Bosch started the project way before chip shortage, around 2017 [1] and opening it right on schedule. This is the second factory of this type, good foresight by Germans and EU.
> The Bosch plant will make specialist power-management chips and Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) that are designed to carry out a single task, such as triggering a car's automatic braking system.
> It will not however address shortages of products like microcontrollers which have forced auto makers to halt production and are expected by industry leaders and analysts to extend into next year.
It's fun to point at Berlin Brandenburg and laugh, but it's not a medium sized airport.
2 runways, 3 terminals, room for expansion for 2 more terminals. Capacity for 27 million passengers per year, going up to 50 million once expanded.
Compared to the absolute largest airports in the world (around 100 million passengers per year), yes, it's "medium". But it would be in the top 10 airports in Europe and still something like top 50 in the world, over time.
Now we're working on restricting short distance air travel within Europe, meaning large airports like this one may become too costly to keep running, if it can't be utilized enough.
I'd say this development would rather cause fewer small airports in Germany and hence benefit hubs like BER that are being reached by train. overall though it'll cause fewer air travellers as domestic air transport is breaking away. then again more international air travel will move from smaller German airports to BER.
Restrict how? You'll never restrict it to Eastern Europe, for example. Eastern Europe has almost no high speed rail, so if you cut off "short" flights, travel that would take 4 hours by plane (1 hour to the starting airport, 1 hour in the airport, 1 hour flight, 1 hour from the destination airport) would become 8-12-16+ hours by train for many places.
Right now it's still only France, but German politicians are talking about adopting a similar strategy.
The French model actually aims to ban flights that have a sub 4h train connection. Meaning the Eastern European nations without high speed rail would have fewer flights affected if this becomes EU policy.
It would cut a lot of flights to neighboring countries, and domestically in Germany.
It's actually amusing because the airport lobbyists were responsible for cuts in train infrastructure funding in Germany. Reminds me a bit of how Germany killed it's fiber investment to accomodate for private cable TV back in the day.
Interesting that this model incentivizes railroads to build more.
A railroad investor could look at existing flights and accurately project how many passengers they can expect, since flights would be blocked the second they open their carriage doors.
My feeling as a foreigner in Germany is that in some ways it's its own curse. Germany does still have the economic and political structures to rise to meet the stereotype. But at the same time the myth means people in charge often assume said "efficiency" will just magically happen without anyone being responsible or putting in effort.
I'm not sure about "completely false". The article is mostly about the history of the stereotype, and ends with a couple of examples of things that were not as efficient as they could have been. I don't think anybody is claiming perfect efficiency.
I don't see any evidence you've provided to show present day Germans are not efficient as a tendency.
Anecdotally, from working and living in Germany, I've very much noticed that Germans are better with time management, and work shorter hours and get more done compared with my home country (Australia).
I'd be surprised to see contrary evidence, though it's certainly a possibility. But the article you linked does not appear to demonstrate much of substance in terms of present day productivity.
Stereotypes can be damaging, sure, but when discussing certain aspects of a culture they can be true and based on cultural norms. I don't think we should broadly dismiss them when used in the right context, and not in a discriminatory fashion.
I think you may have misunderstood my post somewhat.
But to respond directly to you, a stereotype typecasting an entire country to lazy is damaging and not particularly useful unless you want to insult someone.
However handwaving away trends in cultures as a stereotype can also result in missing important facets, e.g. Burn out in Japanese work culture.
Are Germans more "efficient"? Idk, let's look at some data and try to nut out whether it checks out.
If it is, would be nice to know what aspects make it so. Though it's usually not simple.
In terms of productivity per worker, Germany does pretty well.
My guess is that because there are all sorts of limits on how much people can work (there are lots of holidays here) so the industries that tend to survive are those that are highly automated, and have high productivity per worker.
My feeling is that productivity-per-worker is essentially a political choice. Low skill, low automation labour is inherently unproductive, but it's also flexible and it doesn't require any strategic direction from the state. High skill high automation jobs are very productive, but they are brittle - if the market moves, all that skill and tooling becomes worthless.
The German (also Japanese) approach isn't all sunshine and rainbows, though. In Germany, for example, a pack of ten paracetamol costs like four euros. That's about a 100x markup from what paracetamol actually costs. This is because in Germany, pharmacies are protected from competition, to preserve the sector. The same is true of taxis, for example.
>Are Germans more "efficient"? Idk, let's look at some data and try to nut out whether it checks out.
It's more complex than that. In Spain the "presentismo" (being in-place ,in your office, phisically in your seat) it's taken from the middle manager/boss as a religion. Thus, productiviy is halved even if we work even more than you than average.
And, yes, OFC, this was a big issue because of the Covid and remote work over the internet.
> Not everyone in the country does siesta. We just have lunch.
Obviously nothing is universal. But to an American visiting Spain the hours of operation there are striking! I only visited Madrid and Sevilla, but I found that restaurants and many stores were open much later than I was accustomed to (my hometown mostly shuts down around 8pm or 9pm, for example), and the fact that anything was closed around lunch was very odd! It definitely gave a fun "flavor" to my trip that was quite different from, say, Singapore.
That's because of Franco's timezone shift: we were shifted to GMT+1 because the fascist dictator loved Germany. Odd because the Greenwich meridian crosses half of Spain in Aragon.
Not really. The difference between eastern Spain and southern France is already striking and they are on the same meridian and same timezone. Its not hard for me to see a shop that closes at 9pm in Spain, then move 50km north and find exactly the same brand shop closing at 6pm in France (E.g. fnac), practically with midday sun on summer.
Lately France is getting a bit more of the delay too, with shops opening at 10 and closing at 19.
I think it's informative to look at the location of a place within a timezone. Between the eastern and the western edge of a timezone you can have more than an hour of shift in daylight (in the broader zones), of course people's rhythms will be shifted.
From working with Germans, I have not noticed any real difference in work patterns or efficiency compared to my home country (France). I doubt there's much variance accross Europe as a whole. It seems their reputation in that respect is empty. Though I've notice cultural traits that do have some reality behind it (being sticklers for rules).
As a German living outside of Germany for 15 years I have an interesting perspective on this:
The rule-following in a work setting is all about risk mitigation and rules tend to help with that. Similarly for following established processes. I know this is pretty annoying but at least I'd argue the status of work is transparent and the outcome reliable (even if it may take a long time because too many hypotheticals were considered).
The unstructured working style of the US can certainly drive a German a bit crazy at times :)
In a social setting rules are also enforced to ensure that you don't negatively impact the personal enjoyment of others. For example, no mowing your lawn on Sundays so everyone can enjoy a quiet peaceful day. No talking loudly at your table in a restaurant so you don't bother the other diners etc
Compared to the US I find Germans and French to be fairly similar with the difference being that French are more relaxed in attitude but definitely complain even more than Germans haha
Right, this sort of thing is difficult because it's not evidence based. It's entirely subjective and anecdotal as compared to your past experiences in Australia, or mine in my own home country.
You come from a country where trains are ALWAYS VERY LATE, Germany is efficient because the trains are just a little late.
OR
You come from a country where the trains are ALWAYS ON TIME, Germany is inefficient because the trains are just a little late.
What I do think is interesting is that people think German's are efficient. Where does that come from? That's what the article is about.
To be clear, I've looked at these assumptions before as a comparison, and from the sources I read at the time, Germany did have less hours compared to Australia, by a lot.
Social studies have too many variables to strongly conclude exactly why, and I'm not coming out with great sources here (om phone), but it does appear that Germany works far less than Australia, US, Mexico etc.
Actually not. German supermarkets use multiple queues for multiple cashiers. Studies have shown that a single queue feeding multiple cashiers is the most efficient method. A single queue feeding 3 cashiers is 3x faster than 3 single queues:
I meant it in a sense of the cashiers’ speed in checking items.
Do you know why German supermarkets don’t use the single queue multiple cashiers system?
I suspect in this case it's a false friend - ironically one of the major problems blocking the opening of the airport was actually zero (air) circulation.
Several engineering and electronics companies, led by the German giants Siemens and Bosch, struggled to retain control over the complex fire protection system that included 3,000 fire doors, 65,000 sprinklers, thousands of smoke detectors, a labyrinth of smoke evacuation ducts, and the equivalent of 55 miles of cables.
“Our part, the detection of hot air or smoke ... is functioning,” says Thilo Resenhoeft, a Bosch spokesman. “The responsibility for the dysfunction lies with somebody else.” Siemens spokesman Oliver Santen confirms that the company was originally responsible for building the “automated fire protection facility” and “the control unit for fresh-air circulation.” Testing in 2013 “showed the need for reworking part of the system,” he says. Santen declines to attribute responsibility other than to say that Siemens is “responsible for the reconstruction of the fresh-air circulation system.”
I considered that but given it was being compared to the Bosch chip factory which did open on time felt it would be worth clarifying for those in other regions not familiar with the situation
Come around to Vorarlberg, Austria - where we talk about building a Highway in the 70ies or 80ies and never even start building it (all with official planning and studies and resident participation and environmental evaluations and public voting and discussions on the suggested variants). It has become a well known joke in the area.
AFAIK we still don't know where it will be built, but there has been some progress...
EDIT: They agreed upon where! But they don't know when and holding another forum due to public outcry over the chosen path... sigh.
Meanwhile, Switzerland built the connection ~40 years ago [1]
The potential upside of delaying highway construction by a few decades is that you could, in theory, reconsider whether it's still a good idea. Of course that's usually not what's going to happen, and most likely the project will be pushed through anyway when there's hardly any public support left for it, as with Berlin's infamous A100 extension cutting through the city.
Oh, I"m all for not building highways at all and pushing the alternatives (e.g. public transport, cargo on rails).
But this is a special situation, a really small gap between the Swiss highway and the Austrian/German highway, so transit had to go through the villages and clogging up everything at the bottlenecks along the border (or in Höchst, Hard, Bregenz, Lustenau, Hohenems, Feldkirch etc.)
I dont' think it is as "long" game as it seems:
Bosch brags about they make cars and their customer just assemble them.
If they're able to send you a complete solution that includes sensors, connectivity, etc... they are doing their customer's life easier and raising the entry barrier for the competition.
Better than privately owned, they are owned by a foundation and are known to not only think long term, but also short term for their workers.
In France, some years ago, they closed a plant producing automotive parts, but they kept all the employees, retrained them and started producing solar panel components. It was pretty incredible as at the same time, French companies were just laying off brutally.
It's emphasizing that employees are their primary resource, and retaining that resource is more important than anything. Contrast this with the US' approach to employees that sees them as expendable and replaceable - showing now in the crisis / memes that restaurants can't get enough staff because they don't pay enough / people aren't desperate enough.
-In all fairness, though, the latter approach isn't unique to the US; Norwegian papers have run a lot of stories lately about business X or Y being up in arms about the labour shortage, amplified by COVID because of travel restrictions limiting access to cheap labour from abroad.
However the issue isn't really that they cannot find labour - it is that they cannot find labour at a cost which makes their current business model sustainable. (Mostly an issue in labour intensive, seasonal sectors relying on unskilled labour - agriculture, aquaculture, restaurants...)
Essentially, the gripe is 'If we paid our employees a decent wage, we'd be out of business.'
To those migrant workers, what they're getting might well be a decent wage. Meanwhile the jobs of "real" Norwegians such as the farmers you mention and their supply chain depend on that business model too.
It's funny how depriving foreigners of their livelihood is so often pitched as being for their own good.
Seasonal migrant workers in UK agricultural sector often make next to nothing and are seriously misled and exploited, to the point where I think it should be considered fraud.
We recruit folks from Romania promising them a decent wage, say $10 and hour, and they are typically naive folks straight out of school. Part of the contract is that they are provided with lodging, food, etc. Then they realise that after getting charged $50 for living in a tent and other "charges" they actually make like $10 a day.
The sceme basically provided a steady supply of serfs to pick fruit, and noone in britain would sign up for this.
Other cases are less egrigeous, but even in skilled work, the employee may realise the opportunity is not great, but depends on the job for visa and so decide to put up with it untill they can get permanent right to stay. Its not a terrible deal, but it wouldnt work for 'natives'
Oh I understand there are abuses, but what we need to do is crack down on those abuses. Address the actual problem. Too often they're used as an excuse to justify much broader action.
I have skin in this game because I'm married to a former migrant worker who started off over here working in restaurants and coffee shops, and have a niece who's currently here in the UK as a student. She completes her studies this summer and is taking up her 2 year work visa for graduates.
Most migrant workers, especially those from outside the EU, consider seasonal/migrant work and studying as a stepping stone to residence and later citizenship.
They all know that once they are inside the borders, its harder for the authorities to deport them.
Its basically the price to pay for a shot at first world lifestyle.
"They all know that once they are inside the borders, its harder for the authorities to deport them"
Deportation doesn't come into this, that's only relevant once you've broken the law or overstayed your visa.
The game is about meeting criteria for a visa route, and doing seasonal work does not help in any way. Having a UK degree enables you to get a job here easier, but thats about it.
In UK, if you are switching from a short-term to long-term visa you have to leave the country and apply for a visa again from outside the country.
Even if you are applying from inside the country, the home office does not hesitate to reject applications for the tiniest reasons. Once that happens, some people might go to court if they have the money and ground to dispute the decision, if your lot in your home country is really bad you might stay illegally, but for the vast majority neither option is worth it and they move on.
Whether you are pro or against immigration, it's unclear why unscurpulous employer should be the ones to benefit from this arrangement
>> if [you perceive] your lot in your home country is really bad you might stay illegally.
Yes, that is precisely the route.
The billions (like moi) in the third world have realised that the longer they violate the immigration laws, the better their chances of having some activist argue their right to stay.
Their is no other law/regulation that I know of where the longer you violate the law, the more rights your have.
Which is exactly why the boat arrivals to Australia dried up once the processing was moved outside the jurisdiction of Australian law.
> Their is no other law/regulation that I know of where the longer you violate the law, the more rights your have.
I suggest you research “adverse possession”, and “easement by prescription”; if you view nation-states and their territory as analogous to persons and their real property, they are quite similar concepts to what you seem to view as unique.
Can we please stop lumping together refugees and immigrants? This is borderline vulgar, students in uk paid 60K for a degree, noone pays that kind of money to become an illegal without rights to work or healthcare. Becoming illegal immigrant is certanly not a ticket to "first world lifestyle"
It very much depends on what you're cracking down on. Extortion, deceptive practices, human trafficking, modern slavery sure. Students working in coffee shops? Not so much, but these issues are often deliberately conflated.
Yeah, I guess they've changed this recently, but a bunch of years back they were recruiting even university students.
I imagine that backfired since those are, you know, educated, motivated and the vast majority speak English, so at least a bunch of them figured out how to contact authorities.
I wouldn't be surprised if recent batches are from less educated segments.
-Fair point (matter of fact, I considered including a paragraph about that) - but the situation now is that for reasons outside their control, the migrant labour is not available, and the system as is cannot handle either paying the going rate for 'normal' work to fresh hires in that sector OR find enough 'real' (for lack of a better term) Norwegians willing -or even able to- to accept work at the wage offered.
For instance, with wages being as they are, many unemployed people would get less payout working full time in the agricultural sector than they would just sitting at home receiving unemployment benefits (at slightly less than 2/3 of their former wage).
The result being, of course, that whatever labour does show up tends to be less than fully motivated, adding to the employers' woes and reluctance to hire them in the first place.
I don't mind migrant labour at all; what I do mind is the idea that when the labour pool shrinks drastically, employers still try to avoid the obvious solution to attract labour - by increasing wages, if only temporarily.
These are extraordinary times (one can but hope), and extraordinary short-term measures to counter that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Bosch is NOT strictly a privately owned company. It's a so called steward company majority owned by a non-profit trust so you could say they are nobody's. Profits never leave the company and that's why they can plan long-term and are generally pretty stable and resilient.
While Amazon is technically a public company, more than 50 % of shares are owned by the founder and consequently the control isn't split across a larger group of people.
That is a good question. If I think about it, I have no idea :). Somehow I got the impression that Bezos as the founder still holds a controlling amount of shares, but if he owned 50% of all Amazon shares, he would be the richest person by a large margin. Anyway, it seems that Bezos basically did not have anyone to answer to while leading Amazon - amazon reportet losses for many years for the sake of growth. That means he had a free hand to implement strategies, which are long term profitable. And I attribute the success of Amazon to no small amount to this.
20 years is not very long term. Kepp in mind that Bosch was founded in 1886. If Amazon keeps up like this for the next one hundred years, I will fully agree with you.
-But management takes their cues from stockholders, and it would be a very hard sell indeed to convince stockholders that a decision resulting in lower profit in the short term but improve it long term should be made.
Hence companies which are either not publicly traded (like Bosch) or is majority owned by someone or other (like Amazon) is much more likely to be able to make long term decisions - as they are not always geared towards getting the most impressive earnings during the current quarter to satisfy stockholders.
I always feel a bit puzzled when one thing is generalized to a the behavior of a Country .
It probably come down to the decision of one guy at Bosch who ultimately made the decision to go ahead with this, and this sounds like it was the democratic decision of an entire population of a country - who mostly don’t care what Bosch is up to.
I doubt that in the planning stages they could anticipate the auto industry order-then-Pandemic-cancel-then-order-again wave that messed up the logistics of the semiconductor industry.
The old 40 / 28nm Fab capacity had been in very tight supply for years even before the pandemic hit. This whole semiconductor shortage only happens to caught on by Mainstream Media now as they have a new direction to blame ( TSMC ) along with politics of China.
And chip being important to cars has been known for a long time with stories going back to 2013 within the industry. So you can at least infer that Bosch knew this for a long time. This is their second Fab and it was planned in 2017 and confirmed in 2018.
It is like TSMC, all of a sudden everyone talks about it. But in pre-2015 hardly anyone knew them or heard of it. Those that heard of it only thought they Fab chips for Nidia. It was Apple that bring them to the forefront.
Sometimes I just think mainstream media is such an unreliable source of information I am wondering if there are any point reading them at all other than to gather the flow of current society sentiment.
> Sometimes I just think mainstream media is such an unreliable source of information I am wondering if there are any point reading them at all
Bingo. I forget the name for this law/effect, but at some point everyone runs across a story in the mainstream news about which you happen to be more knowledgeable than the author/reporter/"expert guest" and the veil is lifted for a moment and you think "wow they really don't have any idea what they're talking about!" But then they go on to trust the opinion of these same outlets on economics or foreign policy, etc.
> other than to gather the flow of current society sentiment.
Even this I wouldn't trust. Perhaps if you treat it loosely as "the zeitgeist of manufactured consent" or "what They want you to think is the current society sentiment"
Most of them blamed car manufacturers on improper implementations of JIT manufacturing. Toyota is fine because it has a stockpile of critical parts like semiconductors.
From what I've read in the "mainstream media", TSMC is lauded for playing the king game with their foundry model, and pretty much everyone looks shitty for allowing themselves to become dependent on a single company on a seismically active, geopolitically threatened island.
Not really luck, most of the western world realizes that having most of the world's chip capacity reside within the zone of control of a repressive regime with incompatible political and humanitarian values is not a good long term scenario. They have planned accordingly.
Times can change quickly and unpredictably. It was not too long ago that Dresden, where this plant is located, was under the oppressive East German regime.
Important to note though that Dresden was already the semiconductor "hotspot" of East Germany (along with Carl Zeiss in Jena which produced the manufacturing equipment).
Reporter: "What do you think the long-term consequences of the French Revolution will be?"
Zhou Enlai: "I believe it is too early to tell."
(This quote, while authentic, is too good to be true - the quote harks from 1972, and in context it is evident they are discussing the 1968 student unrest, not the 1789 revolution. Still...)
Indeed, takes a while for these things to unfold. For example, what we're seeing today is the result of the unfolding of the liberal program initiated centuries earlier. However, not only is taking time to unfold different from predictability, but specific predictions are not the same as general predictions.
It isn't always impossible to make good general predictions. For example, some papal encyclicals have predicted with spot on accuracy the general character of how things will develop long before they did if certain things aren't sorted out. These sorts of predictions, in part, benefit from concerning the unfolding of philosophical (and theological) beliefs, beliefs which contains within themselves their own logical entailments. So these encyclicals weren't predicting particularities like "what will be the stock price of Amazon in 2030" or "who will win the presidency in 2030 and will this president like ham", but rather the general prevailing conditions, attitudes, etc. characterizing future generations and the resulting social order, for example.
As my grandmother once said (sometime around her 85th birthday), "You know, in school, in history class, 100 years seems like a long time. It's not really."
Hm, have they though. It seems like they're awfully reliant on TSMC still. And at least some of our planners probably like the tripwire aspect of it because it bolsters Taiwan's geopolitical importance.
I don't doubt they will see that as a sort of consolation prize, but world discomfort isn't just with chip fabs. I don't think China would deliberately allow this course of action only for Taiwan. That's not much to get in exchange for being the power of being world's industrial bottle neck.
My guess is that they see this sort of diversification from reliance on China as inevitable. They resist it of course (see 5G equipment in Europe) but their investments throughout the rest of the world paint a picture of supporting developing nations economically to the point that as they grow & prosper, they grow into client states of China.
Yes, they have: TSMC is expanding fabs to outside of China's geographic sphere of influence. Even just having one coming into the US should be enough for European China hawks to feel they have a little breathing room, but from that perspective it also won't be enough. As a result, Europe is in fact working right now with TSMC & Samsung to discuss options for advanced fabs.
This actually presents a bit of peril though. China is not going to be thrilled that its industrial influence is on the decline, and the question is "How will they respond?"
We already know part of the response: We can see it play out in the contentious situation regarding adoption of 5G equipment in Europe. There is also the fact that China is investing enormous sums of money in foreign ventures and areas of the developing world, e.g., parts of Africa. These areas may effectively become client states to China.
It is, in some ways, a very interesting response to the failed methods employed by the Soviet Union. There, client states were obtained & held largely through military means. That was done either with the threat of force to client states to keep in line, or military support for regimes or regime change, for example North Vietnam.
Especially having some experience with those endeavors, China has moved on to non-military methods-- economic development. That is probably preferable to the threat massive global conflict, or even just lots of smaller ones, but if you worry about China expanding their values throughout the world, in being more effective it is also more worrying.
Probably about the best thing we can do is the path we have started on: diversification from reliance on China, and our own support in equal or greater measures of the developing world.
I should be clear though: when I talk of expanding China's values as a negative, I always mean that in the political sense of the repressive Chinese government, not the people themselves.
As a German, I think a European policy analogue to what we did under Brandt and following would be optimal. Reliance usually isn't one-sided, China needs us as much as we need them. On strategic issues, we should certainly strive for self-sufficiency, but it simply isn't smart for us to "join a camp".
In contrast to smaller nations, the EU as a whole is too large to ignore even if we aren't following the line of the cold war superpowers. We can do our own thing and cooperate where it suits us.
On another note, your example of Vietnam is pretty ridiculous, as the situation was the other way around - the US invaded and committed genocide in what was originally a one-sided civil war, in the name of "holding the red wave".
Vietnam wasn't a shining example of human rights, but US policy in this case was abysmal and led to the death of millions of people. And the fact that the US stil does not not accept that they committed a genocide speaks volumes about the moral integrity defenders of the Trans-Atlantic alliance like to bring up.
> Hm, have they though. It seems like they're awfully reliant on TSMC still.
Well just for your information, they are not. The so called chip shortage is because a Renesas factory which produces microcontrollers burned down. To put this into perspective is like Intel using one of his fabs: you have the motherboard but no processor. Usually changing a component is no big deal but in this case is like a complete redesign.
So i do not see any link here between Bosch and TSMC.( except that they both make "chips").
It has nothing to do with the pandemic, but the strategy and investment in reducing reliance on external (to the EU, and Germany in particular) suppliers is not luck.
Absolutely. Even with the US, as much as Europe & the US are more aligned than not on geopolitical issues, the last 4-5 years have shown that is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely.
And in terms of the fragility of the world's industrial and economic engines, perhaps this is a realization that globalization has gone too far and the pendulum needs to swing more towards slightly higher self-sufficiency. Not even for some philosophy of anti-globalism, but merely because things are too brittle as they are now.
The pandemic they couldn't have forseen of course, but it is good management to recognize that having their own production capacity makes them more independant from suppliers. "Modern management" far too often tries to optimize short term cost advantages and completely ignores long term considerations. Which comes of course from public companies reporting quarter numbers, as if those were an indicator how the company works.
On the other side, there are decisions, like building your own fab, which increase costs short term, but long term are a huge benefit to the company.
No, but they likely realised the fragility of the semiconductor supply chain, and anticipated that a whole range of global events could cause logistical problems and shortages.
Complete outsider doubt: every time I hear about chip manufacturing, somebody talks about ASML machines. Considering that many of the chips we use are built by ASML machines, why isn't Netherlands a top chip manufacturer?
The skills and risks in different parts of the chain are different. Having access to excellent photo-lithography machines is not enough to guarantee having an excellent foundry or process - that much should be evident from ASML supplying TSMC and Intel, and observing Intel's struggles with 10nm.
The machines ASML produces allow you make ultra precise and tiny patterns of material. You still need to choose what those materials are, figure out how you're going to create the material (as in what dopants are you adding in what quantities), what your geometry actually is, and on and on and on.
Signify is another subsidiary, the former lightning division from Philips.
Philips itself is doing very well in medical equipment. A sensible, sustainable and profitable pivot: in an age where every Chinese factory can churn out toasters or radio's with near zero margins, it makes little sense to remain worlds' leader in toasters or radio's.
Can't fault that argument. I mean Philips made and invented some nice products - CD's, LED lighting, my wake-up light - but when it comes to production they just can't keep up, and I'm confident the profit margin on electronics like that has completely tanked. Especially when their designs and inventions quickly get copied shamelessly.
Corporate espionage is still a big thing; my girlfriend told me a story about a company presenting their new device at a trade show (iirc it was a jewelry casting machine or something). The Chinese competitor that had a stand not far from them had their stand empty, but on the third day there was a replica of that same casting machine at half the price.
Medical equipment is a lot more specialized and probably harder to duplicate, and maybe more importantly, not a race to the bottom.
> in an age where every Chinese factory can churn out toasters or radio's with near zero margins, it makes little sense to remain worlds' leader in toasters or radio's.
Surprise for you, Chinese factory can't run with near zero margins.
Electronics industry been on the downsizing trend in China for the last 10 years.
It now costs less to hire labour in flyover states in USA, than South China.
Chinese factories themselves are rushing to relocate to South Asia.
> Surprise for you, Chinese factory can't run with near zero margins.
I am aware of that. But when they can "outsource" most R&D (read: copy or steal IP) a lot of businesses have a very hard time competing against those margins.
For example, when all the costs you make is plastics (raw materials), amortisation on your machines, wages and electricity, and some Ali-express fees, you can compete with a company like Lego easily. Because Lego has those same costs, but also marketing, R&D, legal, QA, distribution and so on.
I'm not saying that any of those are "wrong" per sé. Maybe Lego is in the wrong business or on a dead end, and maybe that is not bad: IDK. But I do see why many companies are pulling out of this race-to-the-bottom and either becoming "almost entirely marketing" (Nike, Adidas, etc.) or pivoting to niches with other easier to defend moats, like Philips.
Also what kind of protections do low level employees have in China? If an employee is harmed on the job, does the company have many repercussions? Can employees organize and negotiate as a group? What about healthcare costs? Or taxes? If the factory owner is in with the local government and/or the party, do they have to pay much in the way of taxes? What about public accountability? Are companies publicly listed and subject to financial disclosure rules? It’s my second and third-hand understanding that all of these factors contribute to an exceedingly low labor cost in China. I think we enjoy cheap stuff at the cost of supporting a pretty dismal situation for many ordinary Chinese.
I cannot evaluate if what you say is true. But it does not really matter when both the European Philips and the Chinese brand Pilhips, or both the Lego Harry Potter™ and "Justice Magician Bricks" are made under the same conditions. Both reap the same "benefits".
This unfair advantage would only matter if the European Philips or Lego keeps all its production (of the entire chain) in Europe, which they do not.
Did anyone offer you a course on how to design ICs in university?
I heard that Singapore NTU has 100+ graduates with PCB and IC design skills each year. If I was a chip-foundry-to-be, I'd build my factory where the employees are.
> Did anyone offer you a course on how to design ICs in university?
Yes, standard courses in Computer Engineering, at least here at Vienna's Institute of Technology, which with comp. eng. and masters in similar fields (just a slight focus shift to, e.g., the modelling/verification side) there's about the same order of magnitudes of students graduating per year too.
Chip foundries do not go where their employees graduate, but where they get gov incentives for building their fabs.
It sounds like a chicken / egg problem. We had some in school, as part of the software engineering curriculum. The electrical engineering department probably touched on it as well.
Given the amount of money ASML is printing, they could easily build a decent fab that will over time compete directly with eg TSMC. But I doubt they have the balls to compete against their customers, which is a shame.
(by "easily", of course, I mean "super hard but possible"). If there's any European company that knows how to source and train people who can operate fabs, it's ASML.
There's no especial reason in a globalized economy for the different parts in a tooling chain to be right next to each other. Germany already makes specialized machine tooling that gets sent all over the world to be actually used, this is just a more specialized example.
The Netherlands is a very dense country with an agricultural economy, and fabs take up a lot of land and dirty a lot of water; but nonetheless, there is already a fab there, belonging to NXP (formerly Philips) https://www.nxp.com/company/about-nxp/worldwide-locations/ne...
different skillset. making equipment and running a profitable fab is like Apple and Orange.
Intel with its years of experiences in semis industry and yet Intel is not in the semis equipment business and Intel was in the very early stage of semis industry.
It's a dirty, dangerous industry. I imagine that running it in the neatherlands would be more expensive. That's one of the reasons it went abroad in the first place.
Just a supplier of certain machines for the process doesn't make you a successful foundry. I.e. ASML heavily relies on Laser technology by Trumpf Werkzeugmaschinen (a German company) - which besides Laser technology is mostly in the sheet metal machine business. Focus on what you can do best, they say.
They probably don’t have the manpower. The Asian countries produce hardware engineers at 10x that of the west, and with a much larger population, have a vast talent pool.
Isn't ASML a dutch company? How is Europe not a leader? Unless you mean in wafer production/fabs or being on the forefront of shrinking process-nodes.
Europe is behind in fabs and has historically underfunded the industry - understandable, as it had worked fine for a long time, with globalization, long supply chains and JIT inventories. Then came nativism, "Tariff Man" and a global pandemic, and Europe had to rethink its long-term strategy.
ASML is a supplier for one part of the overall process yes, but their core innovation is also somewhat limited. Their EUV technology is actually based on a license from the US DOE (from 1999: https://www.eetimes.com/u-s-gives-ok-to-asml-on-euv-effort/), as part of a consortium of companies that were allowed to benefit from early US R&D into EUV. This is also why the US is able to require ASML to not export EUV machines to China. In my opinion from limited knowledge, being a leader means also being able to change the industry in significant ways. You could argue ASML has contributed to that but I think their dependence on US research indicates they aren’t independently set up to be a leader in this space.
>U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, “if the EUV technology proves viable, ASML has agreed to build a factory in the U.S., similar to its Netherlands facility, as well as to establish an American research and development center. The factory will supply 100 percent of all ASML's sales in the United States.”
Did this actually happen? Does Intel buy ASML machines?
How can a patent from 1999 still provide any leverage? Isn't the lifetime of US patents (or patents in general in most countries) limited to 20 years, so this patent should have expired in 2019?
I can imagine the leverage is 20 years of refining their technology. Sure, other companies could have invested in developing the technology in the last 5 years, and start selling or using it in 2019, but I assume it takes a lot of refinement to have this work nicely.
I'm no expert, but I'd say that patent is only one of many patented inventions needed to turn it into a working product. That is, say the patent expired, anyone could make an EUV laser, but that in itself does not produce nanometer scale transistors.
> Isn't ASML a dutch company? How is Europe not a leader?
The same reasons why the US doesn't have much presence any more:
1) Environment protection and emission laws: just look at the Silicon Valley, half of it is a Superfund site from decades of silicon manufacturing.
2) Lack of skilled and experienced (!) engineers
3) For Europe: lack of access to the many billions of dollars that a fab build requires
4) Cost: No matter what you do, simply alone due to wages, real estate and raw material cost, US and European-made components will always be more expensive than Asia-made. The military can afford it to specify "homemade" as requirement, but everyone else will be going with whoever is the cheapest option. Yes we have a bit of a supply stretch at the moment ("thanks" to shitcoin miners and fuck-ups by automotive), but this will even out sooner or later and the prices return to their old normal level, which means a domestic production won't be cost-effective any more, which in turn means it's hard to get funding for such a project from banks.
The only way out is massive government investments and subsidies.
Your phrasing "fuck-ups by automotive" brought to mind something: if automotive didn't fuck-up, would that have reduced the shortages ? In the automotive sector, yes, of course, but not the general shortages, surely ? Would we'd just have shortages elsewhere, notably in home electronics, which is the industry that picked up all the spare production capacity that automotive freed.
The problem is the ripple effect that automotive has across societies. It's one thing if shitcoin miners or gamers have to wait for GPUs, but when the automotive industry with its many millions of employees and in sequence its supply chain with even more millions of employees is grinding to a halt, the impact is immense.
If anything, corona has shown us how extremely unhealthy the dependency of modern society on the automotive industry is. We need to wean ourselves off of that, and the sooner we begin the better - climate change is the next catastrophe waiting in the starting block.
Yes, and "dozens more" needs to be changed to hundreds more, with most not being known even to industry insiders. Lots of them are single vendor globally, and are Taiwanese.
For example, FOUP cleaning machines are made only by Gudeng (as well as ultra low particle FOUPs themselves,) and don't think that "cleaning machine" is any much less sophisticated than other equipment. It's the size of a truck, made of space age materials to survive fluorines, and costs many megabucks.
I want to add other reason: It's astronomically expensive and really slow to grow.
TSMC started in 1987, and AFAIK, the government of Taiwan invest in the company to help their grow.
EU started some years ago, investing in R&D in this sector, some years ago. We need to wait at least a decade to see a real impact starting to grow with this initiatives.
ASML and ARM. Even if ARM is now owned by SoftBank, it’s still HQ’d in Europe, right? Combine the best lithography machines and the leading architecture and Europe probably should be dominant. Interesting that they choose instead to export so much of the value chain around the world.
I'm not an expert so this is entirely armchair reasoning, but I can think of a few factors.
We don't have a culture of crazy investors, nor one of hypergrowth - I mean how many US startups went from nothing to a $1B valuation or takeover in a year, maybe two after they first started making waves?
Wages are not as crazy. Neither is cost of living, but it does mean the most talented people will pursue a career where the pay matches. Anyway when you consider things like income taxes going to a government that doesn't spend more on the military than any other country, socialist policies, and sane health care, it does even out a lot.
It's not as much of a union as they want to make believe. Anything that grows to a certain size will deal with a lot of international headaches. Freedom of movement and trade has made things a lot easier (something the UK wasn't aware of apparently, probably still stuck in English exceptionalism, and they're getting fucked over left and right because of it at the moment).
I mean one project going on right now is "they" are trying to build a EU focused AWS / GCE competitor, but instead of empowering or investing in a single company, or letting the market work for a company to rise in the ranks, they're making it some big international semi-government affair, where each country is fighting hard to protect and promote their interests. It's turned into not a technical or business challenge, but a political one. I mean I'm a complete fuckwit myself but give me a few billion in spending money and absolute power and I'll build you a secure EU cloud provider.
Random counterpoints: how many US hardware startups managed to have hypergrowth. How many US hardware startups are involved in chip fabrication, period?
Taiwan doesn't have either crazy investors or hypergrowth. I suspect the chip hardware business requires many years of steady-but-compounding growth.
As for the AWS/GCE competitor: I suspect the policy goal is not to have one platform/product in X years that will soon be outdated. Rather, it's to nurture and grow a competitive domestic ecosystem that is self-sufficient. That way, you may have dozens of AWSes in thr future that keep you on the leading edge (not just inplementors)
Here's a source from Bosch themselves saying "up to 65 nm", which I assume means 65 nm as the smallest feature. They're making "Application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and power semiconductors" mainly for the automotive industry, so they're probably counting on that being enough. And what a great time to start production.
the text says otherwise regarding automotive: "with output of automotive chips to follow from September" (so, you're correct for now until september, but sep. is soon already I would say)
Tesla is using Navi 23 RDNA in their new S and X models. That's 7nm chip. NN accelerators will likely move to 16nm or better soon. However, you're right that most automotive chips and power electronics use 180 or 65nm process.
EDIT: Mobile Eye, EyeQ5 ADAS SoC is already 7nm FinFET.
Most cars still default to incandescent bulbs for many uses. Few cars attempt to understand the situation around them, beyond a rear camera and maybe ultrasonic reverse sensor for parking. Engine control units have gotten more complicated, but unless high end or EV, It’s mostly mid 90s tech. Disagree?
they can easily do that. that's why I also think Intel will turn things around with it's fabs. You don't need to be manufacturing the latest node chips. Just a couple generations old, will do the trick for automotive, defense and non fashionable electronics.
also somehow people forget chips these days are really powerful.
> also somehow people forget chips these days are really powerful.
Only powerful ;-) ? Just found out some FPGAs have embedded processor cores with them (no need to generate them like in 2000) just because their customers already need that and they have enough gates to use.
Other recent stuff like in the RPI2040 microcontroller is a way to code your own "independent" IO sub-programs that run in parallel by a dedicated procesor that does not interfere in your code.
I never realized Bosch was so big (77 billion euros in annual revenue). The corporate structure is also really interesting. 92% owned by charity, 7% by the bosch family, 0.01% by the this trust made up of old membership, family, and "eminent people from the industry", but that last 0.01% has 93% of the vote.
Foundation, not charity. I'd say that it is a good thing that they a) do not have to put profit maximisation above all else, and b) can then decide where to allocate the profits in accordance with their statutes.
I like this part of the results:
> For example, in 2004, the net profit was US$2.1 billion, but only US$78 million was distributed as dividends to shareholders. Of that figure, US$72 million was distributed to the charitable foundation, and the other US$6 million to Bosch family stockholders. The remaining 96% of the profits were invested back into the company. In its core automotive technology business, Bosch invests 9% of its revenue on research and development, nearly double the industry average of 4.7%.
I have had really good experiences with Bosch engineers helping in data center planning and physical access security. Very knowledgeable and quality work. Too bad the institution I was in would take those discussions present it to competitors who would promise the same with worse quality and deliver neither quality nor the same content.
I was told however, that nowadays, due to a lot of acquisitions it's really hard to tell what kind of quality you get when it says Bosch on the box.
And the actual reason c) avoiding all kinds of wealth taxes and public scrutiny. Foundations are the corner stone of wealth preservation strategies for rich people. If they could not do this the forbes rich people list would probably look much different and we may even see a trillionaire or two.
Actually, it was a mix. Robert Bosch did not trust his family or board to run a sustainable business for long, but he also really was having some altruistic ideals.
> do not have to put profit maximisation above all else
Neither private nor public businesses have to put profit maximization above all else. It's entirely a myth that that is a legal requirement or responsibility.
That is especially the case for private companies (ie most businesses), which further do not typically have the pressure of huge numbers of shareholders or large institutional investors / funds.
Sometimes one might wish a company would actually focus on sustainable profitability, not just on the short-term appearance of profitability. You'll routinely find incompetent management that does a poor job of focusing on sustainable profitability at all, and the business always suffers for it. From IBM to GE. Instead, their management put a focus on financial engineering - creating a conveniently expedient fake profile of profitability, while the bottom rotted out from under them.
Berkshire Hathaway by contrast - a $500 billion company - has openly pointed out to shareholders for 40-50 years now that they had no intention of pursuing a strategy focused on merely maximizing profit above all else. Simultaneously they have one of the greatest records of the last ~200 years for business performance. Berkshire knows the winning formula is to focus on the long-term and focus on having healthy businesses (which always means not only focusing on profitability), that the opposite is like a high sugar diet, maybe a bit of fun in the short run, and it'll kill you in the long run.
Most businesses that last a very long time and generate great returns operate more like Berkshire Hathaway, rather than the opposite (and certainly during their heyday they do, which may provide fuel to last a long time even as they rot). There are a seeming infinite number of ways a major corporation can try to focus on profitability at the expense of all else, and that's always a mistake. Smart, long-term thinking managers know that. If you find a company that actually focuses on profitability above all else, sell and don't look back, it won't end well; it never does. Focusing on profitability above all else means paying all of your best employees very poorly, which means you'll always be starved for talent and your business will fail given time.
There is a large amount of nuance involved in operating a for-profit business. Choosing to focus on the long-term vs short-term, financial engineering vs investing for the future, sacrificing shorter-term profits for a healthier longer-term business. The best businesses typically focus on the longer-term, not the shorter-term, and do not focus just on how they can blow out quarterly earnings or max out their profits here and now (inevitably that catches up with the business, and it all implodes).
In estate planning, there's a saying, "own nothing but control everything." The approach is to transfer 99% ownership of the private company into a non-profit trust and to retain 1% ownership which has the controlling vote. The 99% non-profit trust has tax benefit and asset protection benefit. You only have to pay estate tax on the 1% of what you own when passing down to next generation. When someone sues you for your asset, you only have to pay 1% worth of the money since that what you own. But you still retain control of the company and reap benefit from it (directing dividend payment, hiring relatives, etc).
Edit: a more proof version is to put the 1% into another entity like a C-corp or a trust that you control. Estate planners have a field day dreaming up these schemes.
And the only public shares are the weak voting ones, so in order for the lawsuit winner (or the state for taxes) to reap their returns they lose the voting power of the shares. I see a lot of the newer IPO'd companies using this type of scheme.
I’ve seen that in multiple founding contracts for private companies and no lawyer ever flagged that. I doubt a judge will collect it. The mechanism is usually called Einziehung der Geschäftsanteile, basically the remaining shareholders can force-collect the shares of the bankrupt shareholder. A suitable compensation is required. See for example this random reference (German) https://kuhlen-berlin.de/glossar/einziehung-von-gesch%C3%A4f...
The shares immediately loose all voting rights in that process.
The reason is to prevent a potentially hostile party from entering the shareholder group.
No, it's actually common, at least in Germany. You can have a clause that allows the other shareholders to force someone out if they argue that it is necessary to retain the stability of the company. You have to pay the forced-out investor for his/her shares, though.
Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity. The family is heavily involved in board selection, & it's really just an elaborate tax scheme.
Seriously, look at their 'project list,' a film award is #2!
> it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity
I'm looking at their financial report for the year 2019 and that's just not true. They are a very complex organization and simply looking at one film award project and calling the whole thing a scam is very wrong and frankly lazy.
Seems sort of better than the alternative though isn’t it, ie the American model where industrial companies are endlessly looted by management, investment bankers, and private equity firms via a never ending series of mergers and divestments and massive debt loads.
It's not an either-or question. The US has similar style tax-avoidance structures that may sponsor a little-league team or classical music concert to maintain their public image. And Europe has their own corporate raiders -- did you follow the latest drama between Porsche and VW? That failed takeover bid forced out the Porsche CEO but at least he had a $200M golden parachute.
Calling it “the latest drama” might be accurate (I don’t think there’s more recent drama) but it obscures the fact that this particular drama was resolved 12 years ago with VW buying Porsche and the Porsche shareholders becoming the largest VW shareholders.
I should have "democratic legitimacy". Rich institutions evading taxes to do philanthropy is form of privatization the people didn't necessarily sign up for.
You can have both, just be the former royal ruling house of Bavaria. They managed to et a law in 1923 that tranferred most of their property into a public foundation, outside public control. Basically, they got to retain the majority of their properity without any strings attached. Law is still upheld and defended by Bavarian parliament. Heck, they even have the right to live in parts of all the famous Bavarian castles. Also, this foundation is owning 12,000 ha of forest. All of that in addition to the stuff they privately own.
Well, at least the results their were explicit in the law --- the representatives of the people were directly consulted about the matter at hand. The phillanthropy-privatization process elsewhere is quite subtle and I am not sure many people have followed it end to end.
Well, in 1923 t was more a deal between the king deposed by the 1918 post-WW1 revolution and conservative politicians. Since then, well, it is something we Bavarians don't talk about much. It basically is a state-funded, oversight free way to pay stipends to the former Bavarian ruling house. For longer now than the Bavarian kingdom ever existed.
The Wittelsbacher family got of easier so, than the Habsburg rulers (they lost everything, Austria even went so far to abolish every single noble title) and the Hohenzollern of Prussia. I guess it helps not being in the main crosshairs of the Entente back then.
So your great-great-great grandchildren don't have to work at McDonald's. Most people never think about leaving a backstop for more then one generation or they let the Government take so much in taxes at death it all has to be sold. Great for the government but bad for future generations of your family who don't have the financial means to quit a job to try a startup because they have to make rent and run on a mouse-wheel all of their life to stay one step ahead of the next bill.
Why should past luck in getting wealthy be some kind of reward for that wealth propagating generationally? Keep in mind that for a long time, if left to their own “merits” generational wealth would evaporate after a few generations. To do it properly requires great care in creating the right structures and insulating the wealth itself from being mismanaged by family members.
All this is to say that the broader public seems to be more efficiently entrepreneurially (in terms of creating new wealth) than what is achieved by hereditary wealth. Hereditary wealth transfer already has a huge leg up through social and educational networks and educational “legacy” that backstopping through actual wealth transfer on top of that doesn’t seem great for society as a whole.
On the other hand, if you have some data to indicate that children of entrepreneurs are better capable at starting new businesses than the general public I’m certainly interested to see that. My understanding above is a synthesis from studies I’ve come across and the general concept of reversion to the mean (eg the most unique individuals in any field/specialty you could name generally pop up spontaneously in the general population rather than consistently being overrepresented in a lineage). This makes sense for the survival of the species too- you want diversity so that you don’t overfit a given ecosystem and become hypersensitive to those conditions remaining true.
Yeah, but you don’t think that this just perpetuates economic injustices from past generations?
Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?
Yes in the Tulsa case if the original owner died then there would be taxes on everything. Either the heir would pony up the money to the government (maybe by getting a loan which would be impossible due to racism). Chances are the heir would have to sell. With the right structuring there would be a generation of black people in Tulsa who would be able to afford college and other things. (of course it was burned by whites but if it wasn't).
We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.
OK, maybe you missed the reference. Plenty of white people benefitted from burning/bombing black businesses and then passed those ill-gotten gains to their children.
Taxing those ill-gotten gains and improving the welfare state would probably be a more just outcome, no?
> Like a lot of Family-owned European companies (Ikea comes to mind as well), it's a thinly veiled employment opportunity for the heirs that does very little actual charity. The family is heavily involved in board selection, & it's really just an elaborate tax scheme.
I wonder if the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has the same criticisms?
I don't think anything is, but it's a low level endeavor for $77b company, no?
I mean, the arts are something I support, because it is something I can afford. If I had more money, Id probably want to try harder to make a difference.
I mean it's one project out of 145 featured on their website. Looking at their financial statement for 2019 it's certainly a very small amount compared to other projects which include for example funding medical research.
I didn't look at the rest, but the that they would even put that just makes it more odd. It would be like me putting "voluntarily picks up litter when I go for a walk" on my list of charity activities (which doesn't exist because, if anything, I don't do enough for the world to warrant tooting my horn).
That's just my opinion, though. I'm happy they are doing something rather than nothing.
The Bosch family is not involved. I only notice them via public news essentially.
It is nice to know that a big part of our profits goes into a charitable foundation instead of faceless stock holders.
Not being a public company means nobody cares about quarterly results. There is rather a yearly rhythm. The downside is that Bosch cannot get big cash infusions quickly. In case of a pandemic, this is an additional risk. Worked out though.
> Not being a public company means nobody cares about quarterly results.
And this is why I like Bosch so much (as an employee for a very similar amount of time). The working climate in most places is relaxed compared to most competitors and there's less focus on looking great in random metrics every quarter, which makes actually doing your work easier.
> The downside is that Bosch cannot get big cash infusions quickly. In case of a pandemic, this is an additional risk. Worked out though.
Yep, it actually worked out much better than anticipated. They were able to generate a free cash flow of 5 billion Euro. AFAIK that was mainly because Bosch has a very good reputation of being financially stable. (Here is the source in corporate speech https://www.bosch-presse.de/pressportal/de/en/bosch-stays-on...)
Btw, I remember your nickname from your lobsters post about software architecture. Pretty cool to see fellow Boschlers active here or on lobsters!
The operative entity Robert Bosch GmbH is 94% owned by the Robert Bosch Stiftung (which is also a GmbH, but with “common good” focus, so receives some tax advantages, but it’s not a proper foundation despite the name).
The Stiftung has no voting rights, however. Its voting rights are with a KG entity, which in turn has no ownership in the operative auto supplier entity.
The Stiftung receives a share of the auto supplier entity profit every year. Both entities operate separately, with the Stiftung pursuing various focus areas in healthcare, education, etc. The Stiftung also has a separate board whose mandate it is to execute on the Stiftung’s mission. It has nothing to do with making operative decisions at the auto supplier.
In 2020, the auto supplier paid approx 50% of its pretax profit in taxes.
I remember stumbling across a bunch of pictures of Bosch getting a brand new IBM System/370-165 mainframe circa 1970 that were pretty great. I especially liked how all the IBM installers were doing manual labor with their ties on.
But BSH is a direct child company of Bosch, you can even get those products for a discount as a (automotive) Bosch employee. Most Bosch divisions are separate child companies.
It's just that BSH is very small part of Bosch compared to the automotive parts of Bosch.
In 2009, Bosch issued a voluntary recall on certain model dishwashers that could overheat and pose a fire risk to consumers. In 2013, a second global recall was issued and covered more than five million machines.https://www.classaction.org/bosch-dishwasher-fire
But 2013 was so long ago in Internet years, wasn't it?
We own a Bosch dishwasher. We bought it knowing about their previous problems, because it was very quiet. The only thing I dislike about it is it insists on beeping every 10 minutes after completing a load. STFU, I know the dishes are clean!!!
Wish they took a page from Peopleware and make a softer buzz. The authors insisted everybody at the office put cotton over their office phones so they are not jarring each time they ring.
Hey, somehow I once did an internship at a subsidiary of Bosch. It's a super cool company structure! Check it on e.g. Wikipedia, it's such that Bosch's profits are sent to a non-profit that spends it on e
g. education.
This is only tangentially related, but if you think you should buy a Kitchenaid mixer, you really should look at Bosch's offerings for a mixer instead. More than twice the wattage in the motor. My wife has been making bread with ours multiple times a week for almost 20 years. And you never have to stop the mixing to "scrape down the sides" like you do with Kitchenaid mixers.
The amount of coorp marketing bullshit was outstanding again:
> The state-of-the-art technology in Bosch's new semiconductor factory in Dresden shows what outstanding results can be achieved when industry and government join forces," said European Commission Vice-President Margrethe Vestager.
who just cites the Bosch press officer, who even dared to mention AI and self-driving cars.
In reality this far away from "state of the art" or "outstanding". The plan is a 65nm fab, now they are still running 130nm for a year already. Their neighbors in Dresden are Infineon with a 90nm fab, and Global Foundries (Ex-AMD) with 22nm. This was once state of the art (some decade ago). Current state of the art is 4-7nm in Taiwan, and Germany/Europe is not even close.
130nm is close the masks which can be produced at home, just not at scale. http://sam.zeloof.xyz/
Some plant parts are state of the art though coming from Dresden. Such as the Ardenne wafer coating machines, which are used in Taiwan also.
Bosch is going all-in for IoT. CEO/Borad realized they need to produce own chips for that a couple of years back and made the single biggest invest decision. Automotive also uses lot's of ASICs. Too bad it's an LLC (GmbH), can't buy stocks.
In addition to this new 300 mm fab, Bosch already has one 150 mm and one 200 mm fab in Germany. These are mostly for analog stuff, SiC power electronics and MEMS.
You are citing wafer sizes. Fabs are measured in mask sizes, the density, not the overall radius. The denser, the higher frequency you can run it, so they won't get that hot.
This is a 65nm fab, still running for the last year at half density at 130nm. Neighbors in Dresden have much better fabs,Infinion with 90nm and Global Foundries (ex-AMD) with 22nm.
So the Bosch Asics will run at roughly C64 speeds. Good enough for consumer cars.
> You are citing wafer sizes. Fabs are measured in mask sizes, the density, not the overall radius.
The fact that these are 150 and 200 mm fabs tells us that these are using machinery from the 80s or early 90s, respectively. So these fabs are probably using several-hundred nm processes.
> have much better fabs ... So the Bosch Asics will run at roughly C64 speeds. Good enough for consumer cars.
Maybe look at Bosch's semiconductor portfolio? They're not in the business of making commodity parts like processors or MCUs which benefit from being on small nodes. They do specialty mixed-signal, power ASICs and MEMS devices.
Smaller is not always better. This is easy to overlook when "silicon" is only though of as CPUs and GPUs.
There is plenty of cars like that. You can import some russian Niva's or Vaz, daewoo's on the low-end. Subaru, Peugeot, Scoda & Kia's base models are relatively low-tech too. Please elaborate on "tracking and surveillance" part.
"A practice by diesel vehicles including the Volvo S60, Renault's Espace Energy and the Jeep Renegade, exceeded legal European emission limits for nitrogen oxide (NO
x) by more than 10 times.[1] ICCT and ADAC showed the biggest deviations from Volvo, Renault, Jeep, Hyundai, Citroën and Fiat."
Remember that time you did something wrong? I'll make sure to bring that up next time I read an article about something you did, regardless of what what you did wrong or what the article is about.
I suspect you are being downvoted for the low effort comment that is just a google search link with no context or commentary. I don't think it particularly has anything to do with the content since few people are going to expend the effort figuring out what you are talking about.
The last 3 paragraphs confirms what I think is the most interesting point:
> The Bosch plant, which received 200 million euros ($243 million) in state aid under a European Union investment scheme, will start making chips for power tools in July, with output of automotive chips to follow from September.
> "The state-of-the-art technology in Bosch's new semiconductor factory in Dresden shows what outstanding results can be achieved when industry and government join forces," said European Commission Vice-President Margrethe Vestager.
> Kroeger said Bosch supported a broader strategic push by Brussels to revive Europe’s semiconductor industry. A recently unveiled plan targets doubling the region’s share of global chip production to 20% by 2030.
I saw a Guardian headline the other day that said Biden's mission at the G7 meeting is to find allies for a new Cold War against China[1], but the USA isn't actually a reliable partner for the EU, what with Trump 2024 a scenario they can't even rule out yet (thanks to the obstructionist party still being very influential and working very hard to disenfranchise voters). So it makes sense for the EU to ramp up chip production.
Interestingly for Bosch or other tech companies, it's probably a no-lose scenario, the EU money will probably keep coming for them.
[1] I DDGed "Biden new cold war" but the results are headlines that say he's accelerating it...
Curious you’re focusing on US (politics) and not China/Taiwan/SEA… is that really relevant considering they have enough capital and Germany has plenty of manufacturing?
The only thing relevant for the US re risking starting this niche is brain drain and talent. The market is always growing, they already have vertical demand (power tools and simple car chips), and new more-local competition can never be dismissed.
It always comes down to the people at the end of the day. Your 2nd paragraph quote where they are declaring this a successful example of public/private just because the factory was built is a bit concerning to me. They’ve mearly just begun.
> The only thing relevant for the US re risking starting this niche is brain drain and talent.
That's unlikely due to extremely high taxes in the EU for individuals. People who know their stuff tend to migrate where they get more in return for their talents.
When I moved to the US my nominal salary tripled but my quality of life dropped noticeably. The first part I knew going in, the 2nd part came as a total surprise.
Taxes actually come out about the same when you add the multitude of separate tax systems in the US (federal income, social security/medicare, state, local), and then in the US additionally have to pay extra for things that are paid by taxes in Europe, health care being the biggest such expense.
And then there is the expectation of working 24/7, nobody has much vacation and nobody takes what they get, etc etc etc. Yeah, quality of life for Americans is nowhere comparable to Europeans, unless you're in the "I no longer work for money, my money works for money" set.
I migrated from the EU to the US, but then realised that once everything was factored in (medical, car, housing, cost of living) the taxes were actually worth it, so I moved back to the EU.
Hmm. Admittedly it was a long time ago buy I moved from a (then) EU country to the US and from my perspective taxes are about the same. And in the US we have to pay for a bunch of stuff that is government funded in EU.
What I pay for in medical insurance and routine medical expenses pushes me is just about equal to the difference between my current US taxes and European tax rates - and I'm a fairly healthy person with no chronic conditions.
Frankly, I don't see the point of celebrating the fact that my money is going to private companies as premiums/co-payments rather than to the central government as taxes, while getting worse medical outcomes for it (with a risk of medical bankruptcy).
When you have more complex health problems, you'll notice though that you still have to use private healthcare, because state provided is next to useless.
Taking what you said at face value - this doesn't give an advantage to either system when it comes to the minority of people who have complex health problems. In practice, European private healthcare is likely to have more price transparency and cheaper costs due to the pricing of procedures and medical consumables having been negotiated/capped by a government agency or an independent body.
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/bosch-factory/robert-bosch-t...