• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      That was Foxcon, not TSMC. And all of us have a LOT of shit in our homes made by Foxcon.

      Not that it justifies the shit Foxcon did. Just saying that Apple got a lot of flack, even though a lot of other companies should be scrutinized for their manufacturing contractor choices. Microsoft, Sony, etc.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    This is HORRIBLE! I’m a Patriotic Republican and don’t know why it’s Horrible Yet but Biden did it so it’s BAD!!

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      He did it to support the rich libtards! Not the poor working Republicans can no longer afford guns to stop the immigrants. And he hates Tiaywan !

      /S

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      We’ve spent the last few decades outsourcing key industries, where US no longer has as much manufacturing and we’re way too dependent on other countries. It took supply chain disruptions from COViD to realize how much of a bad idea that was.

      We’re finally trying to recapture some of those key jobs, industries, supply chains, dependencies, starting with chips and renewable energy. THANKS, BIDEN! this is what will make America great again

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Because the U.S. government gave them $6.6 billion to do it under the CHIPS Act: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-wins-66-bln-us-subsidy-arizona-chip-production-2024-04-08/

      With TSMC, it’s insurance against China invading Taiwan but Intel (and probably everyone else) got a load of subsidies too. After the chip shortage during the pandemic and Russia invading Ukraine, chip production became a national security issue.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Multiple sources of production.

      We learned during concentrating all of your production in one small country wasn’t a good idea. Plus having multiple sources has always been suggested in case anything goes wrong with one company you can still have some production.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          And are susceptible to interference. Samsung is also building huge manufacturing infrastructure in the US.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              But then US interference most directly affects US jobs and customers. That’s a much better er situation.

              Think of car manufacturers that have done this for decades. They may have a global supply chain, heading mostly back to their home country, but they also have worldwide plants near their customers. Thanks partly to similar incentives and tariffs, my Honda was assembled in, I think, Kentucky, and was as us-manufactured as any us brand, meaning us jobs, us manufacturing, partial us supply chain. The result has been almost entirely good.

            • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 hours ago

              These facilities are expensive, like 20-30B for the big ones. If you’re curious youtube has some good long videos on how these places work. As far as I’ve checked all the gov grants given to companies as incentives (whether chips or energy or other infrastructure projects) only partially cover the costs of construction.

    • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      From a business perspective: more control over the manufacturing process and less risk of getting hit by tariffs

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Less risk of tariffs on China, less risk of supply chain disruptions like with the pandemic, takes advantage of incentives from the US government, and is something that is cool to advertise.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Not about being in the us specifically. But about keeping your manufacturing near your entire supply chain.

          But the uncertainty of what will come soon for tariffs is

                • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  I actually don’t understand how it doesn’t. If it’s in the US, it’s domestic production. The US can run these places if it needs to, it can protect them if it needs to. It seems kind of obvious? Maybe I’m missing the point of your question though.

                  I am impressed by the near equal up/down votes on your original comment.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Tariffs change. Especially when Trump or another nutcase is in office.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Tariffs in general aren’t new, but Trump’s tariffs were applied haphazardly and poorly determined because he doesn’t understand what they are. Avoiding that uncertainty entirely is a good idea.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It’s very impressive that they got such a modern process up and running in such a relatively short period of time. I understand the Arizona location is relatively new.

    • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Maybe, but Intel operates there so the labour pool is probably quite skilled already. Perhaps good supply chains too.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Yeah, they’re essentially doing trials where Arizona fab provides small amounts of sillicon that’s being validated against what Taiwan fab does. While it was planned for 2024 I’m guessing everyone thought it would be delayed. It’s quite a big win for US, they’re on track to secure domestic supply of fairly modern chips in case shit hits the fan in Taiwan.