FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Let's just assume SMIC is 2yrs behind in 2002. Then it can be expected they would fall even further behind, assuming free market competition regardless of whether or not their are sanctions or not. Why would anyone choose a chip that is two years behind when they have the option of choosing a cutting edge children for the same cost? Being two years behind is still a huge disadvantage for SMIC when it comes to market competition. As a result, SMIC would have less revenues and profits to invest back in R&D, and the tech gap will only increase. That is why so many chip fabs fell out of the game over the last two decades, fabbing chips is a winner takes all business. To attribute SMIC falling behind to the success of sanctions is a logical fallacy. Conversely, with the imposition of total sanctions, SMIC is actually in a more advantageous position, as now it has no competition within certain domestic market segments, and will have the revenues as well as governmental support drive its R&D efforts.