The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry

[fallstuff]

Can you please provide a source for this claim? I am trying to search for more current information, but as of 2012:

3-D printing adds new dimension to startups- Business- China Daily Asia

But the level of development of China's 3-D printing sector is still low, and the global market share for Chinese systems is small. Less than 5 percent of the world's 3-D printing systems were manufactured by Chinese producers in 2012, according to Wohlers Associates. US companies occupied 73 percent of the global market share, and European firms claimed about 10 percent.

It makes sense that the United States is currently the world leader in 3D printing, since 3D printing was invented here.

Edit: The best I can do seems to be from this ZDNet article, published August 1, 2014:

Korean government's 3D printing blueprint targets 15 percent of global market | ZDNet

According to 3D printing analyst Wohlers Associates, South Korea's market share of worldwide 3D printing is 2 percent. That's far behind the US (77 percent), Germany (11 percent), and Japan (3.7 percent). The US, the world's leading 3D printing nation, has more than 1,800 patents. Wohlers expects this year's 3D printing market to be worth $2.8 billion.

That means the US is becoming more dominant in this field, not less.

I have no idea who this Wohler guy is other than an intro by Forbes. The intro sounded more like sales pitch to buy Wohlers report for $495. I buy and sell from china, I know people who are buying and selling 3D printer from China.

There are hundreds of these 3D printer and filament manufacturers listed in Alibaba.com with prices from few hundred dollars to hundred thousand dollars. A search got me about 1500 results in Alibaba.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

That is a good theory, what about reality? For physical scientists and engineers, when reality contradicts their theory, the theory is wrong. For economics and social scientists, when reality contradicts their theory, it is reality that is wrong.

The reality is, every year there number of WIPO patents, scientific papers, startup numbers, profits from tech companies, etc. are increasing exponentially while no laws have changed. If your theory was true, then the number of papers, patents, startups, profits, etc. should all be declining. Chinese science should be in retreat. No new sectors such as quantum optics, nanotechnology, semiconductor, etc. should be explored. Startup numbers should be decreasing.

So why is your theory not coming true? Is it reality's problem?

The reason companies don't blindly copy, even for products that are off-patent, is because they don't have the ability to in terms of equipment, talent, organization, budget, etc. Look at Tesla; they opened all their patents for the public to use, without royalty, and they're not scared one bit of losing profits. They know that even with a blueprint, the vast majority of companies don't have any chance to compete with them, and established competitors will find that changing tools, etc. is more expensive than the added revenue (if any). This is why some countries are literally handed the blueprints to aircraft, yet cannot replicate them.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're arguing with a strawman. No one is suggesting it's a binary world, of either steal everything, or steal nothing. Hopefully, you will note that I spoke of "discouraging R&D," not "eliminating R&D."

There are companies in the US which steal IP as well, and there are companies in China which do not steal IP. We are speaking on relative terms, where China steals relatively quite a bit of IP, and others steal relatively little. Moreover, as Chinese companies have stolen IP over the years, it has become progressively harder for them to steal, as foreign companies have taken steps to protect themselves. That is not proof that Chinese companies are not trying to steal IP, only that they are less successful. It might also be a signal that China is gradually normalizing, but the fabricated anti-monopoly harassment of foreign firms calls such an evaluation into question.

Besides, you have already indirectly answered the question: R&D will be pursued where profits can only be made through that avenue, and R&D will be skipped when IP can be stolen and sold at a profit. I see no distortion of reality, and I see no conflict between that reality and the fact that Chinese companies steal IP. If you are a physical scientist or engineer, you can rest easy in knowing there is no contraction here.

I have no idea who this Wohler guy is other than an intro by Forbes. The intro sounded more like sales pitch to buy Wohlers report for $495. I buy and sell from china, I know people who are buying and selling 3D printer from China.

There are hundreds of these 3D printer and filament manufacturers listed in Alibaba.com with prices from few hundred dollars to hundred thousand dollars. A search got me about 1500 results in Alibaba.

So your response, in essence, is "don't believe these Wohler guys, whom I've never heard of, but you should trust an anonymous internet user like me instead?" I think we understand each other.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Good points. If China consistently failed to respect IP, it would be subject to widespread retaliation. By unevenly applying the law, instead of ignoring it outright, Chinese companies are able to fend off this retaliation. They provide just enough profit to the company in question to make the company think twice about suing or cutting off its bad-actor customer. But in aggregate, this is reaching a tipping point.

As far as the semiconductor fabs in China, I'm no expert, but aren't the Intel fabs intentionally kept 1-2 generations behind in technology, precisely because of this fear of IP theft?

I don't know about Intel but the (complete, not just back-end) samsung fab in Xi'an is manufacturing at the 10 nm class which is the cutting edge for memory products.

Samsung opens $7 billion NAND flash fab in China

Flash Likely to Get More Expensive; Samsung Builds 10nm Fab

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're arguing with a strawman. No one is suggesting it's a binary world, of either steal everything, or steal nothing. Hopefully, you will note that I spoke of "discouraging R&D," not "eliminating R&D."

There are companies in the US which steal IP as well, and there are companies in China which do not steal IP. We are speaking on relative terms, where China steals relatively quite a bit of IP, and others steal relatively little. Moreover, as Chinese companies have stolen IP over the years, it has become progressively harder for them to steal, as foreign companies have taken steps to protect themselves. That is not proof that Chinese companies are not trying to steal IP, only that they are less successful. It might also be a signal that China is gradually normalizing, but the fabricated anti-monopoly harassment of foreign firms calls such an evaluation into question.

Besides, you have already indirectly answered the question: R&D will be pursued where profits can only be made through that avenue, and R&D will be skipped when IP can be stolen and sold at a profit. I see no distortion of reality, and I see no conflict between that reality and the fact that Chinese companies steal IP. If you are a physical scientist or engineer, you can rest easy in knowing there is no contraction here.

Discouraging means reducing. Eliminating means go to zero. I was talking about reducing RD i.e. less papers being produced, less startups being founded, less patents being applied for, etc. If it was all copying and no innovation, then there's no issue here; the US companies get the lion's share of the profits through the first-comer (and second, and third) advantage, while only after the market is already saturated, will there be Chinese competitors. But I don't think that's the case.

 

[tonyget]

Which part of 'back end' do you not understand ?

All major US tech companies have R&D center in China

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I don't know about Intel but the (complete, not just back-end) samsung fab in Xi'an is manufacturing at the 10 nm class which is the cutting edge for memory products.

Samsung opens $7 billion NAND flash fab in China

Flash Likely to Get More Expensive; Samsung Builds 10nm Fab



Discouraging means reducing. Eliminating means go to zero. I was talking about reducing RD i.e. less papers being produced, less startups being founded, less patents being applied for, etc. If it was all copying and no innovation, then there's no issue here; the US companies get the lion's share of the profits through the first-comer (and second, and third) advantage, while only after the market is already saturated, will there be Chinese competitors. But I don't think that's the case.

Not sure I agree with the definition of discouraging. To take an extreme example, if abortion is available as a means to discourage single-motherhood, and is utilized, but the overall number of single-mother families grows, does that mean that the policy did not in fact discourage single-motherhood? Or does it instead mean that it reduced the number of single-mother families compared to what otherwise might have resulted?

I wish I could be more clever with my analogy at this late hour, but hopefully you will see the crux of the matter.

In any case, I think we can agree that it's best for both American and Chinese companies, in aggregate, if China enforces IP laws to an international standard.

 

[fallstuff]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're arguing with a strawman. No one is suggesting it's a binary world, of either steal everything, or steal nothing. Hopefully, you will note that I spoke of "discouraging R&D," not "eliminating R&D."

There are companies in the US which steal IP as well, and there are companies in China which do not steal IP. We are speaking on relative terms, where China steals relatively quite a bit of IP, and others steal relatively little. Moreover, as Chinese companies have stolen IP over the years, it has become progressively harder for them to steal, as foreign companies have taken steps to protect themselves. That is not proof that Chinese companies are not trying to steal IP, only that they are less successful. It might also be a signal that China is gradually normalizing, but the fabricated anti-monopoly harassment of foreign firms calls such an evaluation into question.

Besides, you have already indirectly answered the question: R&D will be pursued where profits can only be made through that avenue, and R&D will be skipped when IP can be stolen and sold at a profit. I see no distortion of reality, and I see no conflict between that reality and the fact that Chinese companies steal IP. If you are a physical scientist or engineer, you can rest easy in knowing there is no contraction here.



So your response, in essence, is "don't believe these Wohler guys, whom I've never heard of, but you should trust an anonymous internet user like me instead?" I think we understand each other.

No thats your BS, not mine.

Actually Alibaba is way more reliable and more valuable than some Wohler guy nobody knows, anybody with a half a brain will figure it out.
Did you even see the testimonial he has about his report ?

I doubt you understand how the business world works. If you are buying his report buddy I got a bridge to sell in Brooklyn !!

 

[tonyget]

An old news

NXP today: 'Practically a Chinese company' | EE Times

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

No thats your BS, not mine.

Actually Alibaba is way more reliable and more valuable than some Wohler guy nobody knows, anybody with a half a brain will figure it out.
Did you even see the testimonial he has about his report ?

I doubt you understand how the business world works. If you are buying his report buddy I got a bridge to sell in Brooklyn !!

We'll both be better off if you join the elite few on my ignore list, so let it be done. Good luck to you.

 

[gambit]

Good points. If China consistently failed to respect IP, it would be subject to widespread retaliation. By unevenly applying the law, instead of ignoring it outright, Chinese companies are able to fend off this retaliation. They provide just enough profit to the company in question to make the company think twice about suing or cutting off its bad-actor customer. But in aggregate, this is reaching a tipping point.

As far as the semiconductor fabs in China, I'm no expert, but aren't the Intel fabs intentionally kept 1-2 generations behind in technology, precisely because of this fear of IP theft?

Yes, that is true.

The Chinese members here boasts about the scaling technology that some, not all, Chinese fabs are working under.

22 nanometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 22 nanometer (22 nm) is the process step following the 32 nm in CMOSsemiconductor device fabrication. The typical half-pitch (i.e., half the distance between identical features in an array) for a memory cell using the process is around 22 nm. It was first introduced by semiconductor companies in 2008 for use in memory products, while first consumer-level CPU deliveries started in April 2012.

Scaling is essentially how small -- in nanometers -- can you make a structure, whether that structure is the transistor or capacitor.

What they do not understand is that the technology for scaling down is developed and refined outside of China before they are introduced into China for mass production. The current challenge is the 450mm, or 18 inches, diameter silicon wafer.

Atom Everywhere: Intel breaks ground on first 450mm fab | ExtremeTech

Intel has broken ground on its first dedicated facility for 450mm wafer production. The new foundry — D1X Module 2 — is scheduled to come online in 2015, with Intel committing to roughly $2 billion in bring-up costs through the end of the year. Foundry costs have continued to balloon in recent years; the 450mm facility will likely set records in this area due to the cost of the new manufacturing equipment.

China is essentially shut out of this challenge because of IP related issues. Everything from fab designs to robotics to processes will be developed and refined outside of China before Chinese companies are allowed to learn anything about the 450mm wafer.

This is what I meant when I said 'back end'.

All major US tech companies have R&D center in China

To supplement -- not lead or even as partner -- to the R/D efforts outside of China.

 

[tonyget]

As far as the semiconductor fabs in China, I'm no expert, but aren't the Intel fabs intentionally kept 1-2 generations behind in technology, precisely because of this fear of IP theft?

IBM sold 28nm tech to SMIC. SMIC did not steal but bought it.

 

[fallstuff]

We'll both be better off if you join the elite few on my ignore list, so let it be done. Good luck to you.

Just don't spread BS, not when it is that obvious !!!

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

IBM sold 28nm tech to SMIC. SMIC did not steal but bought it.

I'm afraid I'm out of my depth when it comes to semiconductor issues. I'll take your word for it. Again, my point was not to imply that all China does is steal, or that all Chinese are bad. I would guess that the majority of companies are responsible actors in this regard, but the few who are bad actors, along with the government's erratic behavior towards foreign firms, do much to undermine confidence.

 

[tonyget]

To supplement -- not lead or even as partner -- to the R/D efforts outside of China.

You just claimed that US tech companies have no frond end operation in China, now tell me R&D is not frond end to you.

 

[gambit]

You just claimed that US tech companies have no frond end operation in China, now tell me R&D is not frond end to you.

If there are any R/D labs in China, it is because these companies want to leverage the human capital that Chinese engineers and scientists have to offer as supplement to their own labs in their home countries. Basically, their home countries dictate what/how the Chinese labs will work on, not that they will say: 'Hmmm...Here is this concept and let us offload the whole idea to China.' In essence, the Chinese R/D labs do the back-end work of the R/D efforts, just like the mass production fabs work only after they have been fed the knowledge on what to do.

Intel developed a program called 'Copy Smart' solely for the purpose of quality across all their fab operations, no matter where.

Samsung and GlobalFoundries buddy up for 14nm, while IBM heads for the exit | ExtremeTech

...will use a “copy-smart” approach that involves synchronizing materials, process recipes, and tools. That’s not quite the level of duplication that Intel’s “copy exactly” approach uses, but it should still allow designs built at one foundry to ramp up smoothly at another.

Basically, the companies documented what was done, how it was done, how much resource to do it, and how fast should it be done. Then it export the programs to their affiliates in other countries and expect those operations to abide by the rules contains within. It does not matter if it is an R/D lab or a full blown commodity products manufacturing fab. If a Chinese R/D lab is associate with a well known Western semicon company, that Chinese lab will be the recipient of some type of 'copy smart' process in order for that Chinese lab to come up to speed ASAP.

 

[tonyget]

If there are any R/D labs in China, it is because these companies want to leverage the human capital that Chinese engineers and scientists have to offer as supplement to their own labs in their home countries. Basically, their home countries dictate what/how the Chinese labs will work on, not that they will say: 'Hmmm...Here is this concept and let us offload the whole idea to China.' In essence, the Chinese R/D labs do the back-end work of the R/D efforts, just like the mass production fabs work only after they have been fed the knowledge on what to do.

Intel developed a program called 'Copy Smart' solely for the purpose of quality across all their fab operations, no matter where.

Samsung and GlobalFoundries buddy up for 14nm, while IBM heads for the exit | ExtremeTech

Basically, the companies documented what was done, how it was done, how much resource to do it, and how fast should it be done. Then it export the programs to their affiliates in other countries and expect those operations to abide by the rules contains within. It does not matter if it is an R/D lab or a full blown commodity products manufacturing fab. If a Chinese R/D lab is associate with a well known Western semicon company, that Chinese lab will be the recipient of some type of 'copy smart' process in order for that Chinese lab to come up to speed ASAP.

What's the difference ? Even in headquarter, it's only a few people in top know the entire "plot", average engineers don't have access to company's trade secret.