- Banned
- #46
All completely valid points, and certainly in the long run it seems at least partial vertical integration of the chip manufacturing would likely be a prudent decision. The problem is getting a CEO willing to stake their reputation on implementing a very expensive plan. Once you've made that investment, it's a hard ship to steer without risking a huge loss.
However, this is an issue within the semiconductor industry as well. I've had a few Joint Venture projects that I've worked on. There were two competitors building a fab together to reduce the risk to each company. Imagine how much sense it would make for the automakers to unite behind a common technology platform (not shared chips necessarily, but a shared development ecosystem tailored specifically to auto maker needs). It would make it easier for companies to modernize, it would help them all keep pace with safety needs (which could include shared chips), and it would reduce the development cost for any one player.I just don't see that ever happening.Edit: I should say I would be very surprised, however with the number of JVs that we've seen (Ford/Mazda, Toyota/Subaru, and many more), it's not impossible. Perhaps this is the catalyst we need to push auto makers to be more cooperative where it matters most.
Definitely easier said than done. But I think the pitfalls you talk about are the very reason for the partnership with GF.For some perspective on this, I once worked for a division that provided the base library (along with a set of industry leading, custom timing rules) for chip design. This library was used by a number of different design teams. But the actual division I worked for struggled to earn a profit. We generated a lot of "internal" revenue, but it didn't equate directly to $$ in the bank. There was never a time that we didn't have to justify our existence. Budgets were repeatedly slashed because we were a cost center. All expense, no revenue (in the eyes of the bean counters anyway). It made for a very stressful environment.
Ford is a public company. As such, there will always be constant pressure to increase short-term profits. Engineering salaries are a huge hit to the bottom line, and it's hard to measure their contribution to the top line sometimes. It's kind of like most IT departments. If they do a good job, nobody notices them and execs have a hard time understanding why the costs are so high. So they cut costs, which attracts less capable employees. Suddenly you're saving a fortune on overhead, but your computer systems have problems all the time. Semiconductor development falls into the same trap. And once you slip and fall behind, it can be hard to catch up.
My final point is that making a reliable semiconductor fab takes a lot of work. It is a constant battle to find and fix tool issues. These aren't the type of thing you just pay to setup once and it runs itself, so you need to bring in the expertise to not only get the operation running, but also to keep it running. If this was easy, more people would be doing it.
I'm sure the hope is that by partnering with an industry insider they can succeed despite the dangers.
Sponsored