SMIC to the rescue? Huawei shouldn’t hold its breath: experts

[gambit]

The evaluation process for new equipment had already started years ago. AMEC (Shanghai) already had their ICP etch systems verified by TSMC in 2018. If TSMC was evaluating their tools years ago, you can bet that SMIC was too. AMEC isn't some no name company either, they were on the VLSI list of top 10 suppliers.

You know full well that what I posted in this thread and the other are true in principles.

I wonder if you know that for a contract fab, a client may request specific hardware so the contract fab will accommodate, so that mean just because the new hardware is qual-ed for one customer, it does not automatically transferable to another customer. Or that you do know but this another feeble attempt to cover for your ignorant fellow Chinese.

It is over. Just as how I debunked 'Chinese physics' over the J-20, now I debunked you guys over semicon issues. If -- and the odds are getting worse for China -- more and more semicon companies begins to take self protective measures, Huawei foreign business will deteriorate and will require home assistance, and as more and more Chinese companies begin to see the negative impacts on their bottom line, they will return to governmental folds, regressing your China back about 30 yrs.

Am not making predictions here, just presenting to the silent readers out there non-Chinese perspectives -- backed up with experience.

 

[Han Patriot]

You did exactly what predicted and %100 wrong. I posted explanations why it would take at least 12-18 months for any new equipment qualification and it was not disputed.

Here they are...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/excl...al-chip-suppliers.666451/page-6#post-12331330

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/excl...al-chip-suppliers.666451/page-8#post-12333562

Divestiture of established hardware is not as simple as ignorant and non-experience people like you think it is.

When I say 'new', it is not meant to be literally new on the market, never seen before. The word 'new' mean: Never used in production capacity in the company current process before. But I will use a smaller example to primarily inform the silent readers out there and less to educate resistant fools like you.

Take this USED semicon related component selling on ebay...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/93k-Verigy-Probe-Card-Stiffener-12-WPI-E7018LA-/323567626612

If I buy this for my own site and to modify it to suit my own needs, at that time, the tester, or the word 'tool' as some company would say, would be immediately disqualified from Production use. This item stabilizes the probe card against seismic (vibration) influences and secure card planarity during operation. We are dealing with atomic scaling so even footsteps one meter away can knock the probe card out of alignment, losing (failure to test) some dies or even zero yield the entire wafer.

To re-qualify the tester, I would have to first run engineering wafers then normal Production wafers thru the tester. I have to review the data with the Equipment Support Engineer. If no deviations from normal Production wafers are found, the tester is released to Production use. The entire re-qualification process, assuming no major issues are found, will have the tester at least one day out of capacity. In that time, Planning/Shipping will adjust their capacity projections at least 30 days into the future. For one tester, it will be a minor adjustment. If the tester was running DRAM, another tester that was used to run NAND or wafer level reliability (WLR) testing can take its place. One day out of Production use affected 30 days of capacity projection.

Even ONE modification rendered the current tester as figuratively 'NEW' or 'SUSPECT' hardware. Think about that.

The (re)qualification and/or correlation process is completely transparent to the clients. Generally, the clients (plural) will inquire the company as to what involves suspect hardware and the company will say 'We do A, B, C, and so on'. If one client reject, the company can either create a custom process for that client, or create a new process that will affect all clients, or tell that one client that nothing can be done. The company can also do nothing and lie to the clients.

At my company, I designed the Probe hardware qualification/correlation process. The Equipment group can make any modification or bring in any suspect hardware, but the moment they are ready, the suspect hardware falls to me and my group. We keep 10 yrs documentation on everything as to what happened and what was done to be in ISO compliance and we are ISO audited twice per yr.

Just in case you think I made up the 'WLR' bit...

https://www.mpi-corporation.com/ast/applications/wlr/
http://www.lricks.com/wlrt.htm
https://www.tek.com/document/brochure/wafer-level-reliability-systems

At the Production level, anything that can affect wafer yield will require WLR testing. It means: Does that item, hardware or software, affects the die over its projected lifespan? For this particular probe card item, WLR testing is not required. But if the item is an entire tester or a new test program revision, we will take some Production wafers that tested under the new item and run those wafers thru WLR regimes. It means higher amplitude, voltage, and temperatures. We will stress test literally to die structures destruction. If the test data is within statistical parameters, the new item, suspect hardware or software, is released to Production use.

There are three PDF Chinese members who claimed to have semicon experience. Most likely they will remain silent on what I said, or they will make some minor comments but not really make any correction. So if they keep silent, either everything I said is true in principles and that they could not find anything wrong, or they are frauds. We know of at least one fraud among the Chinese supporters who claimed to have 'aviation experience'.

Now here you are telling the world that it is simple for SMIC to switch over to new hardware in the entire fab processes, from wafer start to Probe (my dept)? Without NEGATIVELY affecting their output and their customers demands?

Ultimately, SMIC can do whatever it want to support Huawei, but I will not allow liars and propagandists (like you) to mislead the silent readers out there as to the technical truths and their consequences.

Calm down hero, China can make most tools chemicals and materials except the exposure process. You can laugh cynically, but in the end, we always prove pundits wrong. Most of the time at least. Banning TSMC is already the last card, and the most desperate act to contain Chinese tech. You are only uniting the Chinese, to destroy China, you must make us complacent.

 

[gambit]

Calm down hero,...

Take your own advice. Considering the virtual explosion of positive for China but disinformative threads for the readers about this issue, am not the one in full panic mode. In three posts, I destroyed all of you guys' arguments.

Calm down for you. Hero for me.

 

[Han Patriot]

Take your own advice. Considering the virtual explosion of positive but disinformative threads about this issue, am not the one in full panic mode. In three posts, I destroyed all of you guys' arguments.

Calm down for you. Hero for me.

10 years ago, ppl were laughing when we announced that we are gonna make the best telco tech. Now we are telling you we are gonna make the most advanced semicon equipment, do you believe me?

 

[gambit]

10 years ago, ppl were laughing when we announced that we are gonna make the best telco tech. Now we are telling you we are gonna make the most advanced semicon equipment, do you believe me?

You have not made the best telco tech. All you did was rode the coattails of those who did the R/D. All you did was made the technology cheaper on the labor scale, cheap enough to drive others out of the market, not because China pioneered any new technology. Next, you are going to tell everyone China invented 5G?

Continue laughing like you wish.

And others are laughing as well -- after three posts.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You know full well that what I posted in this thread and the other are true in principles.

I wonder if you know that for a contract fab, a client may request specific hardware so the contract fab will accommodate, so that mean just because the new hardware is qual-ed for one customer, it does not automatically transferable to another customer. Or that you do know but this another feeble attempt to cover for your ignorant fellow Chinese.

It is over. Just as how I debunked 'Chinese physics' over the J-20, now I debunked you guys over semicon issues. If -- and the odds are getting worse for China -- more and more semicon companies begins to take self protective measures, Huawei foreign business will deteriorate and will require home assistance, and as more and more Chinese companies begin to see the negative impacts on their bottom line, they will return to governmental folds, regressing your China back about 30 yrs.

Am not making predictions here, just presenting to the silent readers out there non-Chinese perspectives -- backed up with experience.

I did not contradict the factual part of your statement. You stated that the qualification process is long and expensive. I agreed and provided information that said qualification process began years ago.

You then made a prediction - that Huawei will collapse because nobody will be have qualified non-US equipment ready. I provided further information that the qualification process is already moving along. AMEC is only a single company. News about new qualifications isn't often published.

 

[gambit]

I did not contradict the factual part of your statement. You stated that the qualification process is long and expensive. I agreed and provided information that said qualification process began years ago.

You then made a prediction - that Huawei will collapse because nobody will be have qualified non-US equipment ready. I provided further information that the qualification process is already moving along. AMEC is only a single company.

You omitted the equally important fact that qualification must be accepted by the client or clients. Over time, everyone can agree that Verigy/Advantest are legitimate companies in the business, but that with the demand of due diligence, everyone will demand that any new hardware from them will require the same qualification process. The more complex the step, the more comprehensive the qualification process. Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) is not as complex as vapor depo. So a new CMP hardware will have faster and sooner qualification for more client list than a new depo hardware.

Or did you know it but deliberately omitted it to cover for your ignorant fellow Chinese? Either omission make you intellectually dishonest, but such behavior is to be expected among the PDF Chinese.

News about new qualifications isn't often published.

Of course not. But now, NO THANKS TO THE PDF CHINESE, forum members and the silent readers out there have a greater understanding of the complexity of the semicon industry.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You omitted the equally important fact that qualification must be accepted by the client or clients. Over time, everyone can agree that Verigy/Advantest are legitimate companies in the business, but that with the demand of due diligence, everyone will demand that any new hardware from them will require the same qualification process. The more complex the step, the more comprehensive the qualification process. Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) is not as complex as vapor depo. So a new CMP hardware will have faster and sooner qualification for more client list than a new depo hardware.

Which is why AMEC got qualified with TSMC a few years ago and likely to be already qualified with SMIC or is in the process of doing so. The important part is qualification with the foundry.

Huawei won't have anything to say if they have no alternative to the line using AMEC tools, or TEL tools, etc. They simply will not have a choice when given the choice between having nothing and having something. This imposes costs but it's this or collapse.

 

[Tumba]

Usa is squeezing huawei for same things Intel and AMd doing putting backdoors in hi end hardware...

 

[Han Patriot]

You have not made the best telco tech. All you did was rode the coattails of those who did the R/D. All you did was made the technology cheaper on the labor scale, cheap enough to drive others out of the market, not because China pioneered any new technology. Next, you are going to tell everyone China invented 5G?


And others are laughing as well -- after three posts.

Sure 5G by Huawei is COPIED US tech. We know its stolen, the patents are toilet paper. If that's the case Why Is US so worried? Lol.
5G was not invented by anyone, genius aka he who knows semicon and stealth and the universe? Hahahaha. 5G is a standard defined by a telco standard group in Europe in which Huawei is a major contributor, each player has to use their own technology to reach that standards specified and must have interoperability. Understand genius?

I did not contradict the factual part of your statement. You stated that the qualification process is long and expensive. I agreed and provided information that said qualification process began years ago.

You then made a prediction - that Huawei will collapse because nobody will be have qualified non-US equipment ready. I provided further information that the qualification process is already moving along. AMEC is only a single company. News about new qualifications isn't often published.

It's useless talking to him, he just revealed his 'impartial' analysis.

 

[gambit]

Which is why AMEC got qualified with TSMC a few years ago and likely to be already qualified with SMIC or is in the process of doing so. The important part is qualification with the foundry.

Huawei won't have anything to say if they have no alternative to the line using AMEC tools, or TEL tools, etc. They simply will not have a choice when given the choice between having nothing and having something. This imposes costs but it's this or collapse.

You kept vital technical information from the forum to protect the nonsense your fellow ignorant Chinese kept spouting all this time. Sure, you are under no obligation to say anything, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have corrected many on this forum, Pakistanis, Indians, and Americans, when it came to aviation, and I expect the same from anyone to exercise the same if the discussion enters his/her area of expertise/education. You did not failed but by being silent you REFUSED and that is worse than failure.

As far as Huawei do not have any options? That maybe correct that in the worst case scenario, Huawei really came to that precipice, that either accept non-Huawei qual-ed hardware or have nothing, do you really believe there are options there? No, there is not. And Huawei knows it AT THIS TIME. Assume Huawei come to that worst case scenario and decide to fast track the qualification process or (gasp) eliminate it altogether, WHEN, not if, words got out on what Huawei did, Huawei's clients will begin their own disqualification process of Huawei's products, be it cell phones, enterprise routers, or even simple switches.

Warning: Do not challenge me on this disqualification process. I have done more than a few of them. It was not a pleasant meeting in each event. The details on what I could do with a Huawei product would curl your toes.

In business, everyone is a customer of everyone else. In fact, businesses often tell their employees, or 'team members', to treat each other as vendors and clients. So why would any company want to risk its reputation and clients to take a chance on Huawei's products when it is known that Huawei either did not qualify or performed a truncated version of industry accepted qualification process? Not everything have an ISO standard, but even in the absence of such a standard, there are unspoken agreements that one should at least do so-and-so and present data for all to see. If I am a Huawei client, I am a 'back-end' (BE) step in Huawei's chain of processes. If I see an unexplained quality deviation, why should I continue to do business with Huawei? Just because we are fellow Chinese businesses? What if some of my BE clients are American and European companies? How am I going to explain my missed shipment to them because I have to drop some Huawei's products out of my products?

You know this to be true and yet you kept it from the forum.

It's useless talking to him, he just revealed his 'impartial' analysis.

As I often said, I do not post for you guys' benefits. The PDF Chinese are too far gone in your intellectual dishonesty. As far as my analyses goes, the fact that your friend, who claimed to have semicon industry experience, could not challenge says volumes on the technical credibility of my posts.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You kept vital technical information from the forum to protect the nonsense your fellow ignorant Chinese kept spouting all this time. Sure, you are under no obligation to say anything, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have corrected many on this forum, Pakistanis, Indians, and Americans, when it came to aviation, and I expect the same from anyone to exercise the same if the discussion enters his/her area of expertise/education. You did not failed but by being silent you REFUSED and that is worse than failure.

As far as Huawei do not have any options? That maybe correct that in the worst case scenario, Huawei really came to that precipice, that either accept non-Huawei qual-ed hardware or have nothing, do you really believe there are options there? No, there is not. And Huawei knows it AT THIS TIME. Assume Huawei come to that worst case scenario and decide to fast track the qualification process or (gasp) eliminate it altogether, WHEN, not if, words got out on what Huawei did, Huawei's clients will begin their own disqualification process of Huawei's products, be it cell phones, enterprise routers, or even simple switches.

Warning: Do not challenge me on this disqualification process. I have done more than a few of them. It was not a pleasant meeting in each event. The details on what I could do with a Huawei product would curl your toes.

In business, everyone is a customer of everyone else. In fact, businesses often tell their employees, or 'team members', to treat each other as vendors and clients. So why would any company want to risk its reputation and clients to take a chance on Huawei's products when it is known that Huawei either did not qualify or performed a truncated version of industry accepted qualification process? Not everything have an ISO standard, but even in the absence of such a standard, there are unspoken agreements that one should at least do so-and-so and present data for all to see. If I am a Huawei client, I am a 'back-end' (BE) step in Huawei's chain of processes. If I see an unexplained quality deviation, why should I continue to do business with Huawei? Just because we are fellow Chinese businesses? What if some of my BE clients are American and European companies? How am I going to explain my missed shipment to them because I have to drop some Huawei's products out of my products?

You know this to be true and yet you kept it from the forum.


As I often said, I do not post for you guys' benefits. The PDF Chinese are too far gone in your intellectual dishonesty. As far as my analyses goes, the fact that your friend, who claimed to have semicon industry experience, could not challenge says volumes on the technical credibility of my posts.

The bottom line is, nobody knows how far along SMIC, AMEC and Huawei are in their respective qualification processes. What we do know is that certain processors from Huawei have already been put on SMIC processes, AMEC has been qualifying with foundries since 2018, and AMEC sells to SMIC.

Since you and I don't have specific insights into their operations, you're simply postulating the worst case scenario of Huawei having nothing and taking no action until now to mitigate potential losses.

 

[gambit]

The bottom line is, nobody knows how far along SMIC, AMEC and Huawei are in their respective qualification processes. What we do know is that certain processors from Huawei have already been put on SMIC processes, AMEC has been qualifying with foundries since 2018, and AMEC sells to SMIC.

Since you and I don't have specific insights into their operations, you're simply postulating the worst case scenario of Huawei having nothing and taking no action until now to mitigate potential losses.

What is happening right now with Huawei is serving as a warning to others. C++, Python, and Perl, are those Chinese inventions? So what if they are open source? Perhaps you do not know this but because of what is happening with Huawei, legal analysts and computer experts are raging -- behind closed doors -- on what to do if the US government decide to include base programming languages under the umbrella ban on hardware and SOFTWARE.


In sum, the entire article is about how China's model of governance -- authoritarian -- and Huawei's ties to the Party, effectively placed open source software into candidacy for a US government ban. The last paragraph is significant to this discussion.

There is an old gambling adage: Don’t bet against the house. So long as Trump holds office — and does not reverse course on the Huawei ban — Huawei is in China’s house. They will be at the mercy of the Chinese government and market. Large companies by design are adverse to risk, making Huawei very unlikely to do anything that ruffles the government’s feathers. This means we are likely to see less freedom and less openness, not more.​

See that ? Huawei is in China's house. IF the software ban extends to base programming languages, practically everything TSMC, SMIC, and anyone that can do for Huawei will be for naught, which mean Huawei's foreign market is essentially doomed. Right now, the speculation is damaged, but IF the software ban is clearly specified to include base programming languages, it is doomed.

As Huawei struggles, Huawei's assets, intellectual and physical, will be considered too valuable to lose, so The Party will execute a hostile takeover of the company to save everything, further cementing the world's perception that there is no independence of any kind in China.

Yeah...Am speculating again, here. Wanna bet against that? It is a rhetorical question because we both know the answer: No, you will not bet against. You know better. When I said 'You know better', I was not being sarcastic or facetious in any way. I said that out of respect for your claim to have semicon experience, which I will take at face value.

You know better but you kept silent to protect your fellow Chinese nonsensical arguments.

 

[Song Hong]

Is C/C++ patent?

Sroustrup himself claims there are no C++ related patents

What is happening right now with Huawei is serving as a warning to others. C++, Python, and Perl, are those Chinese inventions? So what if they are open source? Perhaps you do not know this but because of what is happening with Huawei, legal analysts and computer experts are raging -- behind closed doors -- on what to do if the US government decide to include base programming languages under the umbrella ban on hardware and SOFTWARE.


In sum, the entire article is about how China's model of governance -- authoritarian -- and Huawei's ties to the Party, effectively placed open source software into candidacy for a US government ban. The last paragraph is significant to this discussion.

There is an old gambling adage: Don’t bet against the house. So long as Trump holds office — and does not reverse course on the Huawei ban — Huawei is in China’s house. They will be at the mercy of the Chinese government and market. Large companies by design are adverse to risk, making Huawei very unlikely to do anything that ruffles the government’s feathers. This means we are likely to see less freedom and less openness, not more.​

See that ? Huawei is in China's house. IF the software ban extends to base programming languages, practically everything TSMC, SMIC, and anyone that can do for Huawei will be for naught, which mean Huawei's foreign market is essentially doomed. Right now, the speculation is damaged, but IF the software ban is clearly specified to include base programming languages, it is doomed.

As Huawei struggles, Huawei's assets, intellectual and physical, will be considered too valuable to lose, so The Party will execute a hostile takeover of the company to save everything, further cementing the world's perception that there is no independence of any kind in China.

Yeah...Am speculating again, here. Wanna bet against that? It is a rhetorical question because we both know the answer: No, you will not bet against. You know better. When I said 'You know better', I was not being sarcastic or facetious in any way. I said that out of respect for your claim to have semicon experience, which I will take at face value.

You know better but you kept silent to protect your fellow Chinese nonsensical arguments.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

What is happening right now with Huawei is serving as a warning to others. C++, Python, and Perl, are those Chinese inventions? So what if they are open source? Perhaps you do not know this but because of what is happening with Huawei, legal analysts and computer experts are raging -- behind closed doors -- on what to do if the US government decide to include base programming languages under the umbrella ban on hardware and SOFTWARE.


In sum, the entire article is about how China's model of governance -- authoritarian -- and Huawei's ties to the Party, effectively placed open source software into candidacy for a US government ban. The last paragraph is significant to this discussion.

There is an old gambling adage: Don’t bet against the house. So long as Trump holds office — and does not reverse course on the Huawei ban — Huawei is in China’s house. They will be at the mercy of the Chinese government and market. Large companies by design are adverse to risk, making Huawei very unlikely to do anything that ruffles the government’s feathers. This means we are likely to see less freedom and less openness, not more.​

See that ? Huawei is in China's house. IF the software ban extends to base programming languages, practically everything TSMC, SMIC, and anyone that can do for Huawei will be for naught, which mean Huawei's foreign market is essentially doomed. Right now, the speculation is damaged, but IF the software ban is clearly specified to include base programming languages, it is doomed.

As Huawei struggles, Huawei's assets, intellectual and physical, will be considered too valuable to lose, so The Party will execute a hostile takeover of the company to save everything, further cementing the world's perception that there is no independence of any kind in China.

Yeah...Am speculating again, here. Wanna bet against that? It is a rhetorical question because we both know the answer: No, you will not bet against. You know better. When I said 'You know better', I was not being sarcastic or facetious in any way. I said that out of respect for your claim to have semicon experience, which I will take at face value.

You know better but you kept silent to protect your fellow Chinese nonsensical arguments.

You don't need to take me at my word. Experts know experts. if it comes to that, you are right, Huawei will not be allowed to go down. In that case, it will be Cold War 2 since at that point no organization in China will know if they're next. Nobody knows what will happen in the business world, and I don't think the fallout will stay restricted to business. The end result will be totally unpredictable.

It was already an act of unprecedented overreach for US government to dictate to private companies what they can and can't do with equipment they already paid for, did not sign a contract regarding use with specific clients, and are using for their intended purposes. As of now, the fallout from that action is still unclear - who will follow, who won't follow, what the steps to mitigate are. Banning open source software to a specific company would be a major escalation.

The end result could be the end of Huawei's foreign trade, but it could also result in further US isolation. All I have to say is, if the US continues down this path, it will eventually force the world into a choice between a growing, dynamic economy that largely leaves rest of the world alone, and an aggressive, interventionalist military power, much like the first Cold War.