x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • TSMC chip plant in the US still possible, decision will be taken next year

TSMC chip plant in the US still possible, decision will be taken next year

Posted: , by Damian M.

Tags :

TSMC chip plant in the US still possible, decision will be taken next year
TSMC is one of Apple's biggest suppliers. The Taiwanese company produces the A10 chipsets that make the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus tick. It has also been speculated that the company might look into establishing a manufacturing plant in the US.

In January, TSMC chairman Morris Chang said that such a factory is possible, but it “may not necessarily be a good thing” for the chip maker or its customers. However, Chang didn't specify any further details. Today TSMC spokesperson Michael Kramer commented on the subject, clarifying what has been rumored so far.

“We won't make a decision until next year,” Kramer said. The Taiwanese media CNA also reported that TSMC will make the decision in the first half of 2018, citing unnamed sources. The media also said that the chip maker is considering a $16.41 billion investment for the US plant.

“We would sacrifice some benefits if we move to the States. But we have flexibility in Taiwan. If an earthquake happened [in Taiwan] for instance, we could send thousands of people here as support, whereas it's harder in the States,” Kramer also told Reuters.

This, of course, doesn't mean that the 2018 iPhone will come with US-made chipsets. Even if TSMC decides to establish a US facility, the company will need some time to set everything up and start producing components. It is also unknown how this will affect operational costs, and consequently – the final price of the finished chips.

source: Reuters

20 Comments
  • Options
    Close





posted on 20 Mar 2017, 09:49 1

1. piyath (Posts: 894; Member since: 23 Mar 2012)


Trump!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 10:02 1

2. TerryTerius (unregistered)


To be frank, it is a mistake to do that. No president (on their own) has much control over the economy, or buisiness decisions made by companies in the short term. People do that *all the time* giving Presidents way more credit than they really deserve on the economy. People did that for Clinton, Obama, and Bush. And now of course, people are chomping at the bit to give Trump credit for every decision companies will make while he happens to be President. While they can certainly have profound effects over-time, that's a different matter. Unless we're talking about massive events like the Auto-bailout and such programs that have immediate effects.

All I'm saying is, that is fundamentally misunderstanding how much power Presidents have over the economy.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:21 1

6. mikehunta727 (Posts: 1013; Member since: 12 Sep 2014)


Under investigation by the FBI for possible collusion with Russia which is most likely true. Treason fam

Oh yeah, FBI, NSA, and the DoJ confirmed no one wiretapped Trump and that no one individual can order a wiretap. So Obama couldn't order a wiretap

Just a matter of time before Trump actually resigns or gets impeached now

The future seems a bit brighter now once again

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:25

7. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


So Vice President Pence will be President......even better

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:35

8. mikehunta727 (Posts: 1013; Member since: 12 Sep 2014)


No he would go down with him and many people in the administration. They are all tied to this. They all knew what they were doing

More then one individual is implicated in this, aka many people in the administration are Absolutely screwed

The whole administration needs to be gutted

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:53

9. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


An investigation will make the determination on that

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 12:10 1

10. mikehunta727 (Posts: 1013; Member since: 12 Sep 2014)


The evidence is surely piling up. Trump ranting on twitter instead of asking for a full fledged open investigation to prove his innocence (if he was truly innocent and has nothing to hide) is only making it worse for him and makes him look dam sure guilty

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 12:18 1

11. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


But we are talking about the same people who investigated Hillary Clinton..... so we'll see how far things go

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 12:20

12. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Mind you....I want guilty people prosecuted.... so I hope they are also investigating the actual crime committed so far

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 12:37 1

13. mikehunta727 (Posts: 1013; Member since: 12 Sep 2014)


Fair enough, we all just have to wait and see... I simply am saying, as a human, that Trump surely is acting "guilty" and not like a innocent person would. A truly innocent person would openly welcome fully transparent, thorough investigations into this to clear their name of any wrong doing. But that's not what Trump is doing or acting, it's kind of the opposite.

He is deflecting, ranting, blaming others, calling everything that is negative about him "fake news" and doing whataboutism

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 12:42

14. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


And Trump acts like that with everything...... I don't think that in of itself proves guilt

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 13:06 1

15. mikehunta727 (Posts: 1013; Member since: 12 Sep 2014)


No he doesn't... Lol. And he certainly does act like a guilty person when it comes to this. Also the extreme whataboutism by him is classic Russian tactics so..

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 10:41 1

3. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


But tax policy and regulations can have an affect even if just speculative

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 10:47 1

4. TerryTerius (unregistered)


The president doesn't set tax laws, and he does not exactly have a unilateral authority to either set regulations or to undergo deregulation.

To copy from the hill:

The easiest regulations for a new president to rescind will be those passed at the very end of the previous administration. All recent presidents have suspended the effective date of regulations issued by their predecessors that had not yet gone into effect. While the effective date is suspended, the new administration can decide whether it wants to begin a regulatory process to repeal the regulation, and in doing so perhaps ensure that the regulation never takes effect. In practice, however, this impacts a small number of regulations.

For regulations issued in approximately the last eight months of the previous administration, the new administration can ask Congress to use the Congressional Review Act. This law allows Congress to bypass filibusters in the Senate to overturn recently issued regulations. While this is a more powerful tool, it could not be used on any regulations issued before that eight month timeframe.

Everything else requires Congress, and a filibuster proof majority. What goes on with the various departments is a more complicated answer.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 11:08 1

5. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


I did say speculative

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 13:35

16. TerryTerius (unregistered)


Always have an escape hatch. Debating 101. But, my point was just that either way that's not really in the President's wheelhouse.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 13:43

17. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Haha.....but in a presidential campaign the distinctions can have a influence in what directions companies want to go..... especially if the President and Congress are roughly on the same page

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 15:07

18. TerryTerius (unregistered)


Yes and no. Correlation is not causation. I really doubt any given company would commit to make extremely expensive investments just because a certain presidential candidate wants it to be so. That doesn't make much sense. The popularity of a given politician and their ability to level sustained public pressure as a result of that plays a significant factor in how effective that could even be.

But, companies do make PR moves all the time. So, public pressure *does* play a factor. Though likely, not the deciding factor. It would have to be a significant incentive, and I guess that'd depend on how big of a corporation we're talking about.

But if we're talking about wanting to get out ahead of a particular legislation or policy shift, that's a different story.

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 15:49

19. joeytaylor (Posts: 885; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Not so much towards a Presidential candidate...... but once they have been elected..... and a small point with regards to regulations..... the administration can choose not to enforce them

posted on 20 Mar 2017, 19:30

20. TerryTerius (unregistered)


They can choose not to enforce *certain* regulations, yes.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories