China can already make DUV machines, but not EUV machines?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
China's dependency on Japanese for Display Printing technology
The global display ink jet printing market has become a competition of three major companies __ Tokyo Electron, JOLED and Toray Engineering __ with the decline of Kateeva.
Though Kateeva’s equipment for thin film encapsulation in small-sized OLED was once used by market leader Samsung Display and rising Chinese display giants, the company is facing a cash flow problem. People familiar with the matter said Kateeva hasn’t won any new orders from display-making clients in years.
For its new quantum dot (QD) display line, Samsung Display chose encapsulation equipment from Semes, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics. Semes is supplying five ink jet printing equipment for color filters and two ink jet printing equipment for thin film encapsulation.
Kateeva has reportedly fired a large number of employees in the fourth quarter of last year. It gave up its production of organic material for thin film encapsulation. Equipment production is likely to be negatively affected.
Chinese display makers also also using other vendors besides Kateeva.
CSOT, once a client of the US company, chose Toray Engineering’s equipment for its second OLED line at its T4 factory. BOE is testing Tokyo Electron’s 8.5th generation and 6th generation equipment at is factory in Hefei.
Juhua Printing, another subsidiary of TCL like CSOT, recently purchased ink jet printing equipment from Panasonic for research purposes. Panasonic formed JOLED with JDI, Sony and other Japanese companies back in 2015.
JOLED and CSOT have announced that they will be entering the large-sized OLED panel market. JOLED may form partnerships with Chinese players to sell equipment or license out technologies.
LG Display, the current sole producer of large-sized OLED panels, have used Kateeva-made equipment for research but is using Tokyo Electron’s equipment in its commercial production lines.
Taiwan’s AUO is also using Tokyo Electron’s ink jet printing equipment.
In ink jet printing for OLED, the self-emitting organic light materials are vaporized and deposited onto a glass sheet in liquid form through nozzles. It is touted as being cost effective but low yield rates have been the main obstacle for commercialization.
출처 : THE ELEC, Korea Electronics Industry Media()
Chinese display panel makers are betting on micro-LED which doesn't use these kinds of printers. No point in developing OLED printers now. Spend instead on the next generation stuff.
In any case, LG Display is no longer the only maker of large OLED panels. CSOT makes them and that's how Xiaomi is able to release a sub-1000 USD 65-inch OLED TV.
Damn no chinese companies in the mix. That's too bad.
It's almost as if China is deeply and highly dependent on imported intermediaries and capital goods to do just about anything
Again every country has sanction opportunities.It creates sanctions opportunities to sabotage China's technological development
Your original post says china needs import to make everything. If it's so easy to do it to China why haven't the US done it? Why are the US still buying record amounts of products from China, a large percentage of which are machines. So China can create sanction opportunities too against the US or India.
Your arguing in circles.
They aren't created equally
I said China's capital intensive sectors require imports
You said "It's almost as if China is deeply and highly dependent on imported intermediaries and capital goods to do just about anything" so you've changed the initial phrase a bit I see. Moving he goal post to only mentioned capital intensive sectors require imports. So not all china sectors require imports so your comment regarding. China not being not able to do anything without imports is false.
Yes but back to my original question, if it's so easy, why haven't they sanctioned more? Why not sanction all chinese companies. they sanctioned DJI, last I heard they and to rebuy dji drones for govt agencies. Where's their alternatives?Huawei would like a word. The difference between the US and China's sanctions is that China's export embargos aren't coercive since anyone can easily find alternative manufacturers. The Huawei DPR and COMAC sanctions have been put in place for a year and to this day, there is no alternative to the Cymer laser or KLA Inspection & metrology systems or the GE LEAP 1-C or Intel CPUs or Rockwell flight control systems or Dow photoresists, etc, etc.
Why do they still buy Chinese products and now are trying to strategically recouple.
Wrong those sanctions actually help China’s technological development.It creates sanctions opportunities to sabotage China's technological development
Yes. Happy to hear you realise your mistake.Correct. I was a tad glib in my initial response. I should have been more thoughtful.
Micron certainly revenue took a hit. Other chinese phone companies picked up Huawei's productive capacity. And how are these market distortions form self sufficiency a bad thing? Imagine if a country distorted the market by priniting more money in the last 2 years then the last 30 years out together. That's one hell of a market distortions so distorted it may cause inflation pressure and lead to collapse.They are sanctioning and recoupling at the same time. Demand-side sanctions that try to reduce demand for Chinese products, either through straight-out bans or tariffs reduce competition and are inflationary which is why the US wants to limit some of them with limited impact on China's economy. However, supply-side sanctions such as export controls and capital controls are near-magical since they impose minimal costs on the United States (because production will shift, not a single US avionics company will see their revenue decline from COMAC sanctions, TSMC's revenue has not been hit at all by the FDPR, not a single US chip company has seen long-run damage from the Huawei entity list) but they hurt China's economy substantially by reducing productive capacity (see Huawei's revenues) and cause market distortions when China engages in self-sufficiency. The Biden administration, is in fact, expanding the size and scope of supply-side sanctions: the Department of COmmerce is working through the emerging and foundational technology export control list as well as the capital control/greenfield/outbound FDI legislation working its way through the Senate right now
Just wait a few years more, US won't have anything to sanction anymore.Correct. I was a tad glib in my initial response. I should have been more thoughtful.
They are sanctioning and recoupling at the same time. Demand-side sanctions that try to reduce demand for Chinese products, either through straight-out bans or tariffs reduce competition and are inflationary which is why the US wants to limit some of them with limited impact on China's economy. However, supply-side sanctions such as export controls and capital controls are near-magical since they impose minimal costs on the United States (because production will shift, not a single US avionics company will see their revenue decline from COMAC sanctions, TSMC's revenue has not been hit at all by the FDPR, not a single US chip company has seen long-run damage from the Huawei entity list) but they hurt China's economy substantially by reducing productive capacity (see Huawei's revenues) and cause market distortions when China engages in self-sufficiency. The Biden administration, is in fact, expanding the size and scope of supply-side sanctions: the Department of COmmerce is working through the emerging and foundational technology export control list as well as the capital control/greenfield/outbound FDI legislation working its way through the Senate right now