Breaking News
News & Analysis

Is fab tool business model broken?

1/18/2011 05:19 PM EST
15 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
CSRivera
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
CSRivera   1/18/2011 6:39:10 PM
NO RATINGS
If the equipment vendor base is to consolidate, and their R&D dollars to be more efficiently allocated, would it be too much to ask (or demand) tools better suited to our highly integrated fabs? Far too often we obtain tools which must be tailored in to our integrated fabs. Too often, certain "wheels/subsystems" have been reinvented, when the previous subsystems were only in need of evolution. Basic subsystems such as pattern recognition, user interfaces, databases, diagnostics, etc. need not be reinvented. What we need are "plug-and-play" tools. Yes, this will require some standardization amongst the vendors and manufacturers, but this is essential if we are to accelerate our technologies.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
goafrit   1/18/2011 9:16:31 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes. It is broken. Why invest $20b to be upstaged by new technology within 18 months. It is a tough business and I will suggest fabs be built by industry consortia than individual companies.

yalanand
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
yalanand   1/18/2011 9:18:30 PM
NO RATINGS
What is the reason behing ASML success ? 80% of Lithography market share is quite whopping figure. What was the reason NIKON faired so badly ?

Hephaestus
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
Hephaestus   1/18/2011 10:31:01 PM
NO RATINGS
The fab tool business has become a winner-takes-all endeavor, and that is the way the industry has shaped it. Consortia will not change this.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
resistion   1/19/2011 2:19:06 PM
NO RATINGS
If they had one bad generation of tools just at the time it was most needed, that is enough to set them back, as the next time, customers would have some doubts. I suspect this happened with their last dry ArF tool. So they couldn't recover enough business in the immersion stage.

scummings55
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
scummings55   1/19/2011 11:09:23 PM
NO RATINGS
Given the challenges, uncertainty and expense still to come for EUV, I do not understand why other next-gen technologies are not mentioned in such a discussion. What is the status of nanoimprint lithography and maskless writing? Simple economics says $125M/tool is not a plausible solution.

mark.lapedus
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
mark.lapedus   1/20/2011 1:51:03 AM
NO RATINGS
Nano-imprint and maskless are behind EUV. We have covered these topics extensively. Nano-imprint is not ready for prime time in semis. Not sure it will ever work for semis. Maskless or ML2 is still science fiction.

Bruzzer
User Rank
Freelancer
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
Bruzzer   1/20/2011 3:56:12 AM
NO RATINGS
Intel is responsible for fabrication equipment industry consolidation to maintain their own process, fabrication, microprocessor and intra platform computing monopolies. In an environment where Intel has destroyed competitors and concentrated their own dealing cartel by racing process destructively. That is at a pace in excess of product organic market efficiencies for nearly two decades. Honest, Intel has never supported the expansion of subordinate economic potentials other than their own. When Moore’s law is an axiom misrepresented to conceal Rock’s enterprise monopoly objective. Where Intel plans in advance the concentration of compliment’s into their Dark hole. In an environment where Intel leads too productize subsequent process regimes, only to move so rapidly to the next, that the prior is prevented organic commercialization. Promoting the very inefficiencies that limit economic profit due fabrication equipment and material design manufacturer’s for reinvestment into a sustainable development practice. Really, today, why doesn’t an Intel microscope kit for young adults come equipped with a barrel etcher and 20 2 inch wafers to fabricate a radio, media player and memory stick? That answer is fabrication process regime never freed from Intel monopoly restraints. And now, at 450 millimeter, under Intel control invites the catalyst for a destructive accelerant. By an executive team that cannot demonstrate management antitrust compliance to free industry from the many form of Intel industrial slave society. Where everyone knows Intel’s objective is to bar others from crossing a very narrow bridge into the new world of molecular electronics. Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy.

atifh1
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
atifh1   1/20/2011 5:08:29 AM
NO RATINGS
intel bashing in gibberish?

scummings55
User Rank
Rookie
re: Is fab tool business model broken?
scummings55   1/20/2011 4:20:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Earlier this month DNP announced the purchase of a semiconductor 6025 mask replication tool from Molecular Imprints that uses nanoimprint lithography, making good on the article you wrote in July 2009 (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4083666/DNP-MII-devise-nano-imprint-mask-technology). They say NIL is progressing to pilot production for semi. Why not follow up and get the latest news from these folks?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.