|
|
|
|
|
by bluGill
1632 days ago
|
|
There is the volume vs cost problem. You could put a fab together for under a million - but to do so your would trade labor for automation. A simple chip that a large fab can make for a profit (amortized) selling for 5 cents each would cost you more than $50,000 each to make. If you only need one chip that price is worth it, but most users of a chip are thinking a lot more and it typically turns out that getting a large fab to do your part is not only cheaper, but faster. Still you can do the highly manual process of making a chip if that is what you want to pay for. |
|
I guess I don't understand why there isn't much, or any, labor intensive fabs combining on line, with a plan to automate away parts of the line as money comes in.
I suppose, the chemicals are so toxic, and the skills are so rare you can't get any production for months, even at the small scale. and perhaps even at the crazy high prices it's still not worth taking on the risk.
I know I don't know what I'm talking about. But golly it does _seem_ like I could make chips in a couple of years, and there's bound to be thousands of people out there that could do it in weeks. It seems like the kind of thing you could scale out with more labor and training, and improve process with automation as you go.
edit
Most trying to understand. Is it too toxic? are the skills so rare? Is the risk that high? Is that what's keeping low end chips from using a more expensive process even though they command higher prices - it's not enough to offset?