Even if it’s not due to Exynos, the rest of my comment holds true. These subsidies are just a drop in the bucket in terms of total cost. Samsung and it’s subsidiaries account for 1/5 of the GDP for the entire nation of South Korea while TSMC already produces leading edge chips for nearly every major manufacturer on the planet, including Intel. They have plenty of funds to begin production here in the US even if they have to wait a little longer for these subsidies.
How is the size of Samsung relative to South Korea’s GDP relevant? Apple is a bigger company and it wouldn’t open a factory in the US without subsidies.
Apples chips are made by TSMC and Samsungs size reflects how deep their pockets are. They aren’t holding back because they haven’t received 1% of funding from the US government.
Samsung isn’t a charity and Samsung Electronics has its own books independently from other companies in the chaebol. The US needs to give Samsung a reason to manufacture in the US. Make it attractive vs. all the other countries.
Samsung have made SoCs for Apple before and Apple does its own manufacturing and whatnot in the US that it does receive subsidies for.
Apple is amongst the companies that have received the biggest state and local subsidies in the U.S. It got US$891 million in 2021.
For tech and media companies, much of the money went towards building R&D centers, relocations of corporate offices and office campuses in certain states.
Not all such payments are though well received. Back in December, a subsidy to Apple from North Carolina, where the company is building a new campus, was branded 2021’s “Worst Economic Development Deal of the Year” by the Center for Economic Accountability (CEA). The arrangement is worth over US$846 million. John Mozena, president of the CEA, said:
A billion dollars is a lot of money for North Carolina’s taxpayers and communities, because that’s a billion dollars’ worth of public services not being funded. But for a company like Apple, which reported more than a billion dollars a day in revenues this past year, it isn’t anywhere near enough money to move the needle on a major site selection decision.
Seems none of this went toward any sort of manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the article mentions Samsung received $1.2B in subsidies already from state and local governments, roughly in line with what they’d be receiving from the CHIPS Act. Of course they’re not a charity, but how is 1% of funding holding back the entire project if they’re paying the other 99% out of their own pocket? As I said originally, this is just a convenient cover to deflect away from their own poor performance as a company and put the onus on the government.
I already explained that TSMC can’t get their fab running because they don’t want to pay US wages to contractors and employees. This has been widely reported on already.
There you go. So for Samsung too a similar reason is more likely. A Fab would require workers, land, supply chain, and so on. Subsidies are only one part of the equation, and if any other part is unattractive then more subsidies would be needed.
You need to understand that the reason CHIPS Act exists in the first place is to make it attractive for companies to set up fabs in the US. If the US was already attractive, the CHIPS Act wouldn’t be necessary.
A fab can fabricate designs by others.
Even if it’s not due to Exynos, the rest of my comment holds true. These subsidies are just a drop in the bucket in terms of total cost. Samsung and it’s subsidiaries account for 1/5 of the GDP for the entire nation of South Korea while TSMC already produces leading edge chips for nearly every major manufacturer on the planet, including Intel. They have plenty of funds to begin production here in the US even if they have to wait a little longer for these subsidies.
How is the size of Samsung relative to South Korea’s GDP relevant? Apple is a bigger company and it wouldn’t open a factory in the US without subsidies.
Apples chips are made by TSMC and Samsungs size reflects how deep their pockets are. They aren’t holding back because they haven’t received 1% of funding from the US government.
Samsung isn’t a charity and Samsung Electronics has its own books independently from other companies in the chaebol. The US needs to give Samsung a reason to manufacture in the US. Make it attractive vs. all the other countries.
Samsung have made SoCs for Apple before and Apple does its own manufacturing and whatnot in the US that it does receive subsidies for.
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/apple-receive-subsidies-from-us-states/
Seems none of this went toward any sort of manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the article mentions Samsung received $1.2B in subsidies already from state and local governments, roughly in line with what they’d be receiving from the CHIPS Act. Of course they’re not a charity, but how is 1% of funding holding back the entire project if they’re paying the other 99% out of their own pocket? As I said originally, this is just a convenient cover to deflect away from their own poor performance as a company and put the onus on the government.
Then explain TSMC doing the same. It is more believable that the subsidies aren’t enough to make manufacturing attractive and more needs to be done.
I already explained that TSMC can’t get their fab running because they don’t want to pay US wages to contractors and employees. This has been widely reported on already.
There you go. So for Samsung too a similar reason is more likely. A Fab would require workers, land, supply chain, and so on. Subsidies are only one part of the equation, and if any other part is unattractive then more subsidies would be needed.
You need to understand that the reason CHIPS Act exists in the first place is to make it attractive for companies to set up fabs in the US. If the US was already attractive, the CHIPS Act wouldn’t be necessary.
Samsung Electronics does not make up 20% of South Korea’s GDP lol
I never said they did, but as a corporation, they make up 20% of South Korea’s economy.