There you go. So for Samsung too a similar reason is more likely. A Fab would require workers, land, supply chain, and so on. Subsidies are only one part of the equation, and if any other part is unattractive then more subsidies would be needed.

You need to understand that the reason CHIPS Act exists in the first place is to make it attractive for companies to set up fabs in the US. If the US was already attractive, the CHIPS Act wouldn't be necessary.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

Samsung already has facilities here in the US unlike TSMC, so labor costs should be no surprise to them.

I do realize the reasoning behind the CHIPS Act and I also understand that it has already been signed into law, which is why I call BS on Samsung's claimed reasoning.

The money is there and whether it gets paid out today or 6 months from now, they'll be eligible all the same. To claim that they can't afford to continue on with their plans because they don't have the money in their pocket right now doesn't make sense as Samsung has a ton of money already and this subsidy represents a miniscule fraction of their total investment.

My point all along is that their claimed excuse here is bullshit. If they can't afford it without subsidizing 1/100th of their investment immediately, they can't afford it with the subsidy either and that has nothing to do with the government. It'd be like claiming you can totally afford a $20,000 car but a $20,200 car is too far out of reach.