The greed, anger and ignorance of the US chip bill
As both Trump and Biden once again become candidates for the 2024 presidential election, this year's U.S. election seems to be "full of surprises" once again. In preparation for this year's election, the Biden administration has made numerous moves. Amidst the game, the chip industry has also been deeply affected. On March 20th, U.S. President Biden announced that the U.S. Department of Commerce had reached a preliminary agreement with Intel Corporation. Intel's computer chip factories in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon will receive a subsidy of $19.5 billion, including $8.5 billion in direct funding and $11 billion in loans. According to the statement released by the White House that day and Biden's speech, this funding will be allocated through the CHIPS and Science Act.
The United States is the birthplace of the semiconductor industry, but after decades of evolution, the global semiconductor market has formed a highly market-oriented and internationalized pattern. These two characteristics could originally make the semiconductor industry stronger and stronger. However, starting from 2021, the United States explicitly hoped to strengthen the strength of the domestic semiconductor industry. The U.S. Senate passed the Innovation and Competition Act on June 9, 2021, aiming to boost the United States' high-tech research and manufacturing capabilities to compete with China and other competitors. On this basis, U.S. President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the "CHIPS Act") on August 9, 2022, formulating larger-scale funding and broader coverage support policies for the U.S. chip industry.
Advertisement
The introduction and implementation of the CHIPS Act have disrupted the chip market order based on the global industrial cycle, and China and other countries are all making extra efforts to counter the impact of the Act, which has become a proposition of the times.
01
Industry Chain Breakage, CHIPS Act Greed, Anger, and Delusion Exposed
Before discussing a series of U.S. operations, let's first take a simple look at the distribution of the global semiconductor market. In fact, the U.S. semiconductor industry is not lagging behind. (It's like Chen Guilin is not on the list, but he can't accept that he is ranked third.)
A report released by the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) shows that in the EDA and Intellectual Property (IP) fields, the U.S. market share in 2021 was as high as 72%; in the upstream chip design segment of the semiconductor industry chain, the U.S. market share in logic and discrete devices, analog devices, and other categories of devices was 67% and 37%, respectively. In short, the United States is leading in the semiconductor industry.
The characteristic of the U.S. economy is the high labor cost, so U.S. chip manufacturing companies choose to place production lines outside the country. Data shows that the share of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry in the world has decreased from 37% in 1990 to 12% in 2020.
The "early bird" United States chooses to keep the more technologically demanding segments of the chip industry in the United States, which has given other countries and regions the opportunity to develop chip industries that fit their own characteristics. Southeast Asia focuses on the development of chip foundry and packaging industries. In the chip foundry field, China, South Korea, and Japan occupy the main market share in wafer manufacturing, with market shares of 40% (Taiwan area 19%), 17%, and 16% in 2021, respectively; in the chip packaging and testing field, China occupies the main market share in chip packaging and testing, with China accounting for 57% of the global chip packaging and testing market in 2021 (Taiwan area's global market share is 19%).Facing such a "new world," the United States has embarked on a series of operations characterized by "greed, anger, and delusion."
"Greed" in the CHIPS Act
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has called on the U.S. federal government to implement more robust incentives to encourage the production of chips within the United States. Relocating the chip manufacturing industry can not only complete the U.S. chip industry chain but also ensure the security of the U.S. chip supply chain. By producing chips domestically, the U.S. can also reduce its dependence on external supply chains, thereby lowering supply chain risks.
The United States aspires to have all advanced manufacturing processes concentrated within its borders.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo stated that the Biden administration's goal is to make the United States the leading manufacturer of the most advanced semiconductor chips by 2030, in order to compete in the global market, enhance national security, and create more job opportunities. However, to date, the U.S. Department of Commerce has only issued four funding announcements under the 2022 law.
The Department of Commerce emphasizes that it does not wish to provide any company with a penny more than necessary. The agency has only $39 billion in grant funds to establish a portfolio of projects that cover large-scale manufacturing, small supply chain efforts, and commercial research and development. However, the U.S. media has indicated that the money promised by the CHIPS Act is a drop in the ocean for the entire chip industry. Advanced process chip manufacturers alone are demanding more than double the funds set aside for them. Over 600 companies have expressed interest in federal grants. The U.S. Department of Commerce also has a loan and guarantee pool worth $75 billion, but not all of these companies are interested in this financing.
The U.S. government system is such that when departments propose policies, they need to balance too many factors, leading most companies to believe that the conditions attached to their funding are rather stringent, making it preferable to do less rather than more.
Having it all, this is the greed of the CHIPS Act.
"Anger" in the CHIPS Act
After China's economic development, the United States has regarded China as a challenge, with trade frictions intensifying. In 2011, the Obama administration implemented the "Asia-Pacific Rebalance Strategy," considering China as the most important strategic competitor; in 2018, the Trump administration adopted unilateral containment tariff policies against China; and the Biden administration has explicitly labeled China as the "number one competitor."
(Note: The translation provided above is a direct translation of the original text without any additional commentary or interpretation.)The traction of market demand and open and inclusive policies have led to rapid development in China's semiconductor industry. China is accelerating its movement towards the high-end value positions in the chip manufacturing industry chain, but such changes have intensified the sense of crisis in the United States. The CHIPS Act stipulates that semiconductor companies receiving U.S. government funding are prohibited from expanding or establishing new advanced semiconductor industry investments in China and other "countries of concern" over the next 10 years, otherwise, all funding will be revoked. The U.S. also requires that restrictions on the sale of semiconductor production equipment, originally limited to cutting-edge products, be expanded to include some mid-to-high-end products, and will also cover chemical materials required for semiconductor manufacturing. U.S. media previously reported that due to recent progress by China in developing its domestic chip capabilities, the U.S. hopes to "patch up the loopholes in export control measures over the past two years."
Despite a sufficient reserve of chip design talent in the U.S., the country has lost its dominant position in the field of chip manufacturing for a considerable period. Coupled with the continuous rise in operational costs such as labor, U.S. semiconductor manufacturing companies are facing increasingly fierce competitive pressures. In order to maintain a lead, the U.S. is forcibly promoting "Made in America," coercing and enticing chip companies from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to open factories in the U.S. According to SIA forecasts, the cost of building and operating a semiconductor factory in the U.S. over 10 years will be 30% higher compared to regions such as Taiwan, South Korea, or Singapore; and this cost gap is as high as 50% when compared to Mainland China. Although the CHIPS Act provides government subsidies for semiconductor companies, the amount of these subsidies allocated to each company is negligible compared to the operational costs of setting up factories in the U.S., making it difficult to bring long-term and stable competitive advantages to enterprises.
Resentment implies complaints and blame. Ignoring market laws, plotting a common enemy, and leading people to turn against each other is "resentment."
The "Folly" of the CHIPS Act
The U.S. government plans to provide $52.7 billion in subsidies for the development of the chip industry over five years, with $50 billion allocated to chip manufacturing, research and development, and workforce development, and the remainder for workforce and education, defense, and international technology security and innovation. At the same time, the U.S. has established tax credit policies for investments in the semiconductor industry, with a tax reduction of 25%, including equipment manufacturing, construction of semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and manufacturing of specialized tooling equipment required for the semiconductor manufacturing process. The U.S. government has authorized the National Science Foundation, the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy to add over $200 billion in funding for science and technology research and development over the next five years, expanding the scope of funding to the entire high-tech sector. Secretary Raymundo stated that chip companies have requested approximately $70 billion in federal funds. These companies include Intel, TSMC, and Samsung Electronics. However, she also emphasized that funds are limited and must first meet national security objectives.
Thus, the U.S. chip act not only brings a global market resource competition but also has a negative impact on the domestic U.S. market. U.S. chip companies, in their scramble for limited resources, have begun to "attack" each other; "chaos" accompanies the competition.
Not long ago, the U.S. Department of Defense canceled a chip subsidy plan for Intel worth up to $2.5 billion, leaving the responsibility to fill the gap to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Defense funds, signed into law by the President, allocated $3.5 billion for Intel to produce advanced defense and intelligence-related semiconductor products. The Department of Commerce, responsible for paying the CHIPS Act funds, had previously only covered $1 billion of the cost. The Pentagon initially promised to pay the remaining costs but canceled the plan a few days before the government funding deadline. Legislators then directed the Department of Commerce to use other funds from the CHIPS Act to make up the balance.
Meanwhile, GlobalFoundries lobbied against Intel's defense clause. Some lawmakers also believe that relying solely on Intel to manufacture cutting-edge chips is risky. GlobalFoundries stated in a declaration that it does not believe Intel's product strategy is the correct solution. The announcement by the White House on March 20 to subsidize Intel may be just a short-term result of the tug-of-war under the large "cake" of the CHIPS Act.
For non-U.S. companies looking to taste the sweetness of the CHIPS Act, life is even more difficult. Arizona is one of the destinations for the "reflow" of the U.S. chip industry and is also a key political battleground for the 2024 presidential election. It is also the location of TSMC's leading U.S. chip foundry factory. However, TSMC is not as smooth as imagined. In the U.S., TSMC lacks skilled workers capable of installing the most advanced equipment, thus delaying the production of the first factory to 2025. This led to a months-long dispute with local unions, culminating in a formal labor agreement in December 2023. Subsequently, TSMC announced that the production of the second factory would be delayed by two years and stated that the technological level of their U.S. factories would depend on the extent of subsidies they receive from the U.S. government.
In the meantime, TSMC's rival Intel is negotiating for over $10 billion in federal incentives, including grants and loans. Micron is also planning to build a new factory and will construct four factories in New York State. Since the Department of Commerce prioritizes factories that will start production in the near term, federal government funding will first support the first two factories in New York State, leading Micron to believe that its other two factories in New York will not be operational until 2041.SIA believes that the decline in the share of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry is due to other countries offering more attractive incentive policies to lure investments and development in the chip manufacturing sector. In contrast, the U.S. has significantly lagged in policy measures to incentivize chip manufacturing, leading to a decrease in the competitiveness of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry in the global market. Clearly, such an explanation overlooks the most fundamental reasons, such as the high cost of labor in the U.S. and the basic characteristics of the global economy.
Confused about the principles, or reversing the principles, the cause and effect are muddled. The original intention was to better develop the local semiconductor industry, but it has resulted in more chaotic outcomes. This is the "foolishness" of the U.S. Chip Act.
02
Where to go for the newly created semiconductor market?
It has to be said that a series of actions by the United States have caused changes in the global semiconductor market.
In order to attract major semiconductor manufacturers, especially TSMC, it is no longer news that countries are offering subsidies. Recently, TSMC's first wafer factory in Kumamoto, Japan, has been inaugurated, and the Japanese government has also announced subsidies for the second factory in Kumamoto. Although the policy was announced later than in the United States, why can Japan's progress lead the United States? Some industry insiders analyze that compared to the United States, the Japanese government's subsidies are in place, which can completely make up for the cost difference between the Taiwan region and Japan. (In addition, Japanese people can withstand the work pressure of TSMC, but the American social culture cannot tolerate such an environment.)
The Chinese Academy of Sciences has calculated that the impact of the "2022 CHIPS and Science Act" will reduce China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 0.09-0.71 percentage points (based on China's 2020 GDP). However, in the long run, the market vacuum left by China due to the "2022 CHIPS and Science Act" in the United States will gradually be filled by other chip companies. Some time ago, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft in the United States, also publicly stated, "The United States' ban on selling high-tech products to China is forcing China to manufacture its own chips," and emphasized that "suppression and cutting off chips will not stop the rise of Chinese companies, but will instead force Chinese semiconductor companies to strengthen independent research and development, thereby narrowing the gap with American semiconductor companies."
The East Asian region has an absolute advantage in the scale of semiconductor market consumption. In 2021, the total consumption of semiconductors in the East Asian region was about $386.7 billion, accounting for about 70% of the global semiconductor market. Among them, China, as the world's largest single semiconductor consumer market, had a total semiconductor consumption of about $192.5 billion in 2021, accounting for about 35% of the global semiconductor market.
Imagine facing such data, how will chip companies choose? It can be foreseen that the so-called "cut-off supply" is difficult to sustain. Although the catch-up process still requires some time, it is an inevitable trend.
As the saying goes, "No destruction, no establishment." Faced with change, after going through the dark night, rebirth is sure to come.
As both Trump and Biden once again become candidates for the 2024 presidential election, this year's U.S. election seems to be "full of surprises" once again. In preparation for this year's election, the Biden administration has made numerous moves. Amidst the game, the chip industry has also been deeply affected. On March 20th, U.S. President Biden announced that the U.S. Department of Commerce had reached a preliminary agreement with Intel Corporation. Intel's computer chip factories in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon will receive a subsidy of $19.5 billion, including $8.5 billion in direct funding and $11 billion in loans. According to the statement released by the White House that day and Biden's speech, this funding will be allocated through the CHIPS and Science Act.
The United States is the birthplace of the semiconductor industry, but after decades of evolution, the global semiconductor market has formed a highly market-oriented and internationalized pattern. These two characteristics could originally make the semiconductor industry stronger and stronger. However, starting from 2021, the United States explicitly hoped to strengthen the strength of the domestic semiconductor industry. The U.S. Senate passed the Innovation and Competition Act on June 9, 2021, aiming to boost the United States' high-tech research and manufacturing capabilities to compete with China and other competitors. On this basis, U.S. President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the "CHIPS Act") on August 9, 2022, formulating larger-scale funding and broader coverage support policies for the U.S. chip industry.
Advertisement
The introduction and implementation of the CHIPS Act have disrupted the chip market order based on the global industrial cycle, and China and other countries are all making extra efforts to counter the impact of the Act, which has become a proposition of the times.
01
Industry Chain Breakage, CHIPS Act Greed, Anger, and Delusion Exposed
Before discussing a series of U.S. operations, let's first take a simple look at the distribution of the global semiconductor market. In fact, the U.S. semiconductor industry is not lagging behind. (It's like Chen Guilin is not on the list, but he can't accept that he is ranked third.)
A report released by the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) shows that in the EDA and Intellectual Property (IP) fields, the U.S. market share in 2021 was as high as 72%; in the upstream chip design segment of the semiconductor industry chain, the U.S. market share in logic and discrete devices, analog devices, and other categories of devices was 67% and 37%, respectively. In short, the United States is leading in the semiconductor industry.
The characteristic of the U.S. economy is the high labor cost, so U.S. chip manufacturing companies choose to place production lines outside the country. Data shows that the share of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry in the world has decreased from 37% in 1990 to 12% in 2020.
The "early bird" United States chooses to keep the more technologically demanding segments of the chip industry in the United States, which has given other countries and regions the opportunity to develop chip industries that fit their own characteristics. Southeast Asia focuses on the development of chip foundry and packaging industries. In the chip foundry field, China, South Korea, and Japan occupy the main market share in wafer manufacturing, with market shares of 40% (Taiwan area 19%), 17%, and 16% in 2021, respectively; in the chip packaging and testing field, China occupies the main market share in chip packaging and testing, with China accounting for 57% of the global chip packaging and testing market in 2021 (Taiwan area's global market share is 19%).Facing such a "new world," the United States has embarked on a series of operations characterized by "greed, anger, and delusion."
"Greed" in the CHIPS Act
The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has called on the U.S. federal government to implement more robust incentives to encourage the production of chips within the United States. Relocating the chip manufacturing industry can not only complete the U.S. chip industry chain but also ensure the security of the U.S. chip supply chain. By producing chips domestically, the U.S. can also reduce its dependence on external supply chains, thereby lowering supply chain risks.
The United States aspires to have all advanced manufacturing processes concentrated within its borders.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo stated that the Biden administration's goal is to make the United States the leading manufacturer of the most advanced semiconductor chips by 2030, in order to compete in the global market, enhance national security, and create more job opportunities. However, to date, the U.S. Department of Commerce has only issued four funding announcements under the 2022 law.
The Department of Commerce emphasizes that it does not wish to provide any company with a penny more than necessary. The agency has only $39 billion in grant funds to establish a portfolio of projects that cover large-scale manufacturing, small supply chain efforts, and commercial research and development. However, the U.S. media has indicated that the money promised by the CHIPS Act is a drop in the ocean for the entire chip industry. Advanced process chip manufacturers alone are demanding more than double the funds set aside for them. Over 600 companies have expressed interest in federal grants. The U.S. Department of Commerce also has a loan and guarantee pool worth $75 billion, but not all of these companies are interested in this financing.
The U.S. government system is such that when departments propose policies, they need to balance too many factors, leading most companies to believe that the conditions attached to their funding are rather stringent, making it preferable to do less rather than more.
Having it all, this is the greed of the CHIPS Act.
"Anger" in the CHIPS Act
After China's economic development, the United States has regarded China as a challenge, with trade frictions intensifying. In 2011, the Obama administration implemented the "Asia-Pacific Rebalance Strategy," considering China as the most important strategic competitor; in 2018, the Trump administration adopted unilateral containment tariff policies against China; and the Biden administration has explicitly labeled China as the "number one competitor."
(Note: The translation provided above is a direct translation of the original text without any additional commentary or interpretation.)The traction of market demand and open and inclusive policies have led to rapid development in China's semiconductor industry. China is accelerating its movement towards the high-end value positions in the chip manufacturing industry chain, but such changes have intensified the sense of crisis in the United States. The CHIPS Act stipulates that semiconductor companies receiving U.S. government funding are prohibited from expanding or establishing new advanced semiconductor industry investments in China and other "countries of concern" over the next 10 years, otherwise, all funding will be revoked. The U.S. also requires that restrictions on the sale of semiconductor production equipment, originally limited to cutting-edge products, be expanded to include some mid-to-high-end products, and will also cover chemical materials required for semiconductor manufacturing. U.S. media previously reported that due to recent progress by China in developing its domestic chip capabilities, the U.S. hopes to "patch up the loopholes in export control measures over the past two years."
Despite a sufficient reserve of chip design talent in the U.S., the country has lost its dominant position in the field of chip manufacturing for a considerable period. Coupled with the continuous rise in operational costs such as labor, U.S. semiconductor manufacturing companies are facing increasingly fierce competitive pressures. In order to maintain a lead, the U.S. is forcibly promoting "Made in America," coercing and enticing chip companies from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to open factories in the U.S. According to SIA forecasts, the cost of building and operating a semiconductor factory in the U.S. over 10 years will be 30% higher compared to regions such as Taiwan, South Korea, or Singapore; and this cost gap is as high as 50% when compared to Mainland China. Although the CHIPS Act provides government subsidies for semiconductor companies, the amount of these subsidies allocated to each company is negligible compared to the operational costs of setting up factories in the U.S., making it difficult to bring long-term and stable competitive advantages to enterprises.
Resentment implies complaints and blame. Ignoring market laws, plotting a common enemy, and leading people to turn against each other is "resentment."
The "Folly" of the CHIPS Act
The U.S. government plans to provide $52.7 billion in subsidies for the development of the chip industry over five years, with $50 billion allocated to chip manufacturing, research and development, and workforce development, and the remainder for workforce and education, defense, and international technology security and innovation. At the same time, the U.S. has established tax credit policies for investments in the semiconductor industry, with a tax reduction of 25%, including equipment manufacturing, construction of semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and manufacturing of specialized tooling equipment required for the semiconductor manufacturing process. The U.S. government has authorized the National Science Foundation, the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy to add over $200 billion in funding for science and technology research and development over the next five years, expanding the scope of funding to the entire high-tech sector. Secretary Raymundo stated that chip companies have requested approximately $70 billion in federal funds. These companies include Intel, TSMC, and Samsung Electronics. However, she also emphasized that funds are limited and must first meet national security objectives.
Thus, the U.S. chip act not only brings a global market resource competition but also has a negative impact on the domestic U.S. market. U.S. chip companies, in their scramble for limited resources, have begun to "attack" each other; "chaos" accompanies the competition.
Not long ago, the U.S. Department of Defense canceled a chip subsidy plan for Intel worth up to $2.5 billion, leaving the responsibility to fill the gap to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Defense funds, signed into law by the President, allocated $3.5 billion for Intel to produce advanced defense and intelligence-related semiconductor products. The Department of Commerce, responsible for paying the CHIPS Act funds, had previously only covered $1 billion of the cost. The Pentagon initially promised to pay the remaining costs but canceled the plan a few days before the government funding deadline. Legislators then directed the Department of Commerce to use other funds from the CHIPS Act to make up the balance.
Meanwhile, GlobalFoundries lobbied against Intel's defense clause. Some lawmakers also believe that relying solely on Intel to manufacture cutting-edge chips is risky. GlobalFoundries stated in a declaration that it does not believe Intel's product strategy is the correct solution. The announcement by the White House on March 20 to subsidize Intel may be just a short-term result of the tug-of-war under the large "cake" of the CHIPS Act.
For non-U.S. companies looking to taste the sweetness of the CHIPS Act, life is even more difficult. Arizona is one of the destinations for the "reflow" of the U.S. chip industry and is also a key political battleground for the 2024 presidential election. It is also the location of TSMC's leading U.S. chip foundry factory. However, TSMC is not as smooth as imagined. In the U.S., TSMC lacks skilled workers capable of installing the most advanced equipment, thus delaying the production of the first factory to 2025. This led to a months-long dispute with local unions, culminating in a formal labor agreement in December 2023. Subsequently, TSMC announced that the production of the second factory would be delayed by two years and stated that the technological level of their U.S. factories would depend on the extent of subsidies they receive from the U.S. government.
In the meantime, TSMC's rival Intel is negotiating for over $10 billion in federal incentives, including grants and loans. Micron is also planning to build a new factory and will construct four factories in New York State. Since the Department of Commerce prioritizes factories that will start production in the near term, federal government funding will first support the first two factories in New York State, leading Micron to believe that its other two factories in New York will not be operational until 2041.SIA believes that the decline in the share of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry is due to other countries offering more attractive incentive policies to lure investments and development in the chip manufacturing sector. In contrast, the U.S. has significantly lagged in policy measures to incentivize chip manufacturing, leading to a decrease in the competitiveness of the U.S. chip manufacturing industry in the global market. Clearly, such an explanation overlooks the most fundamental reasons, such as the high cost of labor in the U.S. and the basic characteristics of the global economy.
Confused about the principles, or reversing the principles, the cause and effect are muddled. The original intention was to better develop the local semiconductor industry, but it has resulted in more chaotic outcomes. This is the "foolishness" of the U.S. Chip Act.
02
Where to go for the newly created semiconductor market?
It has to be said that a series of actions by the United States have caused changes in the global semiconductor market.
In order to attract major semiconductor manufacturers, especially TSMC, it is no longer news that countries are offering subsidies. Recently, TSMC's first wafer factory in Kumamoto, Japan, has been inaugurated, and the Japanese government has also announced subsidies for the second factory in Kumamoto. Although the policy was announced later than in the United States, why can Japan's progress lead the United States? Some industry insiders analyze that compared to the United States, the Japanese government's subsidies are in place, which can completely make up for the cost difference between the Taiwan region and Japan. (In addition, Japanese people can withstand the work pressure of TSMC, but the American social culture cannot tolerate such an environment.)
The Chinese Academy of Sciences has calculated that the impact of the "2022 CHIPS and Science Act" will reduce China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 0.09-0.71 percentage points (based on China's 2020 GDP). However, in the long run, the market vacuum left by China due to the "2022 CHIPS and Science Act" in the United States will gradually be filled by other chip companies. Some time ago, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft in the United States, also publicly stated, "The United States' ban on selling high-tech products to China is forcing China to manufacture its own chips," and emphasized that "suppression and cutting off chips will not stop the rise of Chinese companies, but will instead force Chinese semiconductor companies to strengthen independent research and development, thereby narrowing the gap with American semiconductor companies."
The East Asian region has an absolute advantage in the scale of semiconductor market consumption. In 2021, the total consumption of semiconductors in the East Asian region was about $386.7 billion, accounting for about 70% of the global semiconductor market. Among them, China, as the world's largest single semiconductor consumer market, had a total semiconductor consumption of about $192.5 billion in 2021, accounting for about 35% of the global semiconductor market.
Imagine facing such data, how will chip companies choose? It can be foreseen that the so-called "cut-off supply" is difficult to sustain. Although the catch-up process still requires some time, it is an inevitable trend.
As the saying goes, "No destruction, no establishment." Faced with change, after going through the dark night, rebirth is sure to come.