this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
259 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

60101 readers
2888 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Apple to Buy TSMC's Entire Supply of 3nm Chips for 2023::Apple will receive all of TSMC's first-generation 3-nanometer process chips this year for upcoming iPhones, Macs, and iPads, according to...

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fluxion 154 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We need more fabs. Entire world's supply of 3nm blown on iPhones

[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In this case it's not truly a result of limited fab availability.

TSMC has two main variants of their 3nm node. The original one, that Apple is using, is N3B. It has worse yields, so TSMC started work on another variant, N3E. N3E has much better yields but will not be ready until late 2023 or early 2024. Everyone else besides Apple opted to skip N3B and go for N3E. Apple, with their very consistent release cadence, didn't want to wait for N3E. So Apple — and only Apple — is using N3B.

Thus, we have:
(1) TSMC only has one 3nm node in 2023: N3B.
(2) TSMC only has one customer for N3B: Apple.
(3) TSMC will never have any other customer use N3B, and have no incentives to build capacity beyond what is needed now.

It's effectively tautological that their entire 3nm allocation will be sold exclusively to Apple in 2023.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So wait a few years before buying a new phone, I'd what your saying?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The practical performance differences between N3B and N3E should be more or less immaterial to the end user. N3E just has a lower defect rate, meaning a greater portion of chips will be valid when made under that process versus made under N3B. There was a fairly credible rumor a few weeks ago that Apple was paying TSMC per valid chip instead of the industry standard per wafer. So for us, the end users, the cost won't even be passed down — that's just a cost that TSMC has to bear.

That said, if you don't need a new phone now, waiting is good in general. Whatever is out today, they'll have something better next year. Wait as long as you're willing and able between upgrades. Unless you're absolutely loaded with money, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Honestly, if not for security patches, most people could probably use a top of the line 8 year old smartphone, like the Iphone 6, without almost missing any feature or functionality, maybe for 20 years or more. Would certainly be great for the environment if we could use a smartphone for 15 years or more, with all the computational power already available this should be doable on the technical level. Unfortunatelly, it will not be allowed to by mnanufacturers, and we do not have a universally compatible functional linux for phones, that also can pass the locked bootloaders.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Repair would have to become easier or cheaper if you want people to use their phone for 15 years. It's incredibly likely the screen will break in that time frame.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The EU already demanded user replaceable batteries, outside of that just not using software lockdowns a la Apple would already allow 3rd party repair and manufacture of equivalent parts, going even further the Fairphone is modular and with open specs, this kind of modularity and open protocols would theoretically allow smartphones to be Ship of Theseus style immortals.

[–] roboticide 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I update every 4 years, and it's mainly just due to wear and tear and limited hardware and security improvements.

I also just feel like you don't appreciate the improvements that are made if you're just getting incremental changes every year. Waiting a few years means you're going from a ~10% improvement in performance to a ~40% improvement.

But yeah, can't wait for phones to become a thing that is updated when actually needed, like laptops. Not just annually because Big Tech tells us to or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I appreciate all the technological quirks, but most people don't really need or even use then.
I do not know how different the current cameras are from an Iphone 11 Pro Max, but i just see people taking pretty pictures with the software optimizations (that could be updated via software) and uploading then to instagram, whatsapp etc, lots of times in compressed and digitally altered formats. Or writing text messages, using the bank app, playing shitty mobile games like candy crush, watching tiktok-youtube-streamings, paying stuff by nft, listening to spotify-other musics, etc. I really strugle to think how a common person with common habits will NEED to upgrade from a Iphone 14 Pro any time soon (for hardware reasons).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah I had an iPhone 6 Plus until 2 years ago. But I couldn't keep using it because it was stuck on iOS 12 and all the apps no longer supported it.

Although the screen and camera were pretty damaged, and the battery was dying, so maybe it was a good time to upgrade anyway.

[–] Squizzy 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Intel were made to share their technology due to a monopoly not too long ago. Same should be the case here

[–] Telodzrum 65 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The tech isn't the hurdle. The industrial capacity is. It's not a good investment due to time and cost of building another full facility. That's why the Biden Administration was so gung ho about the subsidies and tax incentives in the CHIPS act; a government actor is needed to make the math make sense.

[–] Squizzy 0 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, I agree with that but if Apple are the only ones that can use this tech as was suggested by another commentor then they should be made share the tech for the sake of innovation and progress.

I agree with government intervention here but think the Biden admin went a ways into protectionism which is a different conversation. I don't think these Fabs are going out of date anytime soon so we should be building them globally, we are screaming out for more chips and the more that are built the cheaper they will get.

[–] kbotc 2 points 1 year ago

The issue is that the US doesn’t own all of the relevant patents, just most of them. It’s hard to apply US anti-monopoly laws against a company based in the Netherlands that primarily sells its products to Korea and Taiwan. All the US can do is threaten to pull the EUV-LLC patents that the department of energy developed.

[–] DingoBilly 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like there isn't anyone able to use the 3nm technology anyhow so not sure how big of a deal it is.

I do wish they weren't tied to Apple technology but if they're ahead of the game they're ahead of the game.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My understanding is essentially Apple has enough money on hand and foresight of product demands that they can do things like tell a supplier that they’re going to buy everything well in advance and secure those deals before other manufacturers are willing to commit. Presumably, there’s nothing to stop Samsung from going to TSMC and saying they want to buy all the capacity for 2024, except that Samsung doesn’t feel confident about matching Apple’s sales volume on those upcoming products.

I’ve also heard Apple will also fund expansion of their suppliers when needed. If someone makes a thing that Apple wants but doesn’t have the capacity to meet Apple’s volume, Apple will provide what they need to increase capacity, along with providing commitments to purchase enough product that the manufacturer is taking on minimal risks from the expansion.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

(Also, Samsung makes their own chips.)

Example holds up better with Google (for Pixel line).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Samsung makes their own chips but they also are one of the largest customers of chips from Qualcomm, mostly manufactured by TSMC.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

isk the cellphone division of samsung is bigger than apple, google pixel i'm not sure

[–] DingoBilly 4 points 1 year ago

Yep, it's hard to hate on Apple in this case when they're just more prepared and willing to commit.

[–] Aux 0 points 1 year ago

My theory is that Apple is running out of time before Intel hits real hard. Intel became very lazy sitting on their laurels, AMD stole part of the market and now Apple did too. But Intel still has a lot of talent and their 12-th and 13-th gen processors clearly show that the storm is coming. Apple needs to secure their market share before it's too late, so they're buying everything they can to become absolute leaders. They have a few years to establish themselves.

[–] BetaDoggo_ 5 points 1 year ago

Fun fact, the X-nm naming convention doesn't actually describe the size of the process. It comes from traditional scaling predictions that described a 70% scaling every 2 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Apple doing apple things. Nothing to see here. Money can buy happiness and you can buy the new iPhone 15, releasing soon.