The United States frequently changes chip rules, seemingly targeting specific companies, but in fact involving most unrelated suppliers. They could have done business in peace, but because of the selfish interests of the United States, they fell into a complex and volatile market environment.
In order to fight for their own interests, more than 30 chip companies have made a move, and the "backlash" of the chip ban has also appeared.
The United States has a lot of say in the field of chips, and many pioneering chip invention research is related to the United States. Because of this, the United States has no fear.
But over the years, the United States has begun to feel anxious, because most of the chip manufacturing is carried out in Asian factories, TSMC, Samsung is the world's first and second largest chip foundry, Apple, Qualcomm, NVIDIA, AMD and other world-class giants can not do without their cooperation.
Over time, the US chip manufacturing industry has lost a lot of order capacity, technical talents and industrial chain resources. It seems that in addition to retaining their headquarters in the United States, the rest of the industrial layout has moved out. This is not what the United States wants to see, and if this continues, the United States will rely heavily on Asian chip manufacturing.
With the nature of the United States, it is bound to take corresponding actions, and the chip rule has become a ban that the United States is hindering. The rules require that as long as U.S. technology is used, suppliers need to obtain licenses to supply specific manufacturers. As for whether or not you can apply for permission, it is another matter.
Since the implementation of the chip rules, Qualcomm, Intel and other American companies have successively obtained licenses and can continue to supply customers to a certain extent. However, the United States did not stop, and is still increasing the scope of the rules, including making ASML's DUV lithography machine unable to ship freely, and reaching an agreement with the Netherlands and Japan.
This kind of behavior by the United States is not recognized, including the agreements reached between the United States and its allies. Once the opposition to the rules grows, it has to be taken seriously.
It is estimated that the United States also did not expect it, and more than 30 chip companies have already taken action, and the "backlash" of the chip ban has appeared. First of all, ASML emphasizes that if shipments are blocked, it will lead to accelerated self-research in the Chinese market.
And ASML revealed that the agreement between the United States, Japan and the Netherlands will take time to land, and the revenue in 2023 will not be affected. The implication is that the customer has to place an order in a hurry, so that the delivery can be arranged in advance.
Secondly, Qualcomm said that it will not be affected by the subsequent chip rules in the United States and can ship to Huawei normally. In order to do business in the Chinese market, NVIDIA uses a special version of the A800 chip to maintain cooperation with domestic customers. Intel, MediaTek, AMD and other giants have also expressed their willingness to resume free cooperation in the past and actively applied for supply licenses.
In addition, 25 chip factories in the UK are dissatisfied with the UK's indifference to the semiconductor industry, hoping that the UK will come up with a corresponding subsidy policy for the chip industry, otherwise they will move out of the UK.
Knowing that the UK and the US are very close, ARM is essentially a British company that has close ties to customers to stop licensing the most advanced chip architectures and the United States. Now 25 British chip companies have threatened to move out of the UK, and if they are not handled well, there may be an additional gap between the UK and the US.
After all, the UK has been following the footsteps of the United States and adopted the opinions of the United States in matters such as chip architecture authorization and 5G cooperation, and the United States has not provided substantial benefits to the United Kingdom. Especially in the development of chips, it only cares about localized construction, resulting in the UK delaying a lot of time in the chip industry while echoing the rules, which in turn caused dissatisfaction among 25 British chip companies.
Throughout the global chip industry, the majority of those who strive for free trade, not even just about 30 companies, as long as they are chip giants, hope that chips can return to globalization.
No one will live with money, but the United States' own affairs have affected the normal operation of others, if it is not for the influence of American technology, I am afraid that chip globalization can maintain a normal development trajectory. Although things have come to this point, it does not mean that the US approach is approved.
30 chip companies have expressed their position and stood on the opposite side of the rules, which is also the backlash brought about by the chip ban. What impact does this have over time?
Imagine if someone is hindered from doing business because they are using someone else's technology or product. If you want to continue doing business, you must either have a good conversation with someone who has mastered the technology, or participate in the research and development of technology to replace others.
If you don't have a choice, I believe most people will choose self-research. It can not only improve the competitive advantage, but also grasp the choice of market cooperation, and will not be interfered too much by others.
The U.S. chip rules may change the perception of technology applications by suppliers in various countries, and readjust the layout between external technology and self-developed technology. We don't know what the future holds for the chip industry, but what we do know is that going against the trend on the road of globalization will not end well.
If you agree, please like, welcome to forward, leave a message and share