True, Anand. The third reason that this may work, in my mind, though, is that private investors most likely know this industry and what key players in the industry need -- far better than the government's bureaucrats.
These are some pretty interesting insights into how the portable technology and wearable technology markets are going to drive battery revenue in the coming years but I do not see any mention of the contribution of Internet of Things devices to this growth. Even though they are hard to completely define, a good proportion of them rely on batteries for this power and considering just how fast the IoT world has been growing it would be interesting to see how they will contribute to the sustainability and growth of battery revenue.
Since there does not seem to be any clear consensus as to the specific amount of money that the Chinese administration is planning to commit to the development of its home chip industry, being an optimist I can't help but wonder what it would be like if they actually pumped those figures into the industry. Say, for example, they actually pump $200 billion stretched over 5 years into the chip industry. Such investment would literally make competitors tremble, if nothing else.
The involvement of the private sector in the disbursement of these funds is an essential approach in two main ways; first of all, there is greater efficiency since the private investors are more concerned about the bottom line than the government and can evaluate the companies looking for funding more objectively. Secondly it increases accountability since most companies are usually not very concerned about conserving whatever they receive directly from the government because they believe they are entitle to the same as they pay taxes to the government.
@Krisi, it is true that corruption could shrink the 10 billion figure to a smaller amount but considering that China is a communist state the risk of loss of fund through corruption is not as serious as it would be if the project were to be implemented in some other parts of the world. Naturally the communist states are less corrupt, especially at the lower levels of government, compared to democracies and pseudo-democracies.
From investor's point of view, I think the idea of not letting the government to dictate which IC industry sector should get the investment money is a brilliant one. This will make it effective because it will reduce cases of corruption leading to embezzlement of this investment money. It will also lead to a quality and successful project. The idea of letting professional investors to place bets on which entities, foundries and research institute deserve the funding is also a good one.
@wilber_xbox, China's $10B per year investment, if true, will blow everyone out of the water. It is really off the chart.
But at a time when chip vendors struggle to get VCs' attention in Silicon Valley and the general public seems to be taking the advancements of chips for granted, China's interest in semiconductors is a blessing to this industry, I must say.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.