In my opinion, I am sure that all of the companies you mention would like to ask for money up front. I am not sure that they can. ASML holds all of the cards in litho. I am not sure any other company would be negotiating from such a position of strength.
I agree Intel wants larger wafers. Racing process is increasing their number of process steps driving moore inefficiencies into their fabrication process.
History shows Intel will bypass disruptive innovations at adoption stage if an alternate method is farther along its development curve;
multi dice package vs. multicore dice comes to mind. Sound strategy reducing manufacturing risk this way. Especially when the moore costly solution is concealed by monopoly accounts practice.
Note of interest at Semicon session Lithography: Extending Double Patterning, Industrializing EUV and Complimentary Technologies in which Borodovsky presented, is that EBEAM was seen as the compliment to 193i & Directed Self Assembly not EUV.
I personally believe Intel will harvest their current lithography investment until applied science passes through innovation phase to identiy the next process commercial industrial art.
I think ASML has a duty to shareholders to announce any (share) price sensitive information. 300mm EUV R&D is done in all but power source/throughput (?). Intel wants 450mm EUV and 450mm ArF,KrF and immersion. This is the beginning of the end for Nikon, Intels traditional lithography partner. My money is on TSMC & Samsung to follow Intel's move.
EUV is part of the deal. But phase one is 450. I think that is what Intel wants more. Intel's Yan Borodovsky spoke today about using complementary lithography, including 193 immersion, DSA and perhaps other technologies. But I think Intel is just trying to cover its bases. Intel still wants EUV badly. But it seems to me that the jury is still out on EUV's economic viability.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.