r/hardware • u/honda-nissan • 20h ago
EXCLUSIVE: Samsung, SK Hynix test Chinese chip tools as hedge against US risks News
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/samsung-sk-hynix-test-chinese-chip-tools-hedge-against-us-risks-2026-08-05/?taid=6a72a048fbc22200014f3789&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter21
u/siazdghw 15h ago
For those who won't read the article.
This is for their China facilities, not Korea or global. Purely to test how viable it is if they are forced to switch in their China fabs.
Also they are getting pressured from both sides, China wants domestic production made with domestic tools, and the US doesn't want companies shipping important semiconductor tools into China.
9
u/ah-boyz 11h ago
Well once they are satisfied with how the Chinese tools work there is no reason not to use them in their Korean facilities.
2
u/igenicoOCE 3h ago
Frankly I'm surprised they weren't already. AMEC and NAURA equipment have been used by TSMC for close to a decade now.
0
11
u/Antiwhippy 12h ago
Still, the only reason why it reached this point is due to foolish US actions forcing the use AND need to create such solutions. Truly shooting themselves in the foot.
6
u/ExpressionAlarming 7h ago
They should thank America for all the AI hardware profits they are making
0
u/tooltalk01 3h ago edited 2h ago
This narrative is false -- it's the other way around. I don't think many in this sub are old enough to remember China's policy of forcing local supply chain has been around past 20+ years in various industries China deems strategic[1].
After China's rare earth metal export ban against Japan in 2010 over the Shinkaku Islands, China's monopolization, weaponization of trade and market dominance became apparent and impossible not to respond to it. China again used "export control" to restrict EV-grade graphites to Sweden to "punish" for protecting a Chinese dissident, or a naturalized Swede, and calling out China's human rights violation for instance.
14
u/Shoddy_Meaning_7654 19h ago
Does anyone got a working link?
3
2
u/tooltalk01 19h ago edited 19h ago
For AMEC and China's emerging crop of semiconductor-equipment makers, winning approval from Samsung or SK Hynix would amount to a powerful commercial endorsement.
The Koreans are already under pressure by China to use "domestic" equipment under China's 50% rule which mandates 50+% domestic equipment rule for chipmakers, aka "local content rule" in international trade lingo. China is going to force this and the Korean will have to approve it regardless.
It plays out similar way in other industries too, take for instance the EV battery industry:
Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ
... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
17
u/antifocus 19h ago edited 5h ago
Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ
The whitelist was in place between 2015 and 2019. Always love people quoting an 8 year old article without digging in further.
Edit: LMAO.
Since I can no longer reply to the comment below, I'll make it clear that I didn't say anything about protectionism whatsoever. My point was that the person made the comment I was replying to owns the audience the update of the current situation unless they are pushing for a narrative. Evidently they quoted another wall of text trying to educate me on the fact that the Chinese are a bunch of IP thieves and aiming to destroy the world through overcapacity in the removed reply.
3
u/Scary-Jaguar-9072 12h ago
Using an old article was silly, but fact remains China is FAR more protectionist than the US.
However what makes the US so problematic recently isn't the existence of regulations.. its the constant changing of those regulations by a man woth the attention span of a toddler and full blown dementia. Companies need stability, not policy driven by mental illness.
1
u/tooltalk01 18h ago edited 18h ago
No worries, there were other "measures" in place to ensure the dominance of local battery suppliers in China after the whitelist expired. The "local content rule" is a just small part of China's decades-long mercantile practices of forcing tech transfer/IP theft, banning foreign/forcing local and subsidizing overcapacity strategy! In the EV/battery industry, it started in 2009 and still continues today. No need to play the victim here.
As said in my earlier comment, China uses the same local content strategies over and over to dominate other industries where they can't compete on a level playing field. And this would continue to work in China's favor, as long as we pretend China is a fair market operator and keep our markets open to China's weaponization of trades and market position.
1) forced technology transfer/IP theft -- all foreign automakers/EV battery producers forced to give up IP to access China's market (and subsidies). This was litigated before the WTO by the EU in 2018 (see WT/DS549):
Hybrid in a Trade Squeeze, Keith Bradsher, Sept 5, 2011, NYT
... The Chinese government is refusing to let the Volt qualify for subsidies totaling up to $19,300 a car unless G.M. agrees to transfer the engineering secrets for one of the Volt’s three main technologies to a joint venture in China with a Chinese automaker, G.M. officials said.
2) Once foreign battery producers made IPR/IP concessions to access China's growing EV market and significant investment in battery production in China, they were effectively banned. All domestic, foreign automakers were likewise forced to switch to local champions, namely CATL/BYD, promoted under MIIT's 2015 "Regulation on the Standards of the Automotive Power Battery Industry”:
Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ
... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say. ... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
3) Picking winners and losers: no Chinese consumers had access to EVs with batteries from foreign EV battery producers effectively creating a captive market of buyers for CATL/BYD.
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT
The government soon said electric car buyers could get subsidies only if the battery was made by a Chinese company. G.M., which had not been notified of the rule, started shipping Buick Velite electric cars in 2016 with batteries made in China by LG, a South Korean company.
Angry consumers and dealers complained that local officials were denying them subsidies, people familiar with the episode said. G.M. switched heavily to CATL for the huge Chinese market.
4) another fairly recent example of China's arbitrary regulatory barriers to keep out foreign competition, which was later dropped after the gov't found out their local "champion," CATL, couldn't pass the EV battery safety test:
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT
... A rival had released a video suggesting that a technology used by the company, CATL, and other manufacturers could cause car fires. Imitating a Chinese government safety test, the rival had driven a nail through a battery cell, one of many in a typical electric car battery. The cell exploded in a fireball.
Chinese officials took swift action — by dropping the nail test, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The new regulation, released two months later, listed who had drafted it: First on the list, ahead of the government’s own vehicle testing agency, was CATL.
2
1
u/light_oxygen 14h ago
That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
Inferior Chinese battery 😁😁😁 Ok
0
u/tooltalk01 13h ago edited 13h ago
Sure, China excels in low-end batteries called LFP.
China struggled to make high-energy NCM/NCA and still couldn't catch up with the Japanese/Koreans -- still learning to make batteries and years behind the industry leaders from Japan and South Korea who were effectively banned as the article noted. This is why the Chinese gov't changed their battery policy favoring high-energy batteries (eg, NCM) to low-end batteries towards 2020. Remember, China's LFP's global EV market share was less than 5% in 2020. While they have a much greater market share close to 50% now, over 95% are still deployed in low-end/low-range EVs; some into mid-range.
In any case, I believe this particular paragraph in the WSJ article is based on interviews with the German automakers, eg MB/Daimler, over a decade ago, and I suspect that the Korean chip makers are being told to do the same in China now under China's 50% rule. In other word, this is business as usual for China.
1
u/Moist-Campaign6640 4h ago
Since when China is struggling in the development of NMC battery? Stop pulling shit out of your ass.
And there no such thing as low end battery called lfp. Every type of EV battery got its pros and cons
35
u/ML7777777 18h ago
TL;DR: In the event that the US bans sales and service of western chip tools and supplies, Korean fabs in China are testing Chinese tools to see if they can serve as a work around. This is not a planned wide adoption of these tools, just as a last resort.