• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2211 months ago

    Sounds like they’re delaying because their Exynos chip is wildly unpopular compared to Snapdragon and simply blaming it on the CHIPS Act as cover. They’re claiming it’s because they need this couple billion in subsidies while also claiming they plan to invest $200 billion here? Seems like Samsung should be able to cover the tab in the interim if they really wanted to build here. This bill is already signed into law so why wouldn’t they receive the funds at some point? Is this 1% of their total investment really that critical?

    This is just like Walgreens and RiteAid claiming they have to close stores due to theft, only to later admit that was a complete fabrication.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      Samsung fab is different from Samsung’s Exynos team

      TSMC has also not received a cent. Their chairman got kicked a few weeks ago for being stupid enough to trust American promises of money.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1711 months ago

        TSMC can’t get their fab build because they think US workers should be receiving Chinese wages. Everyone is entitled to a share of the money of they build a US fab. Intel is already in the middle of building a completely new campus in Ohio even though they’ve had a terrible couple years financially and haven’t received their subsidies either. You’d think TSMC, the company that makes virtually every other companies chips, would be able to front a few billion on their own facility.

        Would you rather it end up like Foxconn’s Wisconsin deal where the city demolishes an entire neighborhood of homes, kicks the residents out, and gives billions in subsidies only for them to scale back the plant and only hire a couple hundred people to build outdated products? These companies are already absolutely massive and can afford this stuff on their own. The subsidies are just supposed to be a small incentive for doing so, not their primary source of funding.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -111 months ago

      This is just like Walgreens and RiteAid claiming they have to close stores due to theft, only to later admit that was a complete fabrication.

      Thought this was interesting, so I tried looking for more information. Didn’t find anything other than people speculating. If you have a link or search terms I could use to find of an article of these or similar companies saying the closings were actually because of something else, I’d appreciate it.

  • @rockSlayer
    link
    711 months ago

    At this point it would be cheaper, easier, and faster to demand the IP for developing chips and build a government ran fab. I’m calling it now, the companies will pretend to take the investment, break ground, and then declare the project impossible for free profit from a government.