Katherine,
Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I wasn't aware that there was such drastic mask cost issues related to using the current generation.
First, and I suspect most important, ASICs and other custom circuits account for the majority of all masks. These customers don't generally have a design requirement for the higher density that 0.18 micron gives, or the design expertise to use all of those transistors.
I am interpreting that, for the most part, there is enough mask-making capacity out there currently to handle larger feature sizes.
Shrinks have been accelerating precisely because they *don't* require massive new equipment purchases. That's why the recovery to this point has been U-shaped.
As far as equipment pick-up, I believe that true recovery will be signaled by the back-end. Shrinking features will require back-end purchases to handle the extra product but, as you point out, most of the rest of the manufacturing chain remains intact. Therefore, if you can sell more product then shrinks are the way to go. And if you can sell more product then you have more money to do other things. However, if you are having trouble selling what you make now, then there is no reason to do anything that will raise expenses.
Still, that is a simple interpretation. You've made a strong case for the complexity of the issue while I am still learning the semi A, B, Cs.
Thanks,
Dave |
