more than "rarely used power", but what exactly is that power? Something about select committees and contempt, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Comdex died when it basically just became the Microsoft show. Not exactly buzzing with excitement.
the cost of building a single fab doubles with each process generation
That really needs a law, named after somebody.
But does anyone see AWS or Boeing approaching TSMC to produce custom CPUs tailored for specific workloads?
Yes, Amazon's Graviton for one.
TSMC is about to dethrone Intel ... how?
TSMC already dethroned Intel in fab capacity. TSMC is now in the process of dethroning Intel in transistor density, and after that comes dethroning Intel in clock frequency.
dominance of TSMC's business model is inevitable and probably being driven by the industry's fall off of the Moore's Law curve
Mostly driven by the mobile ARM market eclipsing the x86 PC market. But flattening of Moore's law is certainly a contributor, it means everybody is working with exactly the same fab equipment, it all comes from the same place.
Intel was/is very good at it.
Not as good as a company that entirely specializes in it.
It seems that the modest 10% difference was enough to do Intel in, because they were right up against the limit of what deep UV can do. TSMC was a bit more conservative and that saved the day. I think. Because we don't really know yet that TSMC 7nm actually did ramp up successfully. Apple supposedly has weak sales for Iphone XS, but is it really because customers don't want it, or is it that Apple can't produce it?
I'm not even going to count the pathetic i3 they trotted out and relegated to the bottom end of the Chinese market.
I don't think they even make it any more, they never did manage to get the defect density to a commercially viable level. I think they essentially just bulldozed that fab line and went back to square one.
Obviously these are not comparable companies. We're comparing the efficiency of a vertically and horizontally integrated manufacturing models.
TSMC has proved that sticking to your knitting is a more efficient business model than Intel's vertical integration. In the past it was always Intel's Wintel-fueled R&D budget that kept it one process node ahead, but the ARM wave gave TSMC a comparable budget and they focused it more efficiently. With TSMC now a business of comparable size and growing faster, there is little hope of Intel ever getting the lead back. Eventually Intel is just going to have to face reality and divest its fabs like AMD.
Right, duh.
Hmm, make that dust on the sensor.
What a great video. My niggles: 1) dirt on the lens. Surely with all our science? 2) Iris takes too long to open when crossing into night. I was surprised how fast the orbit precesses, had to look up how that works (it's because Earth isn't a sphere.) The lightning flashes over the Pacific are super cool.
Time for a spacewalk, and clean the lens.
Apple has something like 30% market share in smartphones. In what universe is that a monopoly.?
Wrong question. The correct question is, did Apple break federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to overpay.
Well, did they?
Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones?
This lawsuit is about "breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications." So, exactly which alternative I-phone did you have in mind?
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores.
Whataboutism is not a defence.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly.
The Sherman act doesn't care. The question is whether Apple has monopolized, attempted to monopolize or conspired to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Case law goes on to define a coercive monopoly as "a firm that is able to raise prices, and make production decisions, without risk of competition arising to draw away their customers." Sounds like Apple? You betcha.
antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly
Right. Let's go straight to the source. The Sherman defines "every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" as a criminal needing punishment. In fact, that's almost the entire thing. Very short, very broad. (Of course it's backed up by a huge body of case law.)
Nothing about monopolies there, it's about monopolists and what they do or attempt to do. The usual mob of deniers ought to keep that in mind, instead of wanking on about what is and is not a monopoly.
Apple does not control consumers
Antitrust law does not concern itself with whether consumers are controlled, but rather, markets.
I don't blame the UK Parliament for unusual conduct in doing this considering the bullshit Facebook has pulled already with the EU. Facebook is telling everyone to trust them and when everything goes to shit they claim it's all fixed now when it's clearly not.
This is compounded by Zuckerberg assigning a powerless peon to tell the lies in his place and flipping off the committee's request for personal testimony. It's hard to see how this doesn't escalate. Zuckerberg seems to think that the nations in which Facebook does business have no power over foreign corporations. He is likely to be disabused of that fiction. He may be correct in thinking that the UK parliament has no legal power to compel the testimony of a foreign national outside UK territory, but there are other ways.
You are self-mocking.
Probable cause isn't the correct legal standard here because that is an element of criminal law. Annoyingly, the new reports don't say anything more than "rarely used power", but what exactly is that power? Something about select committees and contempt, I think.
Do you need it explained to you in simple terms, what a point of order is?
Let's see how that works out.
The post you replied to was making a point about why the American Revolution was needed
Let me get this clear, you hope that Facebook subscribers will rise up in revolution against the nations?
Oh, I see that one Facebook employee with mod points did rise up.