I'm surprised that Apple is not considering opening up its own fabs. Tim Cook is all about vertical-integration and they have a mountain of cash that they could use to fund the initial startup capex.
Semiconductor manufacturing is not an incremental step for Apple. It's an entirely new kind of vertical. They do not have the resources to do this. If they could they would have by now.
Designing CPUs also wasn't their core business and they did it anyway. Apple probably won't care that much about price hikes but if they ever feel TSMC can't guarantee steady supply then all bets are off.
I wonder what will happen in future when we get closer to the physical "wall". Will it allow other fabs to catch up or the opposite will happen, and even small improvements will be values by customers?
> Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. plans to spend a record of up to $56 billion this year to feed the world’s insatiable appetite for chips, as it grapples with pressure to build more factories outside Taiwan, especially in the U.S. [0]
Apple has less cash available than TSMC plans to burn this year. TSMC is not spending 50 billion dollars just because it's fun to do so. This is how much it takes just to keep the wheels on the already existing bus. Starting from zero is a non-starter. It just cannot happen anymore. So, no one in their right mind would sell Apple their leading edge foundry at a discount either.
There was a time when companies like Apple could have done this. That time was 15+ years ago. It's way too late now.
Apple has very much been wanted absolute flexibility to adopt major technology changes so much they’ve tried hard to not be the sole customer of a supplier and deal with political ramifications (source: Apple in China/Patrick McGee)
Closer to $40b for a new fab for an established company to do it all correctly. It's a much more major investment to open a fab without ever doing it before, then continually use the brain power/institutional knowledge you've built up to stay near the forefront of fab tech, and then basically have weird incentives to build a foundry for only your products rather than the world at large.
You're setting yourself up for making a huge part of your future revenue stream being set aside for ongoing chipfab capex and research engineering. And that's a huge gamble, since getting this all setup is not guaranteed to succeed.
Is that true? I guess what I mean is, is it $40B if you are trying to replicate the scale of a TSMC fab? Or could you do it for considerably less if the fab is initially designed to the needs of single customer (Apple)?
Closer to $40B for some of the latest fabs from TSMC you're seeing, yes. While there could be huge simplification in SoC and packaging processes if it was focused on a single product, Apple's needs will likely still be about having cutting edge processors, so it would still be pretty high even if they were to just buy TSMC.
Great! Another bunch of micromobility products that nobody asked for.
And the price! I can buy 6 very decent Chinese ebikes of various formats for the $4500 this thing will cost. I'm sure it will be more advanced and nicely designed, but it's just way too expensive. Bicycles are a mass-market item. Price is the primary decider. If you want to be successful, you have to be cheaper than the competition.
Who is this for?
That's not even true for normal bicycles. Serious cyclists can spend massive amounts of cash on their rides.
Aside from that, if you're using this as a vehicle you want more than just the cheapest thing out there. Reliability and serviceability are important when not having the bike means you can't get to work or your kid's school.
> Reliability and serviceability are important when not having the bike means you can't get to work or your kid's school.
True, but this bike is completely non-standard so sort of blows that. There isn't even a direct connection between the pedals and the wheels. If the electrical bits stop responding you don't even have a bike, you have a really awkward velocipede. Every other e-bike that I have ridden or seen is still a bike when there is no power.
By massive amounts, of course you meant "dramatically less than any car", right?
Most serious bicyclists I know, some with wonderful bikes, still spent less on their bikes than the typical American spends getting the air conditioned seats option in their F-150.
This feels like a labor-of-love to me. I doubt very much that the original author is still participating in music to the same degree as he was when he made this. I don't think that current musical trends would inspire the same fastidious urge to document and archive as it once did.
The article highlights how to get into the modding industry. While that is part of the games industry, it is a small fraction of the larger game production business.
I've hired many game programmers and the key to getting into the industry is demonstrating a few critical skills:
1. Sufficient technical skill in whatever your field is.
2. Curiosity applied to problem solving. How can we make this work?
3. An ability to finish what you start. Get it done.
If you're a new programmer looking to start out on this journey, I recommend picking an engine and just start making stuff. Participate in as many Gamejams, Mods or minigame productions as possible. Ship things; Finish them. Then, when you're interviewing for a 'real' game job, you will have some experience to share and discuss.
For technical candidates, there's a minimum threshold that you must cross to be considered. For programmers, it's often C++. So learn the basics, get proficient, use the tools. Read the books on programming interviews and learn the types of things that are expected.
Absolutely necessary in a solo project, but in a team it is enough if a few members, or really only the leader, is good at that (as long as the leader is somewhat competent and has some cat-herding skills to keep everyone on track).
Keep things really small. Small projects you can pull off in a few days and then move on. The kind of scope you'd do for a uni trimester for example. I used a lot of my uni coursework to build small game(ish) projects around them
Unity is used by so many studios, it's a great signal if you're joining one of those and probably a good signal for Unreal shops as well. I think knowing C++ is a more robust signal for senior technical roles but I don't think it's a silver bullet for every role.
I would prefer engine experience over language experience if wanting someone to join and get to work quickly.
Beautifully written. Especially when you consider that the author suffered a brain injury to her language centers. Fascinating insights to how the mind works and how we process our world. I was supposed to be working, but I read the whole thing.
Yeah, I was struck by the thought of my child-self, perhaps 2 years old before I had a good grasp of the words I heard around me. Before I had language myself.
I scarcely remember but a couple things anyway, but even into the early years when I could speak, understand language, the memories of those times are as though of a time that seems not within the current continuum. It's like I was seeing the world but only through a small B&W TV.
Some high-impact reporting there from the BBC!
Also contains my favourite quote of the day:
"Westcombe Dairy's maturing cave is equipped with cheddar-turning robot, nicknamed Tina the Turner"
> I still struggle to see how this ends up favorable for Tesla in the long run.
They're expanding their customer-base by maybe 2x or more. Those new customers will be be giving recurring payments to Tesla. For vehicles that Tesla didn't build. How is that not favourable?
Tesla doesn't break out the details, but I think it's generally understood among investors that they just break even on Supercharger. Their profit comes from their cars, and the Supercharger network was a competitive advantage to get people to buy the cars.
I think they opened up the Supercharger network to ensure that the US didn't establish CCS as the standard and overtake Superchargers, such that Teslas have a competitive dis -advantage, but I don't think they're particularly thrilled to have all these other companies using their chargers.
People seem to think they're raking it in with the Superchargers, but distributing electricity is a low margin business. Same with gas stations where the money mostly comes from the convenience store part of it and such.
Gas is lower margin than the other things in a convenience store, but they sell enough more gas than anything else that much of the money is there. I haven't checked in 10 years, but at one time I did read the share holders information from a convenience store and for that brand it was about 1/3 gas, 1/3 tobacco, 1/3 everything else. Tobacco is very high margin but very few people buy it. The everything is is a nice high margin, and most people buy, but they don't buy every trip. Gas is what gets people in the doors and often is all people get.
This goes both ways -- historically the other charging networks were J1772 or CCS (with a few CHAdeMO to support Nissan Leafs), but now Electrify America, EVgo, etc. have been retrofitting or newly installing a mix of CCS and NACS cables onto their L3 chargers. This increases the available charger footprint for Teslas as well.
Where I’m located, Supercharger prices are ~4x business electric rates. That’s something like $15 profit per charge. No idea on infrastructure costs or usage though.
Tesla’s entire business revolves around batteries. They have a huge opportunity to install batteries onsite that spread usage over times when high demand charges don’t apply. There’s some loss in that, but still could make sense if demand charges are really high. I’ve been waiting to see Tesla roll something like this out, but presumably it’s not pressing right now.
Older Tesla chargers did not use CCS to communicate. My 2019 Model 3 doesn't support CCS at all. When I plug into a Supercharger, it's not using CCS to communicate with the charger, it's using Tesla's proprietary CAN bus protocol. Teslas made before 2021 need an ECU retrofit to support CCS.
Pretty much all the old Teslas in Norway have been retrofitted to allow them to connect to CCS only chargers as far as I can tell. Had mine (2015 S 70D) done years ago when it became clear that future Tesla chargers would be CCS only.
I think between 15 and 20% were build pre-2019. The number of non-CCS is actually on the higher end of this, as component shortages caused quite a few to be built without CCS support in 2020.
The downside is that when people are considering which car to buy, Tesla has enjoyed their charging network as a strong selling point that other automakers don't have
How much will owners of other manufacturers' cars pay for electricity at the Superchargers, compared to those who have Teslas? The article doesn't mention this (or I missed it). I'm curious to know what this adds up to over the life of a car.
Short term it will likely be the same - Telsa has the most chargers, but they do not have a monopoly and they will be forced to charge the same to all just to compete.
Most places it's not like gas stations where there's 3 on the same block and they all have exactly the same price all the time, people are going to stop at whatever charger is located where they need it and pay whatever the price is as long as it's within reason.
A quick search suggests there's around 145,000 gas stations. This article mentions Tesla has 17,800 supercharger stations. I didn't care enough to look up the station counts for the other EV charging companies. But that Tesla figure is around 12% of the gas station total, so let's say the total number of EV charging stations is somewhere between 15% and 20% of the gas station total.
I could easily see EV charging stations approach the level of saturation of gas stations in the next 10 years.
Yes, today people are going to stop wherever there's a nearby charging station. But that's going to change, and fairly quickly.
Did they mean 17,800 supercharger units or 17,800 locations with super charger units. Because I've seen those numbers interchanged before.
The problem with chargers (and I say this as an EV owner) is that many people mostly charge at home, so they aren't using them even weekly. However, everyone goes for a road trip say around memorial day, and the EV chargers are PACKED. It is just a huge disparity between normal and peak usage. Or you go on a road trip and you need one in the middle of nowhere Idaho on the way from Seattle to Yellowstone.
Thankfully L3 charger units at least are cheaper to buy/install/maintain (in theory, if people didn't think the coords had copper worth scrapping) and can be installed in more locations than gas station pumps (like super market parking lots).
Given the disparity in peak usage, it makes sense, at least, to compete on availability rather than price, since even if you are paying $60 to charge up, it is only a few times a year. It is much more important that the chargers be where you need them, and to have free units when you need them, oh, and they should be working! ... than to be the cheapest price.
> Did they mean 17,800 supercharger units or 17,800 locations with super charger units.
They mean 17,800 DC fast charging plugs open to GM cars (and say so in the article). Tesla has 2,397 DC fast charging sites (or stations) in the US and a total of 27,711 plugs.
You need a lot of things for a gas station, a giant tank under ground, a run off collection system for the spilled gas/oil, they have to be covered these days, I’m sure most of this is just environmental regulations. You only see them in the grocery store parking lot if they have all of that, it’s not just a few pumps put up at existing parking spaces (well, maybe in Thailand).
It’s not a great metric for comparison in any case. More than half of all drivers will only ever use C public chargers when on a road trip. And over time that fraction will approach ever closer to 100%.
The is true today. However EVs are becoming more common and chargers are being built. In a few years chargers will be more common and have to compete on price. Today Tesla can get away with charging more to some customers - those people will figure it out though and eventually they will have enough options that they can go elsewhere. It is hard enough to brand gasoline (you can have a brand specific additive package most don't but they do exist) electrons are even more identical.
Tesla has enough time to get brand recognition for cheap charging, even if it gets less relevant over time.
Even when chargers become more common in cities, there will always be some places like smaller villages or long roads where you only have one option; that option possibly being a Tesla charger.
So even if it loses significance, the difference will still be there. And maybe it will be sufficient to retain Tesla being known for being cheaper long-term (because of charging).
> Even when chargers become more common in cities, there will always be some places like smaller villages or long roads where you only have one option; that option possibly being a Tesla charger.
Sure, and that's exactly the case for gas stations today, and I'm sure the lone gas station on the long stretch of road has more pricing power than the one in the middle of a city with competition.
And yet gas stations don't charge based on what kind of car you drive. Tesla shouldn't be permitted to do so either, as this market develops more.
Something I hope is legislated away in the future. Can you imagine if the norm was that you got a different price for gas at gas stations depending on who owns the gas station and who manufactured your car?
Experienced software people are difficult to hire. Doubly so if your company has a bad reputation for not valuing software and the benefits it can provide; which GM certainly qualifies as.
This seems, on the surface, to be a pretty major own-goal. I wonder what the rationale for it is? I expect there's something going on that we havn't heard about yet.
