What's new

Opinionated - China Chipping Away to Semiconductor Dominance


While we are at, why not also compare apples with oranges? Or even better, compare cars with ships?

GPU and a ASIC are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

Like a GPU and CPU. A GPU is 100 times, even 1000 times better at stuff that it is designed to do compared to a CPU. But this doesn't mean that CPU is itself replaced.

Similarly, all these ASICs are designed to implement certain algorithms. GPUs as such are still needed for MANY applications, and will continue to be needed, even in AI/Machine Learning.
 
.
Government should always control the corporations. Not the other way round like the United States.
if that was the case then U.S government wouldn't have imposed such tariffs on U.S companies who have manufacturing facilities in China(the tariffs affects them a lot), since Almost every U.S corporation(especially Google) is totally against Donald trumps limits on US tech exports, trade war, tariffs against China, but there is nothing they can do but comply with US government laws and regulations. So you are wrong they don't control the government per se. Else there will be no trade war between US and China today.
So your analogy is wrong. The only difference here is that the US system has long been built to encourage the private sector to be the main growth drivers of the economy since the government mainly plays a supporting role and creating necessary environment for private enterprises to thrive. This is the biggest advantage of the U.S as well. Same way they have done with their space sector with Space x and blue origin etc who now lead the world in space tech even as private companies. China has learned from this and recently Beijing also opened their space sector to private sector(something many people would have never imagined could happen just a decade or two before). So i believe private sector is the way to go if a country wants to lead in tech sector nowadays. SOE are too inflexible/rigid and not as innovative(less incentives for them to do so) compared to private enterprises, since private companies are more risk takers than SOE and without taking risks and diving into the unknown its difficult to create new things/products. Government should mostly be playing be playing a supporting role,creating a level playing field, and creating a conducive environment fro private enterprises to thrive. The government can still be involved in other strategic sectors obviously, but doesn't means they should shut the doors to private sector and see them as a threat to state owned companies. Else if a country's growth is led and totally controlled by SOE there will be a limit to the extent to which they can perform and grow. They will forever be playing catch up.
 
Last edited:
.
if that was the case then U.S government wouldn't have imposed such tariffs on U.S companies who have manufacturing facilities in China(the tariffs affects them a lot), since Almost every U.S corporation(especially Google) is totally against Donald trumps limits on US tech exports, trade war, tariffs against China, but there is nothing they can do but comply with US government laws and regulations. So you are wrong they don't control the government per se. Else there will be no trade war between US and China today.
You don't understand. US tech corporate feels threaten by made in China 2025 plan. One of the most important stumbling block is made in China 2025. The US corporate order federal to intervene and stop China. If China succeed. Large number of US corporate have their profits cut. It's not as simple as it seems on outside.
 
.
You don't understand. US tech corporate feels threaten by made in China 2025 plan. One of the most important stumbling block is made in China 2025. The US corporate order federal to intervene and stop China. If China succeed. Large number of US corporate have their profits cut. It's not as simple as it seems on outside.
Even if they did i don't think they will want US government to impose tariffs that penalises US companies factories in China. How does this help these US corporations? it instead affects their business in the wrong way reason they are totally against this, but Trump doesn't gives a shit, he does what he wants. lol US corporations never liked or wanted trump to be president in the first place since they were against most of his policies reason they tried everything to stop him from being elected but failed. Just look at the US media insults and jokes of Trump on almost everything he does. lol This is also the thing about democracies and giving too much freedom to the press, in any developing country these journalists will be behind bars or dismissed from their job or even worse. lol
Now US corporations have no choice but to follow US government laws else they too would have to face consequences. Trump will keep doing what he thinks is right for the US and to make the US 'Great again'. lol
 
Last edited:
.
Even if they did i don't think they will want US government to impose tariffs that penalises US companies factories in China. How does this help these US corporations? it instead affects their business in the wrong way reason they are totally against this, but Trump doesn't gives a shit, he does what he wants. lol US corporations never liked or wanted trump to be president in the first place since they were against most of his policies reason they tried everything to stop him from being elected but failed. They have no choice but to follow US government laws else they too would have to face consequences. Trump will keep doing what he thinks is right for the US and to make the US 'Great again'. lol
They thought by doing this, US companies will return back to US the manufacturing plant. See how naive they think...
 
.
They thought by doing this, US companies will return back to US the manufacturing plant. See how naive they think...
Its Trump as president who decides what he wants to do. He has the final say. Reason i said every US corporation has to adhere to US government laws whether they like it or not. The other guy was making it sound like US corporations are the ones making all government decisions which is another conspiracy theory and wrong analogy. Its just that US private companies are so innovative, big, strong, and formed the bulk of the US economy, so its normal that US government will consider their views and interests in making their decisions which might affect these corporations business(and thus the american economy), but that doesn't means its the corporations that controls or make US government decisions, they can influence it but they don't have the final say. The president does.
 
.
Its Trump as president who decides what he wants to do. He has the final say. Reason i said every US corporation has to adhere to US government laws whether they like it or not. The other guy was making it sound like US corporations are the ones making all government decisions which is another conspiracy theory and wrong analogy. Its just that US private companies are so innovative, big, strong, and formed the bulk of the US economy, so its normal that US government will consider their views and interests in making their decisions which might affect these corporations business(and thus the american economy), but that doesn't means its the corporations that controls or make US government decisions, they can influence it but they don't have the final say. The president does.
You cannot deny of Giant US corporate influence on US president and federal. Tell me why after so many years of mass killing by assault rifle in US. Still no ban on assault rifle? I am sure you know the reason behind it.
 
.
You cannot deny of Giant US corporate influence on US president and federal. Tell me why after so many years of mass killing by assault rifle in US. Still no ban on assault rifle? I am sure you know the reason behind it.
You forget that i said something similar. As i said before US government obviously has to take into account the interests of its private companies who make up the bulk of the US economy and are the main drivers of growth for the US economy and world leaders in technology and innovation. So US government has to take their interests/business into consideration as well(which i clearly stated before) for the US economy benefit as well.
In regards to Guns you mentioned its a similar case as well, but on top of that there is something unique here among developed countries and even european/western countries. . You have to go back to US history and how they gained their independence to understand where the gun culture comes from. The US gained its independence from us after a bitter bloody fight for independence by US citizens and militias(aided by France back then as well, they were our competitor for world dominance. lol ). However even before this, The militia/frontiersman spirit derives from an early American dependence on arms to protect themselves from foreign armies and hostile Native Americans themselves. Survival depended upon everyone being capable of using a weapon. Prior to the american revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men just as registering for military service upon turning eighteen is today. Yet, as early as the 1700s, the mandatory universal militia duty gave way to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army thereafter. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the civilian militia began to decline and gave way to a more military one which fought for Independence against Britain. So even after gaining independence U.S citizens/people became very wary of government authority and protective of their freedom and individual rights. So people grew accustomed to bearing arms and wanted to carry on with that culture which is constitutionally protected by the US bill of rights.
So American attitudes on gun ownership date back to their revolutionary war, and comes also from the hunting/sporting ethos, and the militia/frontier ethos that draw from the country's early history. Its something Americans have kept to this day and why so many American are not in favour of having that right taken away from them. Even today many Americans are still in favour of their right to bear arms. Its a cultural/historical thing.
Anyway we have gone off topic. :D
 
.
You forget that i said something similar. As i said before US government obviously has to take into account the interests of its private companies who make up the bulk of the US economy and are the main drivers of growth for the US economy and world leaders in technology and innovation. So US government has to take their interests/business into consideration as well(which i clearly stated before) for the US economy benefit as well.
In regards to Guns you mentioned its a similar case as well, but on top of that there is something unique here among developed countries and even european/western countries. . You have to go back to US history and how they gained their independence to understand where the gun culture comes from. The US gained its independence from us after a bitter bloody fight for independence by US citizens and militias(aided by France back then as well, they were our competitor for world dominance. lol ). However even before this, The militia/frontiersman spirit derives from an early American dependence on arms to protect themselves from foreign armies and hostile Native Americans themselves. Survival depended upon everyone being capable of using a weapon. Prior to the american revolution there was neither budget nor manpower nor government desire to maintain a full-time army. Therefore, the armed citizen-soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing one's own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all men just as registering for military service upon turning eighteen is today. Yet, as early as the 1700s, the mandatory universal militia duty gave way to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army thereafter. Throughout the 19th century the institution of the civilian militia began to decline and gave way to a more military one which fought for Independence against Britain. So even after gaining independence U.S citizens/people became very wary of government authority and protective of their freedom and individual rights. So people grew accustomed to bearing arms and wanted to carry on with that culture which is constitutionally protected by the US bill of rights.
So American attitudes on gun ownership date back to their revolutionary war, and comes also from the hunting/sporting ethos, and the militia/frontier ethos that draw from the country's early history. Its something Americans have kept to this day and why so many American are not in favour of having that right taken away from them. Even today many Americans are still in favour of their right to bear arms. Its a cultural/historical thing.
Anyway we have gone off topic. :D
All major US gunmaker CEO all occupied an important post in US federal. Here we are asking them to ban assault rifle and not ban guns. Even such move in US is impossible. Cos it will hurt their profit.
 
.
All major US gunmaker CEO all occupied an important post in US federal. Here we are asking them to ban assault rifle and not ban guns. Even such move in US is impossible. Cos it will hurt their profit.

No it's not because of reasons that you think. Yes there are corporate profits involved, but US has a huge sections of gun owning people who are completely against any significant change.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. A constitutional amendment is very very hard in US. It needs 2/3rd of both houses of Congress and most of the states. That kind of support is simply not there in the US yet.
 
.
No it's not because of reasons that you think. Yes there are corporate profits involved, but US has a huge sections of gun owning people who are completely against any significant change.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. A constitutional amendment is very very hard in US. It needs 2/3rd of both houses of Congress and most of the states. That kind of support is simply not there in the US yet.

I am not asking for gun ban but assault rifle banned. But that will hurt US gunmaker badly if it happened. Many US gunmaker occupied important Federal post. Obama has tried many times, obviously it dont work. Trump dont even attempt to try.
 
.
if that was the case then U.S government wouldn't have imposed such tariffs on U.S companies who have manufacturing facilities in China(the tariffs affects them a lot), since Almost every U.S corporation(especially Google) is totally against Donald trumps limits on US tech exports, trade war, tariffs against China, but there is nothing they can do but comply with US government laws and regulations. So you are wrong they don't control the government per se. Else there will be no trade war between US and China today.
So your analogy is wrong. The only difference here is that the US system has long been built to encourage the private sector to be the main growth drivers of the economy since the government mainly plays a supporting role and creating necessary environment for private enterprises to thrive. This is the biggest advantage of the U.S as well. Same way they have done with their space sector with Space x and blue origin etc who now lead the world in space tech even as private companies. China has learned from this and recently Beijing also opened their space sector to private sector(something many people would have never imagined could happen just a decade or two before). So i believe private sector is the way to go if a country wants to lead in tech sector nowadays. SOE are too inflexible/rigid and not as innovative(less incentives for them to do so) compared to private enterprises, since private companies are more risk takers than SOE and without taking risks and diving into the unknown its difficult to create new things/products. Government should mostly be playing be playing a supporting role,creating a level playing field, and creating a conducive environment fro private enterprises to thrive. The government can still be involved in other strategic sectors obviously, but doesn't means they should shut the doors to private sector and see them as a threat to state owned companies. Else if a country's growth is led and totally controlled by SOE there will be a limit to the extent to which they can perform and grow. They will forever be playing catch up.
Not entirely true.
Trump is more an exception then the rule. Doesn't he use executive power to bypass congress ?
Encourage free enterprise by all means but ultimately the government must always be in control.
Beware that all private company are driven by profit and not by national or social interest.
 
.
While we are at, why not also compare apples with oranges? Or even better, compare cars with ships?

GPU and a ASIC are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

Like a GPU and CPU. A GPU is 100 times, even 1000 times better at stuff that it is designed to do compared to a CPU. But this doesn't mean that CPU is itself replaced.

Similarly, all these ASICs are designed to implement certain algorithms. GPUs as such are still needed for MANY applications, and will continue to be needed, even in AI/Machine Learning.

A modern smartphone SoC has a multi-core CPU, GPU, and NPU integrated into a single chip. So all of these components obviously would have their own usefulness and functionality, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

JIoYhZ7.jpg


But a smartphone is a multifunction device. It needs to be able to run a million different apps. You surf the web and play video games on your smartphone.

But what about a warehouse-sized data center run by Google?

Are these data centers rendering graphics for video games?

About a decade ago, Google was just beginning to drive its voice recognition services with deep neural networks, complex mathematical systems that can learn particular tasks by analyzing vast amounts of data. Google engineers realized that if each of the world's Android phones used the new Google voice search for just three minutes a day, the company would need TWICE AS MANY DATA CENTERS.

So Google created their own TPU instead of using Nvidia.

Using Nvidia is actually easier because it's an off-the-shelf product so you save some up-front cost.

But what is the cost for Google if they are forced to build twice the number of data centers?
 
. .
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom