[1123581321]

From that comment I concluded that software patching speed isn’t a bottleneck there. It sounds frustrating but to be terrible it needs to significantly impede the product or business relationships, which isn’t at all happening.

[away271828]

Stability and long product lifecycles are incredibly important to them. They're pretty much the opposite of move fast and break things or deploy early/deploy often.

[hcfman]

Try searching how much money is lost by clients if the fab is down. You have to be very careful with software for fabs.

[ghaff]

Absolutely. What makes a lot of sense for one organization would be absolutely insane for others. ASML has incredible innovation in some areas but I'd expect them to prioritize stability in others.

[awesomeMilou]

Honestly, if you think about the availability guarantees that these FAB's have to deliver, I'm kinda surprised they don't run off of IBM mainframes. Can't believe it but it would be a perfect use case. High bandwidth I/O, paired with ungodly, over-the-horizon-radar like availability.

[konschubert]

I find it strange that they are making so few machines.

The price would probably drop slightly if they made 10x more machines, but they would still end up earning more. And the world would be a better place, too.

So I am left wondering ... what is capping their output? What is the bottleneck?

[1123581321]

My understanding is that production and installation do not scale since the machines are essentially replications of a successful physics experiment environment. Manufacture is a long, multi-step process requiring technical expertise (which is limited). Then, machines are re-assembled at the customer site--again, carefully and with a large technical staff.

To commit engineering to achieving 10x manufacture rate would probably require giving up the lead on next generation processes.

Personally, I think there must be an end to this. There are steps we are going to learn to more reliably replicate, and reliably reassemble. Machines won't become smaller, but other heavy industries have learned to do faster, de-skilled installations so semiconductors should eventually as well. However, I don't think we'll get the 'good for the world' benefit because by the time every country can make leading edge semis, some other critical, supply-restricted part will become what's contested.

[konschubert]

You might be right.

On the absolute forefront, it has to be artisanal.

But we can learn to scale making the machines that were cutting edge two years ago.

Maybe ASML just doesn’t do this because they leave it to other companies? Either way, somebody should be the one that’s always two years behind but makes 2000 machines a year.

And of course, when you remove a bottleneck, you find another. But that other bottleneck will be wider.

[brnt]

Asml does this, learning how to scale the cutting edge of two years ago. This is what scaling cutting edge physics looks like. Academic groups sometimes take the better part of a decade (or more) to replicate a setup by another group. There are few components you can buy off the shelf in this space: you'll have to understand, design and make them all yourself. Market's way too small to suppory competing suppliers. Takes longer than two years to farm all of that out and create a market of sufficient size. Plus, buyers tend to not want (or pay) for one or two decade old stuff, so that market (for part suppliers) may never quite materialise.

And then, these machine are indeed more like physics experiments than a device. If you compare it with that, ASML is actually quite fast.

And the market knows all of this, hence their valuation.

[konschubert]

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I meant “somebody should scale making those machines that ASML could make two years ago”.

And maybe not two years, but 5, but you catch my vibe here.

[brnt]

But they are! It just takes way longer than two years, both to scale production in house (creating the first takes way longer than than, creating the second in 2 is already fantastic), and to create any supply chain market which others could use to compete. Canon surely has been trying, and failing, because it's hard.

[itishappy]

My money's on some of the optics.

https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology...

https://www.trumpf.com/en_US/products/lasers/euv-drive-laser...

https://www.cymer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cymer_SPIE_...

[lijok]

It’s Zeiss specifically. They’re a fun company.

[seec]

Part of the answer was in previous comments: they are relying too much on “nice” humans instead of rationalizing processes. This is very common in the EU and in fact trying to do stuff that will lead to less people needed for a given output will quickly get you in trouble. The other day there was someone calling EU communist and on a “culture” point of view this is pretty close. We seem stuck on old paradigm of everyone has to do something even if it cause more problems in the long run. I believe they could absolutely produce more machine if they had too but they don’t have to care since they have no real competitors on the high end stuff so this is what we get…

[lijok]

> What is the bottleneck?

Zeiss

[konschubert]

Well then somebody should scale THAT.

And maybe not the cutting edge, but whatever was cutting edge 5 years ago.

[lijok]

Zeiss is bottlenecked by the workforce. Not enough of them. Tricky to scale that.

[konschubert]

How much do they pay? Why can’t they hire more?

[lijok]

There simply aren’t enough people that can do the job and not that many Germans are interested in taking an apprenticeship so they can polish glass for the rest of their life.