The Chip War

26 Jan 2026 28490 words

1: From Steel to Silicon

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The chapter establishes the pre-history of the semiconductor by contrasting the “typhoon of steel”—the industrial-scale attrition of World War II—with the nascent “Atomic Age.” In 1945, the global balance of power was measured in tons of iron, rubber, and aluminum. The United States won the war not just through bravery, but through the sheer volume of production from assembly lines like River Rouge. However, as the war ended, the first glimpses of a new era appeared. Akio Morita, a young Japanese naval engineer, spent the final months of the war working on heat-seeking missiles, realizing that the future of warfare would not be decided by riveters, but by machines that could “think.”

At the same time, the narrative introduces the two other future titans of the industry: Morris Chang and Andy Grove. Both were children of the war—Chang a refugee fleeing Japanese and later Communist armies in China; Grove a Jewish child hiding from Nazis and then Soviet “liberators” in Budapest. While they were still schoolboys, the world’s first computers, like the ENIAC, were being built to calculate artillery trajectories. These machines were massive, filling entire rooms, and relied on vacuum tubes that were essentially lightbulbs. The story arc of this chapter moves from the physical destruction of the old world toward the realization that better math and faster calculations were the keys to the next stage of human history.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Vacuum Tube: The primary “switch” of early computing. It worked like a lightbulb; a current running through the tube could be switched on (1) or off (0).
The Difficulty: Vacuum tubes were “moth-ridden monstrosities.” Because they glowed and emitted heat, they attracted insects (requiring literal “debugging”). More importantly, they frequently burned out. The ENIAC had 18,000 tubes and broke down every two days, requiring technicians to scramble to find the one failed part.
Mechanical Bombsights: Early “analog” computers used by air forces. They used knobs, levers, and gears to compute angles. They were limited to a single type of calculation and were notoriously inaccurate in real-world conditions (only 20% of bombs hit within 1,000 feet of their target).

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Akio Morita: A young Japanese engineer (future founder of Sony) who realized mid-century warfare was reaching its physical limits and that electronics were the next frontier.
Morris Chang: A young refugee in China whose experiences with the instability of the old regime would eventually lead him to the technical security of the United States.
Andy Grove: A survivor of both Nazism and Communism in Hungary, whose later “paranoia” became a foundational management philosophy for the chip industry.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Debugging” Origin: The term “debugging” was born from the literal removal of moths from the vacuum tubes of early computers, illustrating the fragile, physical nature of pre-semiconductor technology.
The Human “Computer”: Miller highlights that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a “computer” was a job title for a person (often a woman) sitting at a desk doing manual logarithms.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The chapter argues that the transition from a world defined by “Steel” to one defined by “Silicon” shifted the strategic focus of nations from the volume of industrial output to the precision of electronic computation.

6. Facts:

ENIAC Specifications: The 1945 state-of-the-art computer contained 18,000 vacuum tubes.
Failure Rate: On average, one vacuum tube in the ENIAC malfunctioned every two days, halting the entire machine.
Bombing Accuracy: During WWII, only 20% of American bombs fell within 1,000 feet of their target.
Labor History: In the late 1800s and early 1900s, “computers” were human office workers armed with pen and paper.
Publication: The Mathematical Tables Project published 28 volumes of complex functions during the Great Depression.

2: The Switch

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter focuses on the hunt for a “solid-state” alternative to the vacuum tube at Bell Labs in New Jersey. William Shockley, a brilliant but notoriously obnoxious physicist, was convinced that materials called semiconductors could be used to create a better switch. In 1945, Shockley theorized a “solid state valve” but failed to produce a measurable result because his instruments were too imprecise.

While Shockley’s theorizing was essential, the actual breakthrough was achieved by his colleagues, Walter Brattain and John Bardeen. On December 16, 1947, they successfully built a device that used gold filaments and a block of germanium to control and amplify an electrical current. Shockley was furious that he wasn’t the one to find the “magic” experiment. In a fit of competitive jealousy, he locked himself in a Chicago hotel room for two weeks over Christmas 1947 to outdo them. He emerged with a superior design: the junction transistor, which was essentially a “sandwich” of semiconductor material. This design was more reliable and easier to manufacture, eventually leading to the public announcement of the transistor in 1948.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Semiconductors: Materials like silicon and germanium that conduct electricity only under certain conditions (e.g., when an electric field is applied).
Doping: The process of adding impurities (like phosphorus or antimony) to a semiconductor to create an excess of electrons (N-type) or a deficit (P-type). This allows for the creation of positive and negative currents.
The Junction Transistor: Shockley’s “sandwich” design. By applying a tiny current to the middle layer, he could control a much larger current flowing across the device, creating a switch that had no moving parts and required far less power than a vacuum tube.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

William Shockley: The visionary leader who provided the theoretical framework but whose toxic management style and ego drove a wedge between him and his team.
John Bardeen & Walter Brattain: The experimentalists at Bell Labs who built the first working point-contact transistor, proving Shockley’s theories.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Shockley Personality: Coworkers said it was as if Shockley could “actually see electrons as they zipped across metals.” Despite this brilliance, he was so unpleasant that his colleagues didn’t even invite him to the first successful demonstration of the device he helped theorize.
Media Indifference: When the transistor was announced, The New York Times buried the story on page 46, failing to see that these “wired blocks of germanium” would replace human brains in computation.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The invention of the transistor meant that “control” of electrons was now possible without heat or glass tubes. This set the stage for the electronics industry to move from the lab into the commercial and military sectors.

6. Facts:

Breakthrough Date: The first successful demonstration of the transistor occurred on December 16, 1947, at Bell Labs.
Media Coverage: The New York Times buried the announcement of the transistor on page 46.
Theoretical Power: William Shockley theorized his “solid state valve” in 1945 using a 90-volt battery.
Public Debut: Bell Labs held the official press conference to announce the invention in June 1948.

3: Noyce, Kilby, and the Integrated Circuit

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The transistor solved the reliability problem of vacuum tubes, but it created a new crisis: the “Tyranny of Numbers.” By the late 1950s, engineers were building computers with thousands of transistors, but they had to be hand-soldered together with miles of wiring. The chance of a single bad solder joint made complex systems nearly impossible to build.

In the summer of 1958, Jack Kilby, a new engineer at Texas Instruments (TI) in Dallas, stayed in the lab while his colleagues were on vacation. He realized that if all components—resistors, capacitors, and transistors—could be made of the same semiconductor material, they could be placed on a single block of silicon. He successfully demonstrated the first integrated circuit (IC).

Separately, in Palo Alto, the “Traitorous Eight” had fled Shockley’s toxic company to found Fairchild Semiconductor. Their leader, Robert Noyce, arrived at a similar conclusion but with a superior manufacturing approach. While Kilby’s chip used messy wires to connect components, Noyce utilized Jean Hoerni’s “planar process” to build the wires into the chip itself by depositing lines of metal on top of an insulating layer of silicon dioxide. This was the birth of the “monolithic” integrated circuit—the “chip” as we know it today.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Tyranny of Numbers: The logistical nightmare where the more components a machine had, the more likely it was to fail due to the sheer number of manual connections/wires.
The Planar Process: Developed by Jean Hoerni at Fairchild. Instead of building components on top of the silicon (the mesa structure), they were built into the silicon and covered with a protective layer of silicon dioxide. This allowed for “printing” circuits and made them vastly more reliable.
Monolithic IC: Robert Noyce’s breakthrough of putting all components and their connections on a single piece of silicon with no freestanding wires.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jack Kilby: The “quietly brilliant” TI engineer who first proved that all electronic components could be made on one piece of semiconductor.
Robert Noyce: The charismatic leader of Fairchild who figured out how to interconnect those components without wires, making mass production possible.
Jean Hoerni: The Swiss physicist at Fairchild who invented the planar process, the “holy grail” of chip manufacturing.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Chip” Etymology: The integrated circuit became known as a “chip” because each one was “chipped” off a larger circular silicon wafer.
The “Traitorous Eight”: The name given to the group of scientists who left Shockley Semiconductor, marking the first major “spin-off” culture that would define Silicon Valley.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The integrated circuit allowed for exponential miniaturization. This breakthrough meant that the limit to a machine’s power was no longer the number of wires a human could solder, but the number of transistors a machine could print.

6. Facts:

Invention Date (TI): Jack Kilby demonstrated the first integrated circuit in the summer of 1958.
Invention Date (Fairchild): Robert Noyce conceptualized the monolithic integrated circuit in early 1959.
Patent Date: Jean Hoerni’s “planar method” patent was filed in 1959.
License Fee: AT&T offered to license the transistor patent to other companies for $25,000.
Cost Factor: At the outset, Noyce’s integrated circuit cost 50 times as much to make as a version using separate components wired together.

4: Liftoff

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the early 1960s, the integrated circuit was a “solution looking for a problem.” It was 50 times more expensive to make than a wired circuit. The industry needed a “lead customer” with a massive budget and a desperate need for miniaturization. That customer was the U.S. government.

The Soviet launch of Sputnik and the subsequent Yuri Gagarin flight created a “crisis of confidence” in America. President Kennedy’s goal to put a man on the moon provided Fairchild with its first massive order: the Apollo Guidance Computer. NASA calculated that a traditional transistor computer would be the size of a refrigerator and consume more power than the spacecraft could produce. Only Noyce’s integrated circuits could fit. Simultaneously, the Air Force needed a new guidance computer for the Minuteman II ICBM. The original Minuteman was too heavy to hit Moscow from the U.S.; replacing its bulky discrete transistors with TI’s chips allowed it to perform twice the calculations at half the weight. By 1965, the military and NASA were consuming 95% of all circuits produced, providing the “liftoff” the industry needed.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Apollo Guidance Computer: The first major use of ICs. It weighed 70 pounds and took up one cubic foot—1,000 times smaller than the ENIAC.
Minuteman II Guidance: Transitioned from “Mylar tape with holes” to a computer using 22 different types of integrated circuits.
Price Learning Curve: As Noyce ramped up production for NASA, he “slashed prices” for civilian customers (from $120 to $15 in one year), gambling that high volume would eventually drive down costs—a precursor to Moore’s Law.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Charles Stark Draper: The MIT lab head who bet the Apollo program on Fairchild’s unproven chips.
Pat Haggerty: The President of TI who “preached like a messiah” about the future of military electronics and secured the Minuteman II contract.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Messiah” of TI: Pat Haggerty was so convinced of the chip’s future that a TI veteran remembered him as “like a messiah speaking from the mountaintop.”
The Order: One MIT engineer told a colleague in 1962, regarding Fairchild’s chips, “Go out and buy large quantities of those things to see if they are real.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter demonstrates that the silicon industry was “born of the Cold War.” Without the existential fear of Soviet space and missile dominance, the U.S. government would not have subsidized the early, prohibitively expensive R&D that made chips commercially viable.

6. Facts:

Apollo Guidance Computer: Charles Stark Draper bet on Fairchild chips in November 1962.
Weight Reduction: The Apollo computer weighed 70 pounds and took up 1 cubic foot—1,000 times smaller than the ENIAC.
Fairchild Sales: Company sales ballooned from 500,000 in 1958 to 21 million by 1960
Minuteman II Contract: By the end of 1964, Texas Instruments had supplied 100,000 integrated circuits to the missile program.
Market Share: In 1965, military and space applications accounted for over 95% of the circuits produced that year.

5: Mortars and Mass Production

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
While the idea of the chip was proven, mass-producing them was an engineering nightmare. In the late 1950s, the process involved putting “blobs of wax” on silicon and washing them with chemicals—a crude method that made miniaturization impossible. The chapter introduces Jay Lathrop, who had a “Gutenberg moment” for the silicon age. He realized that a microscope lens could be used to take a large pattern and shrink it down, “printing” it onto silicon using light-sensitive chemicals called photoresists. He called this photolithography.

However, even with lithography, the “yield”—the percentage of working chips—was often close to zero. The narrative highlights the arrival of Morris Chang at TI in 1958. Tasked with a failing production line for IBM, Chang systematically tweaked temperatures and pressures, using his intuition and data to raise the yield from 0% to 25% within months. Similarly, at Fairchild, Andy Grove was hired specifically to solve production problems. Unlike the “visionary” founders, Chang and Grove were the “drill sergeants” of the factory floor. They realized that the chip industry would be won not by the smartest physicists, but by the best manufacturing managers.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Photolithography: Using light to “print” circuit patterns onto silicon. This replaced manual hand-soldering and wax-masking.
Yield Rate: The single most important metric in the business. If it costs $1,000 to process a wafer and you get 100 working chips, each costs $10. If you only get 1 working chip, it costs $1,000.
Photoresists: Chemicals (initially sourced from Kodak) that change their structure when exposed to light, allowing for precise etching.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jay Lathrop: The engineer who invented photolithography, allowing the industry to imagine mass-producing tiny transistors.
Morris Chang: The “Buddha” of TI who demonstrated that manufacturing could be approached as a rigorous, data-driven science.
Mary Anne Potter: A production engineer at TI who worked the night shift (11 PM to 8 AM) running round-the-clock tests to scale up production for the military.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Buddha” of the Pipe: Texans at TI thought Morris Chang was “like a Buddha” because he would sit and puff on his pipe, peering through the smoke at data until he found the manufacturing error.
The Tough Boss: ”If you hadn’t ever been chewed out by Morris, you hadn’t been at TI.” This illustrates the high-pressure, zero-defect culture required for chipmaking.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The shift from “theoretical physics” to “engineering and intuition” on the factory floor created the first real barrier to entry. Spying could reveal what a chip was, but it couldn’t easily reveal the “recipe” of temperature and pressure (the “know-how”) required to make it work.

6. Facts:

Photolithography Patent: Jay Lathrop applied for the patent on printing transistors with light in 1957.
Feature Size: Lathrop’s early process produced features as small as 0.0005 inches in height.
Yield Milestone: Morris Chang raised the yield of a failing TI transistor line for IBM from close to 0% to 25% within months.
Job Start: Jay Lathrop arrived at Texas Instruments on September 1, 1958.

6: “I… WANT… TO… GET… RICH”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By the mid-1960s, the semiconductor industry was at a crossroads. While the military and NASA accounted for 95% of the market, Robert Noyce at Fairchild realized that relying solely on the government was a recipe for stagnation. He viewed the Pentagon not as a boss, but as a lead customer. To ensure Fairchild set its own R&D priorities, Noyce intentionally limited military research contracts to just 4% of the company’s R&D budget. He was fresh from a bad experience at Philco, where he felt career Army officers were making technical decisions they weren’t competent to handle.

Noyce’s big gamble was to force the creation of a civilian market by slashing prices. He believed that if chips were cheap enough, they would find their way into everything from hearing aids to mainframe computers. In 1965, he asked Gordon Moore to predict the future for Electronics magazine. Moore observed that the number of components on a chip was doubling annually and predicted this would continue for a decade. This “Moore’s Law” wasn’t just a technical observation; it was a marketing promise to the world that computing power would get exponentially cheaper. As prices fell, the market shifted: by 1968, the computer industry was buying as many chips as the military. The culture of the “Silicon Valley Cowboy” was born—driven by a rejection of East Coast corporate hierarchy and a singular, unapologetic focus on wealth and risk.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Moore’s Law (1965): The prediction that the number of transistors on a chip would double every year (later adjusted to every two years). This created a “steady tempo” of innovation that forced companies to keep up or die.
Price Slashing as Innovation: Noyce cut the price of a Fairchild chip from $120 in 1961 to $15 in 1963, and eventually to $2. This was often done below manufacturing cost to destroy the market for discrete transistors and force competitors to adopt integrated circuits.
The First Commercial IC Product: A Zenith hearing aid, which utilized a chip originally designed for a NASA satellite, proving that military tech could be successfully “civilianized.”

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Robert Noyce: The “Mayor of Silicon Valley” who moved the industry from government dependence to commercial dominance through aggressive pricing.
Gordon Moore: The R&D lead at Fairchild who provided the industry with its “metronome”—Moore’s Law—guiding the pace of global technological advancement.
Robert McNamara: The U.S. Defense Secretary whose cost-cutting reforms (the “McNamara Depression”) inadvertently pushed chip firms to seek more stable civilian customers.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Exit Interview: One Fairchild employee, when asked why he was leaving the firm on his exit questionnaire, wrote in all caps: “I… WANT… TO… GET… RICH.” Miller uses this to illustrate that the engine of Moore’s Law was as much about greed as it was about physics.
Noyce on Government R&D: “Selling R&D to the government was like taking your venture capital and putting it into a savings account. Venturing is venturing; you want to take the risk.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter marks the birth of “Venture Capitalism” in the chip industry. By decoupling from the slow-moving military bureaucracy, Silicon Valley created a self-sustaining economic engine that moved faster than any government-run program could, including the Soviet Union’s.

6. Facts:

Moore’s Law Origin: Gordon Moore’s famous article was published in 1965 in Electronics magazine.
Price Drop: A Fairchild chip that sold for 120 in 1961 was discounted to 15 by the following year.
Moore’s Prediction: In 1965, Moore predicted a decade of exponential growth (doubling every year).
R&D Budget: Under Noyce, Fairchild relied on the Defense Department for no more than 4% of its R&D budget.
Market Pivot: By 1968, the computer industry was buying as many chips as the military.

7: Soviet Silicon Valley

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the fall of 1959, an unexpected visitor named Anatoly Trutko arrived at Stanford University. He was part of a small student exchange between the USSR and the U.S. State Department. While the U.S. hoped to promote democratic values, the Kremlin sent Trutko—a top semiconductor engineer—to study America’s most advanced technology. He even attended lectures by William Shockley. This interaction highlighted the Soviet Union’s deep awareness that they were falling behind in the new “Information Age.”

The Soviets decided they needed their own version of Silicon Valley. Under the direction of bureaucrat Alexander Shokin and with the input of two defected American spies, Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant (who had been part of the Julius Rosenberg ring), they built Zelenograd (“Green City”) in the early 1960s. Zelenograd was a scientific paradise on the outskirts of Moscow, complete with elite labs, schools, and even a university modeled after American campuses. However, unlike the “freewheeling” culture of California where founders job-hopped and competed, Zelenograd was a secretive, top-down military outpost. Innovation was dictated by ministerial decree rather than market demand, and the path to success was becoming a better bureaucrat, not a better engineer.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Zelenograd Infrastructure: The creation of an entire city dedicated to a single industry. It included the Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology.
The UM Computer: A first-generation Soviet computer built by the spies Barr and Sarant. Though impressive, it was hindered by the Soviet lack of mass-production capabilities.
The “Typhoon of Steel” Legacy: The Soviets excelled at “brawn” (steel, coal, nukes) but struggled with the “byte” (miniaturization and precision).

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Anatoly Trutko: The Soviet exchange student who legally “poached” knowledge from Stanford and Shockley.
Joel Barr & Alfred Sarant: American-born spies who defected to the USSR and became the architects of the Soviet computer and semiconductor industry.
Alexander Shokin: The powerful Soviet bureaucrat who managed the electronics industry and convinced Khrushchev that microelectronics were the “mechanical brain” of the future.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Signed Textbook: Anatoly Trutko asked William Shockley to sign his textbook. Shockley signed it “To Anatole,” then immediately began barking at him about how the Soviet Union owed him royalties for the Russian translation of his book.
The Futuristic Skyscraper: To convince Khrushchev to fund Zelenograd, Sarant and Barr showed him an easel with pictures of a futuristic city featuring a 52-story skyscraper at its center.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The creation of Zelenograd formalized the technological Cold War. It showed that the USSR recognized the chip as the ultimate strategic asset but failed to realize that the structure of the industry (competition vs. command) was more important than the science itself.

6. Facts:

Student Exchange: Anatoly Trutko moved into a Stanford dormitory in the fall of 1959.
Zelenograd Approval: The Soviet government approved plans for the “Green City” in 1962.
Khrushchev Visit: The Soviet leader visited the Leningrad Special Design Bureau on May 4, 1962.
CIA Assessment: A 1959 CIA report estimated that the U.S. was only 2 to 4 years ahead of the Soviets in transistor production.

8: “Copy It”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the early 1960s, a Soviet student named Boris Malin returned from Pennsylvania with a TI SN-51, one of the first integrated circuits ever sold in the U.S. Alexander Shokin, under the pressure of Khrushchev’s demand to “catch up and overtake” the West, placed the chip under a microscope and gave a simple, fatal order: “Copy it.” He gave his engineers three months to produce a one-for-one replica.

This “Copy It” strategy seemed logical in the context of nuclear weapons, where the Soviets had successfully stolen plans to catch up. However, it was fundamentally flawed for semiconductors. As American firms like TI and Fairchild were learning, a chip’s “recipe”—the exact temperatures, chemical purities, and timing of light exposure—was not visible under a microscope. Furthermore, because of Moore’s Law, by the time the Soviets successfully copied a design, the Americans had already released a chip that was twice as fast and half the size. The Soviets were trapped in a cycle of permanent backwardness, using machinery and chemicals that were less pure than their Western counterparts. Because they focused almost entirely on military fulfillment, they lacked the high-volume civilian market that forced U.S. firms to master the “yield” and reliability required for mass production.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The “Recipe” vs. The Blueprint: The realization that “stealing” a chip design is like stealing a cake; it doesn’t tell you how long to bake it or the exact quality of the flour needed.
COCOM Restrictions: The Western allies’ ban on transferring advanced technology to Communist countries. This forced the Soviets to use inferior, domestic chemicals and tools, leading to extremely low “yields.”
Metric vs. Imperial: Bizarrely, the “Copy It” mentality was so thorough that the Soviets built some machinery using inches rather than centimeters to better replicate American designs, despite the rest of the country being metric.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Boris Malin: The scientist who brought the SN-51 to the USSR and was forced to pivot from original research to replication.
Alexander Shokin: The architect of the “Copy It” strategy, which hardwired backwardness into the Soviet system.
Yuri Osokin: A brilliant Soviet engineer who produced a prototype IC in 1962 but lived in such secrecy that his work could not inspire a broader industry or academic following.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Big” Joke: A popular Soviet joke from the 1980s: A Kremlin official declares proudly, “Comrade, we have built the world’s biggest microprocessor!” This mocked the Soviet failure to miniaturize.
The “Recipe” Metaphor: Miller notes that “Simply stealing a chip didn’t explain how it was made, just as stealing a cake can’t explain how it was baked.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The “Copy It” strategy condemned the Soviet Union to a perpetual lag. It proved that in the chip industry, you cannot be a world power by following; the technological frontier moves too fast to be caught by imitation alone.

6. Facts:

Reverse Engineering: Yuri Osokin produced his prototype integrated circuit in 1962.
Lag Metric: In 1985, a CIA study found Soviet microprocessors were consistently half a decade behind American replicas.
Intel 1103 Data: In 1970, Intel unveiled a memory chip storing 1,024 bits at a cost of roughly 2 cents per bit.
Modern Comparison: Today, $20 can buy a thumb drive that remembers over a billion bits.

9: The Transistor Salesman

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 1962, French President Charles de Gaulle famously dismissed Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda as a “transistor salesman” after Ikeda gifted him a Sony radio. De Gaulle saw Japan as a mere “economic power” with no “grandeur,” but he was fundamentally wrong. The U.S., fearing that a weak Japan would fall to Communism, had adopted a policy that “a strong Japan is a better risk than a weak Japan.” They allowed and even encouraged the transfer of transistor technology to Japanese firms.

Akio Morita and his partner Masaru Ibuka at Sony (then Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo) were the primary beneficiaries. While U.S. firms like AT&T told Morita that the transistor would only be useful for hearing aids, Morita saw the potential for a consumer revolution. Unlike the Soviets, the Japanese used a “License It” strategy. They paid royalties to Western Electric and Fairchild for the rights to use the technology, then focused on making the products better, smaller, and more reliable. By 1964, Japan had overtaken the U.S. in the production of discrete transistors. While the U.S. built the best computers, the Japanese built the consumer goods—radios, calculators, and TVs—that drove the volume of semiconductor consumption. This “symbiosis” tied Japan tightly into the American-led world order.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Transistor Radios: Sony’s breakthrough product. It required mastering the use of transistors for signal amplification in a portable, battery-powered form factor.
IP Licensing Fees: A business model where Japanese firms paid 4.5% of sales to Fairchild and 3.5% to TI. This funded U.S. R&D while giving Japan the “blueprints” to build a world-class industry.
Miniaturization for Portability: The Japanese focus on consumer electronics forced an earlier and more aggressive pursuit of small form factors than the U.S. military-industrial complex required.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Akio Morita: The physicist-turned-businessman who founded Sony and realized that “the public does not know what is possible, but we do.”
Hayato Ikeda: The Japanese Prime Minister who focused on doubling national income through electronics exports.
Makoto Kikuchi: A young Japanese physicist who accessed American journals via U.S. occupation headquarters, illustrating the “knowledge trickle” that rebuilt Japan.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Incognito Visit: When TI wanted to open a plant in Japan, the bureaucracy was so thick that Akio Morita told TI executives to visit Tokyo incognito, register under false names, and never leave their hotel rooms while he clandestinely negotiated with the ministry on their behalf.
The Paper Umbrella: In 1953, Morita visited New York and was served an ice cream with a tiny paper umbrella. The waiter said, “This is from your country,” a humiliating reminder to Morita of Japan’s low-tech reputation that he vowed to change.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter illustrates the successful integration of an ally into the U.S. supply chain. By becoming the world’s “transistor salesmen,” Japan provided the high-volume demand that made the global semiconductor industry commercially viable, while binding its own security to the U.S.

6. Facts:

Tokyo Visit: John Bardeen traveled to Tokyo in September 1953 to a celebrity-like reception.
Licensing Fees: During the 1960s, Japanese firms paid 4.5% of chip sales to Fairchild and 3.5% to TI.
Production Milestone: By 1964, Japan had overtaken the U.S. in the production of discrete transistors.
Economic Growth: Japanese electronics exports boomed from 600million in 1965 to 60 billion two decades later.

10: “Transistor Girls”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As Moore’s Law drove the need for cheaper chips, the industry faced a physical bottleneck: assembly. While designing and “printing” chips (lithography) could be automated, the process of attaching the silicon to its plastic base and soldering tiny gold wires (wire bonding) had to be done by hand. In the 1960s, this required looking through a microscope for hours. Semiconductor executives like Charlie Sporck at Fairchild realized they couldn’t find enough cheap labor in California, especially given his “dead set” opposition to labor unions (after being burned in effigy at a GE plant in New York).

The solution was a radical globalization of the supply chain. In 1963, Fairchild opened the first offshore assembly plant in a former sandal factory in Hong Kong. They found that “Chinese labor, the girls working there, were exceeding everything that was ever known.” These women were faster and more willing to tolerate the monotonous work than Americans. From Hong Kong, the industry expanded to Singapore (where Lee Kuan Yew had “pretty much outlawed” unions) and Malaysia. By the mid-1960s, a Taiwanese worker made 19 cents an hour, and a South Korean only a dime. This shift didn’t just save money; it was a form of “Supply Chain Statecraft.” By moving these jobs to Asia, the U.S. provided an alternative to Communist radicalism, turning impoverished peasants into a “capitalist dream” of diligent factory workers.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Wire Bonding: The manual process of connecting a silicon chip to its leads using thin gold wires. In the 1960s, this was a massive “choke point” in production.
Dexterity Testing: Companies specifically targeted young women for these roles, believing their smaller hands and better performance on dexterity tests made them superior “assemblers.”
Yield Management via Labor: Lower labor costs allowed firms to hire more engineers to oversee the assembly lines, which actually improved the quality and “yield” of the final product.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Charlie Sporck: The manufacturing boss at Fairchild who pioneered the move to offshore assembly to escape unions and high labor costs.
Lee Kuan Yew: The leader of Singapore who marketed his country’s lack of labor unrest to attract U.S. chipmakers like Fairchild and TI.
Robert Noyce: Made a personal investment in a Hong Kong radio factory, which provided the proof-of-concept for Fairchild’s first offshore plant.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Effigy: Charlie Sporck’s management style at GE was so aggressive that the labor union staged a rally and burned him in effigy, prompting his move to the “union-free” environment of early Silicon Valley.
The Orient: Sporck famously noted: “We had union problems in Silicon Valley. We never had any union problems in the Orient.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter explains how the chip industry was globalized decades before the term “globalization” became common. It established the Asia-centric supply chain that exists today and used economic integration as a weapon to prevent the “domino effect” of Communism in the Pacific

6. Facts:

First Offshore Plant: Fairchild rented space in a Hong Kong sandal factory in 1963.
Hong Kong Output: In its first year (1963), the facility assembled 120 million devices.
Wage Comparison (mid-1960s):
- Hong Kong: 25 cents/hour (1/10th of U.S. average).
- Taiwan: 19 cents/hour.
- Malaysia: 15 cents/hour.
- Singapore: 11 cents/hour.
- South Korea: 10 cents/hour (a dime).
Immigration Law: The U.S. decision to ease immigration rules in 1965 added foreign-born women to the Silicon Valley labor pool.

11: Precision Strike

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter shifts the focus from the factory floor to the battlefield, specifically the failure of American airpower during the Vietnam War. Despite dropping 800,000 tons of explosives during Operation Rolling Thunder—more than the entire Pacific Theater in WWII—the U.S. failed to destroy key infrastructure like North Vietnam’s Thanh Hoa Bridge. The problem was accuracy: bombs dropped from high altitudes were lucky to land within 400 feet of their target. The missiles of the era, like the Sparrow III, were powered by hand-soldered vacuum tubes that frequently shattered during the violent vibrations of takeoff and landing.

The narrative introduces Weldon Word, a TI project engineer who had spent a monotonous year gathering sonar data on a Navy ship. Word realized that if sensors could gather data, they could also guide weapons. He set out to build a “cheap and familiar” weapon—essentially a standard bomb with a “brain.” Working with Colonel Joe Davis, Word took the 750-pound M-117 bomb, added steerable wings, and a simple laser seeker. In 1972, after 638 failed attempts by “dumb” bombs, a flight of U.S. aircraft dropped 24 of Word’s laser-guided “Paveway” bombs. They scored direct hits, destroying the bridge in a single day. This event proved that microelectronics could achieve through precision what the “typhoon of steel” could not achieve through volume.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Paveway System: A laser-guidance kit. It used a small silicon wafer divided into four quadrants behind a lens. If a reflected laser hit one quadrant more than the others, the circuitry moved the bomb’s wings to re-center the trajectory.
Transition from Vacuum Tubes to Solid State in Munitions: Early missiles (Sparrow) broke every 5 to 10 hours because of vacuum tube fragility. The move to transistors made “fire and forget” and precision guidance physically possible for the first time.
The Kill Chain: The integration of sensors on satellites/planes to acquire targets, chips to guide the weapon, and processors to confirm destruction.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Weldon Word: The TI engineer who envisioned using microelectronics to transform the “kill chain.” He insisted on weapons priced like “an inexpensive family sedan” to ensure they could be used in high volume.
Colonel Joe Davis: The Air Force officer who provided the funding and the “target list” (Thanh Hoa Bridge) that gave the Paveway its chance to prove itself.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Bridge Statistic: Before the Paveway, the U.S. had dropped hundreds of bombs on the Thanh Hoa Bridge, leaving 800 pockmarks in the ground around it while the bridge remained standing.
The Cost Comparison: Word told his team to build weapons priced like “an inexpensive family sedan,” illustrating the shift toward making high-tech military hardware affordable and mass-producible.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter documents the birth of “Smart Warfare.” The ability to use few, precise weapons to do the work of thousands of “dumb” ones began to shift the global military balance toward those who could produce the best chips rather than the most steel.

6. Facts:

Date of Breakthrough: May 13, 1972 (destruction of Thanh Hoa Bridge).
The Payload: Operation Rolling Thunder dropped over 800,000 tons of bombs.
Accuracy Gap: Sparrow missiles in Vietnam had a 9.2% hit rate; 66% malfunctioned entirely.
Development Cost: Colonel Davis gave TI nine months and only $99,000 to deliver the first laser-guided bomb.

12: Supply Chain Statecraft

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the U.S. began to lose the war in Vietnam, it looked for a way to stabilize its remaining Asian allies. The “domino theory” suggested that if South Vietnam fell, the rest of the region would follow. To prevent this, the U.S. used “Supply Chain Statecraft.” Instead of just sending troops, they sent factories. By integrating the economies of Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore into the U.S. electronics supply chain, the U.S. created a “Silicon Shield”—allies whose survival was in the direct interest of American capitalism.

The chapter highlights the 1968 visit of TI executives Mark Shepherd and Morris Chang to Taiwan. The visit started poorly: Shepherd, a “Texas titan,” threw a fit when his steak was served with soy sauce. More seriously, Taiwan’s economy minister, K.T. Li, initially viewed intellectual property as a tool of “imperialists.” However, Li quickly realized that hosting TI factories would provide jobs for thousands of former peasant farmers, reducing the poverty that bred Communist radicalism. For Taiwan, the strategy was survival: they believed that if America’s most important technology companies were based on the island, the U.S. military would be forced to defend it. By 1980, TI’s Taiwan plant had shipped its billionth unit.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Offshore Assembly Specialization: The realization that high-value design could be done in the U.S. while low-value, labor-intensive assembly could be used as a diplomatic and economic tool in Asia.
Volume Manufacturing: Moving to Taiwan allowed TI and others to hire trained engineers at a fraction of the cost, enabling them to refine the “yield” of increasingly complex chips.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

K. T. Li: The Cambridge-educated physicist and Taiwan’s economy minister who pivoted from calling the U.S. “imperialist” to welcoming them to build a “Silicon Shield.”
Mark Shepherd: The TI CEO who pushed the offshoring strategy to keep TI competitive against lower-cost Japanese labor.
Lee Kuan Yew: The leader of Singapore who marketed his country as a union-free “haven” for U.S. chip firms to “sop up unemployment.”

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Steak Incident: Mark Shepherd’s rage over soy sauce on his steak illustrates the cultural friction of early globalization, yet his business logic overcame his personal biases.
The “Silicon Shield”: Taiwanese officials realized that “Americans who weren’t interested in defending Taiwan might be willing to defend Texas Instruments.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter explains how the modern geography of the chip industry was not an accident of the market, but a deliberate move by U.S. and Asian leaders to create an anti-Communist economic bloc.

6. Facts:

Dates: TI board approved the Taiwan facility in July 1968.
Labor Shift: Between 1970 and 1980, 15% of Malaysian workers moved from farms to cities for electronics jobs.
Economic Impact: By the early 1980s, electronics accounted for 7% of Singapore’s GNP and 25% of its manufacturing jobs.

13: Intel’s Revolutionaries

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 1968, while the world was distracted by the Tet Offensive and student protests, the most “revolutionary” event happened in a Palo Alto office: Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore quit Fairchild to found Intel (Integrated Electronics). They were frustrated by the “meddling” of Fairchild’s East Coast owners and the lack of stock options for engineers. Their goal was to replace magnetic core memory—a matrix of tiny metal rings hand-woven by workers—with silicon chips.

Intel’s first success was DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory), but the chapter’s centerpiece is the accidental invention of the microprocessor. In 1969, a Japanese calculator company called Busicom asked Intel to design 12 different custom chips for its new calculator. Intel engineer Ted Hoff realized this was too complex for a small startup. Instead, he proposed a radical “Gutenberg moment”: design one general-purpose chip that could be programmed with software to perform many different tasks. This became the Intel 4004, the world’s first microprocessor. Bob Noyce famously held up a silicon wafer at his parents’ 50th anniversary and declared, “This is going to change the world.”

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

DRAM vs. Magnetic Cores: Magnetic cores were metal rings magnetized (1) or non-magnetized (0). They couldn’t be miniaturized further because they were woven by hand. DRAM used transistors and capacitors to store bits on silicon, allowing for exponential scaling.
The Microprocessor (Intel 4004): A “computer on a chip.” Instead of custom-building logic hardware for every specific device, the microprocessor allowed the same hardware to be used for anything, with “logic” moved to software.
RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer): A simpler, more efficient architecture developed at Berkeley that challenged the bulky x86 design (though Intel initially rejected it).

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Ted Hoff: The Intel engineer who looked at the Busicom request and realized that a general-purpose processor was a more efficient solution than 12 custom chips.
Federico Faggin: The engineer who actually designed the 4004 using a straightedge and colored pencils.
Carver Mead: The Caltech professor who coined the term “Moore’s Law” and mentored the designers of automated chip design software.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Gutenberg Moment: Carver Mead compared the microprocessor to the printing press: “Once you can write a program to do something… you don’t need anybody’s tool kit, you write your own.”
Noyce’s Proclamation: ”This is going to change the world,” spoken in 1972, captured the transition from “calculating” to “computing” for every facet of society.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The microprocessor shifted power from hardware manufacturers to software designers and standardized logic. It ensured that Silicon Valley would be the “moat-protected castle” of the digital world for decades.

6. Facts:

The 4004 Specs: Contained 2,300 transistors (compared to 11.8 billion in an iPhone 12).
Date: Intel founded in July 1968.
The Moat: The x86 instruction set became the standard for PCs, creating a de facto monopoly for Intel.

14: The Pentagon’s Offset Strategy

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By 1977, the Pentagon was in a “dark place.” The U.S. had lost Vietnam, and the Soviet Union had achieved parity in nuclear missiles and massive superiority in conventional tanks and troops. Pentagon analysts like Andrew Marshall realized the U.S. could never win a “tank-for-tank” war. They needed a new strategy to “offset” Soviet numbers. This chapter follows William Perry as he moves from Silicon Valley to become Undersecretary of Defense.

Perry’s vision was to “put a computer on every weapon.” He realized that the chips in the new handheld calculators being sold in Palo Alto malls were more powerful than the guidance systems in most Soviet missiles. He pushed for the development of a “constellation of satellites” (GPS), stealth technology, and a program called “Assault Breaker.” Assault Breaker envisioned a network where an aerial radar would spot 100 Soviet tanks, beam the data to a ground station, which would then fire missiles that would release “smart” submunitions to destroy all 100 tanks simultaneously. Congress called these “bells and whistles” and “Luddites” in the press predicted they would fail, but Perry and Marshall were betting the future of the nation on Moore’s Law.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The “Offset” Technologies: Stealth (using chips to calculate radar-evading shapes), GPS (time-synchronized chips in space), and terminal guidance.
Assault Breaker: The first integrated “battlefield network” concept.
Miniaturization of Computing: Putting the power of a room-sized computer (ENIAC) into a missile nose cone.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

William Perry: A Silicon Valley entrepreneur (and Bob Noyce’s choir singing partner) who brought the “move fast” culture of the valley to the Pentagon to revitalize the U.S. military.
Andrew Marshall: The head of the Office of Net Assessment who provided the “grim conclusion” that the U.S. had lost its military edge and needed computers to regain it.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Choir Partner: William Perry sang in a madrigals choir with Intel CEO Bob Noyce, illustrating the intimate social links between the defense establishment and the tech industry.
The “Luddites”: Perry’s dismissal of his congressional critics who assumed guided missiles would improve as slowly as tanks did.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter explains how the U.S. military became “dependent on foreign sources” for chips, a vulnerability recognized as early as the 1980s. It marks the moment the U.S. stopped competing on “brawn” and started competing on “bytes.”

6. Facts:

The Spend: By the 1980s, 17% of military spending was on electronics, up from 6% at the end of WWII.
Soviet Parity: In the early 1970s, the Soviets built a large enough ICBM stockpile to survive a U.S. first strike.
Precision Gap: Perry calculated the U.S. needed
```
  30–30–
```
50 billion to defend against Soviet tanks, but “Assault Breaker” offered a cheaper path through accuracy.

15: “That Competition Is Tough”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The chapter opens at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. in 1980, where a Hewlett-Packard executive named Richard Anderson dropped a bombshell that shattered Silicon Valley’s ego. For years, U.S. chipmakers had joked that Japanese firms were “copycats” (the “click-click” sound of cameras at conferences). Anderson presented data from HP’s tests: every single Japanese chipmaker produced DRAM that was more reliable than the best American chipmaker.

The best U.S. firm had a failure rate six times higher than the worst Japanese firm. This wasn’t about “copying”—it was about a fundamental shift in manufacturing quality. Japanese firms (Toshiba, NEC, Hitachi) had utilized the “License It” strategy to its peak, and their culture of “long-range” management and “zero-defects” was winning. At the same time, Sony released the Walkman (1979), which used five integrated circuits to transform the music industry. The Japanese were no longer just “transistor salesmen”; they were the innovators. The U.S. industry, led by the “Silicon Valley Cowboys,” was suddenly facing an existential crisis.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The 64K DRAM: The battlefield of the 1980s. Japan took a 100% share of the 1-megabit DRAM market early on.
Quality Control (Zero Defects): Japanese manufacturing methods (inspired by W. Edwards Deming) focused on refining the “planar process” to such a degree that their yields were significantly higher than Intel’s or TI’s.
The Walkman: A breakthrough in “miniaturization for consumer pleasure,” proving that chips could create entirely new lifestyle categories.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Richard Anderson: The HP executive who “made life hell” for U.S. salesmen by proving their chips were inferior to Japanese ones.
Akio Morita: Who transitioned from student to “Business Oracle,” lecturing Americans that they spent too much time on “money games” and not enough on engineering.
Makoto Kikuchi: Sony’s research director who argued that while the U.S. had “outstanding elites,” Japan was better at the “long tail” of mass manufacturing.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

“Click, Click”: The derogatory joke U.S. engineers made about Japanese tourists taking photos, which blinded them to the fact that Japan was actually out-innovating them.
Morita’s Lecture: ”The United States has been busy creating lawyers, while Japan has been busier creating engineers.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter documents the first time a non-U.S. power threatened to monopolize a “strategic” industry. It set the stage for the trade wars of the 1980s and the realization that manufacturing leadership is as important as design leadership.

6. Facts:

The Reliability Data: 0.02% failure rate for top Japanese firms vs. 0.09% for the best U.S. firm (and 0.26% for the worst U.S. firm).
Market Boom: Japan’s electronics exports jumped from $600 million in 1965 to $60 billion two decades later.
Walkman Sales: Sony sold 385 million units worldwide.

16: “At War with Japan”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By the early 1980s, the competition between Silicon Valley and Japan had moved beyond the marketplace and into the realm of corporate warfare and espionage. This chapter focuses on the “bare-knuckle brawling” of Jerry Sanders, the flamboyant CEO of AMD. Sanders, who had literally survived being left for dead in a Chicago garbage can as a teenager, brought a street-fighter mentality to the industry. He recognized that the fight with Japan was not a “fair” one; Japanese firms benefited from protected domestic markets and massive government-backed capital.

The narrative details a high-stakes FBI sting operation code-named Glenmar. In 1981, Hitachi employees were caught in a trap while trying to buy industrial secrets from a front company. They were caught on tape paying cash for stolen technical manuals and photographs of IBM’s newest computers. This incident fueled the fire of American resentment, with executives like Charlie Sporck claiming that Japan was essentially conducting an “economic war.” While Silicon Valley was used to internal lawsuits over patents, the Japanese challenge was seen as an existential threat to the American way of life. The chapter ends with the grim realization that if Japan could monopolize the DRAM market, they could move the entire tech center of gravity across the Pacific.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Industrial Espionage: The “breakthrough” here was the sophistication of tech theft. Spies targeted not just chip designs, but the maintenance manuals and architectural blueprints of mainframe computers.
Cost of Capital Advantage: Japanese firms could borrow at 6–7% while U.S. firms were paying up to 18% during the high-inflation era of the early 80s. This allowed Japanese firms to invest 60% more in production equipment than their U.S. rivals, even when they weren’t profitable.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jerry Sanders: CEO of AMD. The industry’s “salesman-in-chief” who flashed expensive watches and drove a Rolls-Royce to project strength while lobbying for protection against Japan.
Jun Naruse: A Hitachi employee caught in the Glenmar sting operation, illustrating the lengths Japanese firms went to in order to close the tech gap with IBM.
Charlie Sporck: Now at National Semiconductor, he became one of the most vocal advocates for viewing the chip industry as a national security priority.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Pet Shark: Jerry Sanders compared owning a semiconductor fab to “putting a pet shark in your swimming pool.” They were expensive to feed and could kill you, but he insisted that “Real men have fabs.”
The FBI Trap: Hitachi’s spokesman, after the arrests, sheepishly admitted, “It seems that Hitachi stepped into the trap.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter marks the shift of the semiconductor industry into a “Zero-Sum” game. The U.S. began to realize that free-market ideals might not survive against state-subsidized competition, leading to the birth of a more aggressive industrial policy.

6. Facts:

Interest Rates: U.S. rates reached 21.5% in the early 1980s.
Market Share: By the mid-80s, Intel’s share of the global DRAM market plummeted to just 1.7%.
Sting Date: The Glenmar rendezvous occurred on a cold November morning in 1981.

17: “Shipping Junk”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter documents the tragic collapse of the American manufacturing equipment industry through the lens of GCA Corporation. In the 1970s, GCA was a high-tech darling, having invented the wafer stepper—a machine that could move step-by-step to expose individual chips on a wafer with unprecedented precision. Before the stepper, lithography was like using a copy machine; with the stepper, it became a surgical operation.

However, GCA’s success led to fatal arrogance. CEO Milt Greenberg focused more on political hobnobbing and expensive perks (like company-funded Corvettes) than on customer service. GCA began “shipping junk”—machines that broke down constantly and software that was buggy. Meanwhile, Nikon, which had initially provided the lenses for GCA, realized they could build the whole machine better. Nikon listened to customers, while GCA ignored them. By the mid-1980s, Nikon’s steppers were running ten times longer between repairs than GCA’s. The chapter illustrates a broader manufacturing decay in America: the same “paper entrepreneurialism” that ruined the steel and auto industries was now hollowing out the most critical layer of the tech sector.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Wafer Stepper: A revolutionary lithography machine that replaced “scanners.” It allowed for sub-micron precision (features smaller than a millionth of a meter).
Precision Optics: The shift from movie camera lenses to specialized, ultra-pure lenses made by companies like Carl Zeiss (Germany) and Nikon (Japan).
Uptime/Reliability: Nikon’s machines averaged 750 hours of continuous use, whereas U.S. machines struggled to reach 75 hours before needing repairs.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Milt Greenberg: The GCA CEO whose “stubborn, foul-mouthed” genius built the stepper market but whose mismanagement destroyed the company.
Robert Solow: Nobel-winning economist who argued that the U.S. chip industry suffered from an “unstable structure” and a failure to invest in workers.
Morris Chang: At TI, he was the one who originally walked up to the GCA booth and suggested the “stepper” concept, proving again his role as the industry’s manufacturing oracle.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Receptionist’s Code: GCA employees were so afraid of Greenberg’s temper that the receptionist developed a code: she would turn on a specific ceiling light when he entered the building so everyone could hide.
The Empty Crate: To hit year-end financial targets, GCA would sometimes ship an empty crate with just a user manual to a customer, promising the actual machine would arrive the next year.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The fall of GCA meant that the U.S. lost control over the “printing press” of the digital age. It signaled the end of American self-reliance in semiconductor manufacturing tools, a dependency that would eventually lead to the rise of ASML.

6. Facts:

Market Collapse: U.S. firms controlled 85% of the lithography market in 1978; a decade later, it was 50% and falling.
Equipment Cost: Global sales of lithography equipment fell by 40% between 1984 and 1986.
GCA Revenue: Jumped from $50 million to $300 million after the stepper was introduced, before crashing.

18: The Crude Oil of the 1980s

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the trade war with Japan intensified, the industry needed a powerful metaphor to grab Washington’s attention. They found it in Oil. This chapter describes the 1980s realization that chips were the “strategic commodity” of the future, as essential to the 20th century as oil was. The 1973 and 1979 oil embargoes were fresh in the minds of Americans, and the tech industry argued that relying on Japan for chips was like relying on the Middle East for energy.

The narrative follows the formation of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). Silicon Valley’s CEOs, who had spent the 1970s demanding the government stay out of their way, “crawled sheepishly” back to D.C. for help. They held a secret meeting at Ming’s Chinese Restaurant in Palo Alto to coordinate their lobbying efforts. They argued that because the Pentagon’s “Offset Strategy” (precision weapons) relied entirely on chips, the decline of U.S. manufacturing was a national security emergency. This was the moment the “Silicon Valley Cowboy” became a “Beltway Lobbyist.”

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The PC Revolution: The emergence of personal computers (IBM PC, 1981) created a massive new market for chips in every home and office, making the product “strategic” for the entire economy, not just the military.
Standardization of Logic: The transition from custom chips to standardized microprocessors that could be produced in the millions.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jerry Sanders: Co-founder of the SIA; he used the “crude oil” metaphor to successfully frame the debate in Congress.
Bill Perry: Continued his role in the Pentagon, reinforcing the idea that American military power was “recast” based on Silicon Valley’s success.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Metaphor: Jerry Sanders declared: “Semiconductors are the crude oil of the 1980s, and the people who control the crude oil will control the electronics industry.”
The “McNamara Depression”: A term used by the industry to describe the period when military cost-cutting forced them to find new civilian markets.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter documents the conceptual birth of “Economic Security.” The U.S. government began to view the health of private tech companies as being identical to the survival of the state.

6. Facts:

Military Dependence: By 1987, a Defense Science Board report concluded that U.S. defense would soon “depend on foreign sources” for state-of-the-art chips.
Japanese Dominance: By 1986, Japan overtook America in the total number of chips produced.

19: Death Spiral

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By 1986, Bob Noyce—the man who helped invent the chip—told reporters, “We’re in a death spiral.” The U.S. industry was failing. This chapter focuses on the desperate attempt to save American chipmaking through the creation of Sematech, a government-industry consortium funded half by the Pentagon and half by private firms.

Bob Noyce, the industry’s most charismatic figure, came out of retirement to lead Sematech in Austin, Texas. He spent 50% of his time in Washington, D.C., lobbying a skeptical Reagan administration. While “Luddite” critics and free-market economists argued that the U.S. should just buy cheaper Japanese chips and “pocket the savings,” Noyce and the Pentagon argued that losing the ability to manufacture would eventually mean losing the ability to innovate. Despite the influx of cash, some parts of the rescue failed—notably the effort to save GCA. Noyce even told the GCA president “You’re done,” but later relented and bought $13 million of their equipment in a last-ditch effort that ultimately failed.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Consortium R&D: Sematech attempted to align production schedules between toolmakers and chipmakers, a technique the Japanese had used effectively to dominate the market.
Manufacturing vs. Design: The industry began to split. While the U.S. was losing the “manufacturing” war, they were still holding onto “design” leadership, though the gap was narrowing.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Bob Noyce: The “savior” of the industry who sacrificed his final years to navigate the bureaucracy of Washington and the technical challenges of Sematech.
Peter Simone: President of GCA, who pleaded with Noyce for a lifeline.
George Shultz: Reagan’s Secretary of State, who eventually concluded that Japan would only open its markets if the U.S. threatened tariffs.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

Potato Chips vs. Computer Chips: A Reagan economist famously (though he later denied it) said: “Potato chips, computer chips, what’s the difference? A hundred dollars of one or a hundred dollars of the other is still a hundred.”
Noyce’s Heart: Noyce died of a heart attack in 1990, shortly after a morning swim, symbolizing the end of the industry’s founding era.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The “Death Spiral” resulted in the 1986 Semiconductor Trade Agreement, the first major managed-trade deal where the U.S. forced another country to accept export quotas and “fair market values.” It was the end of purely “free” trade in technology.

6. Facts:

Sematech Funding: $100 million annually from the Pentagon, matched by $100 million from industry.
Tax Reform: Bob Noyce successfully lobbied to cut the capital gains tax from 49% to 28%.
Trade Deal: The 1986 agreement inadvertently drove up DRAM prices, which actually increased profits for the Japanese firms it was meant to restrain.

20: The Japan That Can Say No

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The decade ended with a shocking surge in Japanese confidence. In 1989, Sony’s Akio Morita and right-wing politician Shintaro Ishihara published “The Japan That Can Say No.” The book argued that Japan’s technological prowess had made it superior to the U.S. and that Japan should no longer take orders from Washington. Ishihara pointed out that American nuclear missiles were useless without Japanese chips, and that if Japan sold its chips to the USSR instead, the Cold War balance would flip instantly.

The U.S. was horrified. The CIA translated the book in secret, and a copy was entered into the Congressional Record by an irate congressman. The chapter explores the peak of “Pax Niponica.” While America was seen as a “dirty, crime-ridden” nation of lawyers, Japan was a nation of engineers. However, this arrogance was built on a “brittle” foundation: a massive real estate and stock market bubble. Just as the Japanese were predicting they would become “Number One,” their financial markets crashed in 1990. The chapter concludes by noting that while Japan was right that chips would shape the military balance, they were wrong to think those chips would be made exclusively in Japan.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

1-Megabit DRAM: Japan achieved a nearly 100% market share in this generation of memory.
Flash Memory (NAND): Invented by Fujio Masuoka at Toshiba in 1981. Crucially, Toshiba ignored him, allowing Intel to eventually commercialize the technology.
The PC Gap: Japanese firms were so focused on DRAM that they completely missed the rise of the personal computer and the importance of microprocessors.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Shintaro Ishihara: The provocateur whose nationalist rhetoric “sparked fury” in Washington and forced the U.S. to rethink its alliance with Japan.
Akio Morita: Who later regretted his association with Ishihara’s harsher essays but still believed Japan’s system simply “worked better.”
Fujio Masuoka: The Toshiba engineer who developed Flash memory but was marginalized by a corporate culture that only valued the current generation of DRAM.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Agrarian Power: A Japanese professor declared that America’s future was that of “a premier agrarian power, a giant version of Denmark.”
The CIA Warning: A 1987 CIA report warned of an emerging “Pax Niponica”—a world order led by Japan.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter illustrates the danger of “Techno-Nationalism.” It forced the U.S. government to conclude that “High Tech is Foreign Policy” and that allowing a single country to dominate the supply chain was a catastrophic risk.

6. Facts:

Date: The Tokyo stock market crashed in 1990, trading at half its peak value shortly thereafter.
Market Shift: By 1998, Japan’s share of the DRAM market fell from 90% to 20%.
Waiters’ Retort: Morita noted that in the 1950s, waiters in NYC were glamorous; by the 1980s, the city felt “bankrupt,” mirroring his view of the two nations’ trajectories.

21: The Potato Chip King

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the “Silicon Valley Cowboys” were being routed by Japan, an unlikely savior emerged from the potato fields of Idaho. Jack Simplot, a billionaire who had dropped out of school in the eighth grade and made his first fortune selling frozen french fries to McDonald’s, decided to bankroll a tiny startup called Micron Technology. Founded by twin brothers Joe and Ward Parkinson in the basement of a Boise dentist’s office, Micron entered the DRAM market at the worst possible time—just as Japanese firms were flooding the world with high-quality, low-priced chips.

While Intel and TI were reeling from billion-dollar losses and eventually abandoned the DRAM business, Micron survived through a “sweatshop mentality” and extreme cost-cutting. Simplot didn’t understand the physics of semiconductors, but he understood commodities. He saw that DRAM had become a commodity, and his experience with potato harvests taught him that the best time to buy was when everyone else was in liquidation. He backed the Parkinsons with $1 million initially and eventually hundreds of millions more. Micron’s engineers modified their machinery to bake more wafers at once and shrunk the size of the chips themselves to cram more onto each wafer. By the late 1980s, Micron was the only major U.S. DRAM producer left standing that could go toe-to-toe with the Japanese on price and volume.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Shrinking the Die: Ward Parkinson realized that if he could make the physical size of the chip smaller (the “die”), he could fit more chips on a single circular silicon wafer. This made Micron’s manufacturing far more efficient than rivals who were focused solely on transistor count.
Customizing Equipment: Micron modification of off-the-shelf tools. They tweaked furnaces to bake 250 wafers per load instead of the industry standard of 150.
Lagging-Edge Efficiency: Micron’s early chips were often called “the worst on the market” in terms of advanced features, but they were “the least expensive to produce,” which is what the commodity memory market demanded.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jack Simplot: The “Potato King” whose “Mr. Spud” license plate and “cowboy competitiveness” provided the capital and grit needed to keep Micron alive during the 1981 and 1984 downturns.
Ward Parkinson: The engineering brains of Micron who applied a “figuring it out on the fly” approach to manufacturing.
Joe Parkinson: The corporate lawyer turned CEO who “maniacally” focused on costs, even dimming hallway lights to save on power bills.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Board Meetings: Micron’s board meetings were often held at 5:45 a.m. at Elmer’s, a local greasy spoon in Boise, over stacks of $6.99 buttermilk pancakes—a sharp contrast to the high-end dining of Silicon Valley.
Simplot’s Logic: ”They’ve got a big tariff on potatoes… We can out-tech ‘em and we can out-produce ‘em. We’ll beat the hell out of ‘em.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Micron’s survival ensured that the U.S. maintained a domestic source of DRAM, preventing a total Japanese monopoly. It also proved that a “low-tech” commodity mindset could win in a “high-tech” industry.

6. Facts:

Founding: Micron founded in 1978 in Boise, Idaho.
Survival: In 1981, Micron’s cash balance fell so low it could only cover two weeks of payroll.
Outcome: By 2013, Micron was strong enough to buy its former Japanese rival, Elpida.

22: Disrupting Intel

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By 1985, Intel was facing a crisis of identity. Having pioneered the DRAM market, the company was now losing $173 million a year because of Japanese competition. Andy Grove, the “butt-kicking Hungarian” president of Intel, found himself in a state of constant paranoia. He spent his days staring out the window at the Ferris wheel of a nearby amusement park, wondering if Intel would end up like the dying steel mills of the Rust Belt.

The chapter describes a legendary moment of clarity between Grove and Gordon Moore. Grove asked, “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do?” Moore admitted the new guy would get Intel out of the memory business. Grove’s response: “Why don’t we walk out the door, come back in, and do it ourselves?” This led to the most famous pivot in business history. Intel fired 25% of its workforce and shut down its memory fabs. They bet everything on the microprocessor, specifically for the IBM PC. To make this work, Grove introduced the “Copy Exactly” method, forcing engineers to replicate successful manufacturing processes with zero deviations. This replaced Silicon Valley’s “artist” culture with “assembly-line rigor,” allowing Intel to dominate the PC era.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Pivot to Microprocessors: Shifting from “remembering” 1s and 0s (DRAM) to “computing” them (CPUs). This allowed Intel to build a “moat” around the x86 instruction set.
“Copy Exactly”: A manufacturing philosophy where every detail of a successful fab—down to the color of the paint on the walls and the length of the plumbing—was replicated in every other fab to ensure identical yields.
Disruptive Innovation: Applying Clayton Christensen’s theory—Intel realized they had been “disrupted” in memory and had to disrupt themselves to survive.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Andy Grove: The refugee-turned-titan who used his trauma-induced paranoia to ruthlessly cut failing divisions and save the company.
Gordon Moore: The visionary who reluctantly agreed to abandon his “identity” as a memory chip maker to focus on the future of the CPU.
Craig Barrett: Grove’s deputy who “took a baseball bat to manufacturing,” forcing the transition to the disciplined “Copy Exactly” model.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Sledgehammer: Craig Barrett’s management style was described as “grabbing someone and slamming them over the head with a sledgehammer” to ensure compliance with manufacturing standards.
The Identity Crisis: One employee remarked that for Intel to quit DRAM was “like Ford deciding to get out of cars.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Intel’s pivot created the “Wintel” (Windows + Intel) monopoly that defined global computing for 30 years. It re-centered the chip industry’s profit center in the U.S. through design and architecture rather than just memory production.

6. Facts:

Profits: Since the late 1980s, Intel has made a quarter-trillion dollars in profit.
The IBM PC: Launched August 12, 1981, with an Intel chip inside.
The Loss: Intel’s DRAM market share fell from nearly 100% in the early 70s to 1.7% by the mid-80s.

23: “My Enemy’s Enemy”: The Rise of Korea

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The U.S. government and Silicon Valley executives realized that to break Japan’s stranglehold on DRAM, they needed a new, lower-cost competitor. They found a partner in South Korea’s Samsung, led by Lee Byung-Chul. Lee had started his business career selling dried fish and vegetables, but he dreamed of building an “eternal” business. In 1983, after a “sleepless night,” he announced: “Samsung will make semiconductors.”

The U.S. supported Samsung’s rise through a policy of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” U.S. firms like Intel and Micron, desperate to undercut Japanese prices, signed joint ventures with Samsung. They transferred technology and designs to the Koreans, believing Samsung was “years behind” and posed no threat to U.S. design leadership. Meanwhile, the South Korean government provided the “Big Fund”—massive subsidies and directed bank loans—allowing Samsung to sustain losses during industry downturns. This “game of chicken” eventually forced Japanese firms like Toshiba and Hitachi to blink. By 1992, Samsung had overtaken Japan as the world’s leading memory chipmaker, marking the beginning of the end for Japan’s semiconductor supremacy.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Technology Transfer: Samsung licensed the design for a 64K DRAM from Micron. “Whatever we did, Samsung did,” recalled Micron’s Ward Parkinson.
Brute Financial Force: The ability to invest $400 million in a single year during a market slump, out-spending Japanese rivals who were beginning to face credit constraints.
Training a Workforce: A generation of Korean engineers were sent to top U.S. universities or trained by U.S.-educated professors to bridge the “know-how” gap.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Lee Byung-Chul: The Samsung founder who bet his entire business empire on a single phone call in February 1983.
Bob Noyce: Who cheered the rise of Korea, telling Andy Grove that Samsung would make Japan’s “dumping” strategy “deadly” for the Japanese themselves.
Lee Jay-yong: The grandson of the founder (paroled in 2021) who continues the legacy of massive capital bets.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Chevrolet Incident: During the Korean War, a Communist Party chief seized Lee’s Chevrolet and drove it around the occupied capital, symbolizing the instability Lee had to overcome to build Samsung.
The “Game of Chicken”: A Samsung executive described the DRAM market as a game where companies pour money into factories to drive down prices until the competition goes bankrupt.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The rise of Korea successfully “checked” Japanese dominance, but it also created a new dependency. The U.S. effectively traded a Japanese monopoly for a Korean one in the memory space.

6. Facts:

Subsidy: The South Korean government promised to invest $400 million to develop the industry in the 1980s.
Milestone: In 1992, Samsung became the world’s #1 memory chip maker.
Export Share: By the early 80s, semiconductors and related electronics accounted for 10% of South Korea’s entire GDP.

24: “This Is the Future”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As transistors reached the millions per chip, the old method of designing them—sketching with colored pencils and cutting “Rubylith” film with penknives—became impossible. The industry was hitting a “design wall.” This chapter chronicles the “Mead-Conway Revolution.” Lynn Conway, a computer architect at Xerox PARC, and Carver Mead of Caltech, realized that chip design needed to be separated from chip manufacturing.

They drew up a set of mathematical “design rules” that allowed computer programs to automate the layout of transistors. This was the “Gutenberg moment” for the industry. Previously, a designer had to know the exact “recipe” of the factory (the fab) to design a chip. Now, they could design a chip using standardized software and send the file to a fab to be “printed.” This enabled the birth of the “Fabless” business model. Irwin Jacobs used this new freedom to found Qualcomm, realizing that with enough computing power, he could “stuff” more data into the limited radio-wave spectrum. The chapter emphasizes that Silicon Valley’s resurgence wasn’t just about better factories, but about an “innovation ecosystem” funded by DARPA, which wined and dined professors to theorize the rules of the future.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration): The ability to pack more than 100,000 transistors on a chip, which required CAD (Computer-Aided Design) software.
The Mead-Conway Design Rules: A simplified, standardized “language” for chip design that ignored the messy physics of the fab, allowing computer scientists to design hardware like they wrote software.
CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access): Qualcomm’s breakthrough in wireless communication, which relied on Moore’s Law to run complex algorithms that allowed many callers to share the same frequency.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Lynn Conway: The Xerox researcher who arrived at work in “stealth mode” after being fired by IBM for her gender transition; she authored the textbook that taught a generation how to design chips.
Carver Mead: The Caltech visionary who argued that “once you can write a program to do something, you don’t need anybody’s toolkit.”
Irwin Jacobs: The professor-turned-entrepreneur who founded Qualcomm and held up a chip at a conference declaring, “This is the future.”

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Design Artisan: Conway was shocked to find that 1970s chipmakers were “more like artists than engineers,” using tweezers to fix patterns on blocks of silicon.
Coding is Dead: A professor in 1971 glibly declared that radio waves had reached their limit and “coding is dead.” Jacobs proved him wrong by using chips to decode “messy” signals.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter explains how the U.S. regained its lead by moving “up the stack” into software and design, while the “brute force” manufacturing was increasingly offshored.

6. Facts:

The 486: By the end of the 1980s, Intel’s 486 microprocessor contained 1.2 million transistors.
Software Monopoly: Today, three American firms (Cadence, Synopsys, Mentor) control 75% of the chip design software market.

25: The KGB’s Directorate T

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
While Silicon Valley was innovating through the Mead-Conway revolution, the Soviet Union was doubling down on theft. In 1963, the KGB established Directorate T (for teknologia), a massive division dedicated to stealing Western industrial secrets. By the early 1980s, the Soviet consulate in San Francisco had sixty agents targeting Silicon Valley firms. They recruited thieves like “One Eyed Jack” to steal chips in leather jackets and blackmailed Westerners with access to high-tech.

The “Copy It” strategy seemed to be working when Rhode Island fishermen pulled a Soviet listening buoy out of the Atlantic in 1982 that contained perfect replicas of TI chips. However, the strategy was failing at its core. The chapter introduces Vladimir Vetrov, a disgruntled KGB spy code-named “Farewell” by French intelligence. Vetrov provided thousands of pages of documents revealing that even though the Soviets had stolen 900 Western machines, they couldn’t make them work together. They lacked the spare parts, the pure chemicals, and the software “know-how.” The “Farewell Dossier” allowed the Reagan administration to launch Operation Exodus, which finally plugged the leaks. The CIA concluded that while the Soviets could produce replicas like clockwork, they were always “half a decade behind,” a gap that was fatal in an industry defined by Moore’s Law.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Reverse Engineering: The process of taking a Western chip, acid-washing the layers, and photographing the circuits to attempt a replica.
Directorate T Bureaucracy: The Soviets managed to acquire nearly every facet of the manufacturing process (lithography, etching, doping) but failed to integrate them into a functioning ecosystem.
The Accuracy Gap: Because Soviet chips were inferior, their missiles (like the SS-25) had a 1,200-foot accuracy margin, while U.S. missiles (MX) landed within 364 feet.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Vladimir Vetrov (Farewell): The KGB spy who betrayed his country not for money, but because his career had stalled and his wife was having an affair. His documents “shocked” Western spies with the scale of Soviet theft.
Nikolai Ogarkov: The Soviet Marshal who realized—thanks to Vetrov’s revelations—that the USSR had already lost the technological Cold War by 1983.
Ronald Reagan: Whose administration used the Vetrov information to tighten customs checks and cripple the Soviet tech-acquisition machine.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Farewell” Revenge: After being caught for a non-espionage crime (stabbing his mistress), Vetrov’s betrayal was only discovered by the KGB later, leading to his execution.
The Soviet General: One general noted that the U.S. was so far ahead that “every little child has a computer from age 5.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter shows that espionage cannot replace an internal culture of innovation. The Soviet failure to “Copy It” proved that the most critical part of a technology is the “hidden knowledge” of the people who built it.

6. Facts:

The Haul: Directorate T stole 900 machines for preparing materials and 800 for lithography and etching.
The Catch: By 1985, Operation Exodus had seized $600 million worth of goods and resulted in 1,000 arrests.
The Yield: One Soviet leader complained in 1975: “Out of every 1,000 semiconductors we produce, only one is up to standard.”

26: “Weapons of Mass Destruction”: The Impact of the Offset

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By the early 1980s, the Soviet Union was numerically superior in every traditional category of warfare—more tanks, more planes, and more nuclear warheads. However, Soviet Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the General Staff, realized that “brawn” was being replaced by “computerized brains.” This chapter details the internal panic within the Soviet military as they realized the U.S. “Offset Strategy” was succeeding. While the Soviets could match the U.S. “missile-for-missile,” they could not match them “byte-for-byte.”

The narrative centers on the 1983 shooting down of a South Korean civilian airliner (KAL 007) by Soviet jets. Ogarkov’s aggressive public defense of the incident masked a deep insecurity: the Soviet Union’s inability to miniaturize electronics meant their weapons remained “dumb” while American weapons were learning to “think.” The chapter explains how U.S. advances in Circular Error Probable (CEP)—the measure of missile accuracy—had reached a point where 98% of Soviet ICBMs could be destroyed in a single first strike. Furthermore, the U.S. was using supercomputers like the Illiac IV to map the “cacophony of sound waves” in the ocean, making Soviet submarines, once invisible, now detectable. Ogarkov’s efforts to warn the Politburo were met with stasis; the Soviet system was too rigid to foster the innovation required to close the gap.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Circular Error Probable (CEP): The radius within which 50% of missiles land. The U.S. MX missile could land within 364 feet; the Soviet SS-25 fell within 1,200 feet. This 3x accuracy difference required the Soviets to build much larger, more expensive warheads to compensate.
The Illiac IV Supercomputer: The first supercomputer to use semiconductor memory chips (built by Fairchild). It allowed the U.S. Navy to run complex algorithms to distinguish the sound of a Soviet submarine from schools of fish or temperature changes in the water.
Flight Path Calculation: Soviet missiles were pre-programmed to follow a single rigid path. U.S. missiles, powered by advanced chips, could calculate and adjust their own path to the target in real-time.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Nikolai Ogarkov: The Soviet Marshal who coined the term “military-technical revolution” and warned that Soviet tanks were becoming “vulnerable targets” for U.S. precision strikes.
Les Gelb: The American journalist to whom Ogarkov privately admitted in 1983, “The Cold War is over and you have won,” because of the U.S. lead in computers.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Big” Joke: Miller recounts a common Soviet joke: A Kremlin official declares, “Comrade, we have built the world’s biggest microprocessor!” This self-deprecating humor reflected the reality that the USSR was falling behind because it couldn’t miniaturize.
Ogarkov to Gelb: ”In your country, every little child has a computer from age 5.” This quote illustrates the Soviet realization that their top-down military tech couldn’t compete with a society that had integrated chips into civilian life.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The balance of power shifted from those who could produce the most mass to those who could manage the most information. The Soviet collapse was not just political or economic; it was a surrender to the superior “logic” of the microprocessor.

6. Facts:

Accuracy: U.S. missiles were roughly three times more accurate than Soviet ones by the mid-1980s.
Submarine Warfare: The U.S. SOSUS (Sound Surveillance System) was integrated with supercomputers to end the era of “silent” Soviet subs.
Military Spending: By the 1980s, the U.S. spent 5-10 times more on defense relative to the size of its economy than Japan, but Japan was winning the industrial race.

27: War Hero

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
Early in the morning of January 17, 1991, the first wave of F-117 Stealth Bombers disappeared into the dark sky over Baghdad. This was the opening move of the Persian Gulf War, and it served as the ultimate field test for the technology described in previous chapters. The target was the twelve-story telephone exchange on Rashid Street. General Norman Schwarzkopf relied on “stand-off” weapons to decapitate the Iraqi leadership without risking high U.S. casualties.

The chapter follows Weldon Word, the TI engineer who invented the Paveway laser-guided bomb, as he watched the war unfold on CNN. In 1972, the Paveway had a “zero-for-638” hit ratio on the Thanh Hoa bridge until precision kits were added. In 1991, updated Paveways scored direct hits on bridge after bridge, airfields, and tank columns. The war looked like a “video game” to the world, but it was actually the culmination of thirty years of semiconductor evolution. Iraq, equipped with the best conventional Soviet military hardware, was helpless. The chapter concludes with the New York Times headline: “War Hero Status Possible for the Computer Chip.” The chip had won the war.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Paveway III: The third generation of laser-guided bombs. By 1991, they had been updated with more advanced microelectronics that reduced the number of components while increasing reliability and decreasing cost.
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles: Used radar altimeters to scan the ground and match it with pre-loaded terrain maps, allowing the missile to redirect itself mid-flight.
Information-Based Warfare: The shift from the “volume of fire power” to “information-based strikes.” Precision munitions hit 13 times as many targets as comparable planes using unguided bombs.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Weldon Word: The TI engineer who received an award at the Pentagon for the Paveway’s performance, having achieved his goal of building a weapon as “cheap and familiar as a family sedan.”
Norman Schwarzkopf: The commander of Desert Storm who successfully pivoted from his infantry background to lead a “technological operation.”

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

Saving Lives: An Air Force officer told Weldon Word at a Pentagon ceremony: “There are about ten thousand Americans who didn’t get killed because of you guys.”
The “Video Game” War: CNN’s broadcast of bombs hitting targets with pinpoint accuracy changed the public perception of war from a brutal slugfest to a surgical strike.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The Gulf War sent “shockwaves” through the world’s defense ministries. It proved that any military lacking advanced semiconductors was obsolete. This led to a massive global scramble to secure chip supplies.

6. Facts:

Strike Accuracy: Precision munitions were six times more accurate in the Gulf War than in Vietnam.
Volume vs. Precision: 116 Tomahawk missiles were fired in the opening hours of the war.
Soviet Reaction: Soviet Defense Minister Dmitri Yazov admitted the war made the USSR “nervous about its air defense capabilities.”

28: “The Cold War Is Over and You Have Won”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the 1990s began, the global technological hierarchy underwent a total reversal. Japan, which had spent the 1980s lecturing America on manufacturing quality, saw its economy “screech to a halt” when its financial bubble burst in 1990. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, having realized it could never catch up to Silicon Valley, began to collapse.

The chapter describes Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1990 visit to Silicon Valley, where he was “wined and dined” by tech tycoons like Steve Wozniak and David Packard. Gorbachev made no secret of his goal: he wanted access to American technologies in exchange for ending the Cold War. However, it was too late. The Soviet chip industry was reduced to producing tiny chips for McDonald’s Happy Meal toys. In Japan, Akio Morita’s “long-term thinking” was exposed as a series of “government-backed overinvestments.” Japanese firms had focused so much on DRAM (memory) that they completely missed the rise of the PC and the microprocessor. Intel, under Andy Grove, regained its leadership by pivoting to CPUs, while Japan’s market share in DRAM began to be eaten by a new, lower-cost rival: South Korea’s Samsung.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Logic (CPUs) vs. Memory (DRAM): The industry split into two economic models. DRAM became a low-margin commodity, while Logic (microprocessors) became a high-margin monopoly for Intel.
The PC Ecosystem: The realization that the “castle” was the x86 architecture and the “moat” was the software compatibility (Windows) that locked users into Intel chips.
NAND Flash: Though invented in Japan, it was commercialized by Intel because Japanese firms were too fixated on the dying DRAM market.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Mikhail Gorbachev: The Soviet leader who high-fived students at Stanford and admitted the Cold War was over, identifying Silicon Valley as the place where “the technologies of tomorrow are born.”
Akio Morita: The aging Sony founder who suffered a stroke in 1993, mirroring the decline of Japan’s semiconductor dominance.
Bill Gates: Whose software partnership with Intel (Wintel) became the dominant force of the 1990s.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Happy Meal Humiliation: Miller notes the irony that the once-mighty Soviet chip industry was reduced to producing chips for McDonald’s Happy Meal toys by the late 90s.
Gorbachev’s Admission: ”The Cold War is now behind us… Let’s not wrangle over who won it.” (Meaning: It was obvious who won).

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The U.S. retook the lead in semiconductor shipments in 1993. The “unipolar moment” of American power was built on the dominance of the microprocessor and the software ecosystem.

6. Facts:

Market Reversal: By 1998, South Korean firms had overtaken Japan as the world’s largest DRAM producers.
Intel Profit: Intel has made every year since 1986.
Microprocessor Failure: Only one Japanese firm, NEC, tried to compete with Intel in CPUs, but it gained almost no market share.

29: “We Want a Semiconductor Industry in Taiwan”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 1985, Taiwan’s economy minister K.T. Li called Morris Chang into his office with a simple proposition: “Tell me how much money you need” to build a chip industry in Taiwan. Chang, who had been “put out to pasture” at TI after being passed over for the CEO job, saw an opportunity to implement a radical idea he had pitched (and seen rejected) in 1976.

Chang realized that as chips became more complex, the cost of building a fab was becoming too high for individual companies. He proposed the “Pure-play Foundry” model: a company that would only manufacture chips designed by others. This was the birth of TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) in 1987. From the beginning, TSMC was a “project of the Taiwanese state,” with the government providing 48% of the capital. Chang hired former TI executives and leveraged Taiwan’s “blank check” to buy the best tools. He promised never to compete with his customers, which turned TSMC into the “neutral player” of the industry. This “Gutenberg moment” allowed dozens of “fabless” companies (like Nvidia and Qualcomm) to exist by removing the $100 million barrier to entry of building a factory.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Foundry Model: The separation of chip design (Logic/R&D) from chip fabrication (Manufacturing). This is the most significant structural shift in the industry’s history.
Yield Mastery: TSMC’s “Grand Alliance” with toolmakers (ASML) and designers meant they could hone their manufacturing process faster than anyone else because they saw more designs than anyone else.
Standardized Interconnects: Creating a “library” of parts that allowed designers to send digital files to the foundry to be printed without knowing the messy physics of the factory.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

K. T. Li: The minister who provided the state funding and the political “muscle” to force wealthy Taiwanese families to invest in TSMC.
Morris Chang: The “Foundry Father” who turned his personal rejection by corporate America into a global monopoly on advanced manufacturing.
Don Brooks: A former TI executive hired as TSMC’s president to build deep ties with the U.S. chip industry.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Reluctant Investors: When one businessman refused to invest, Taiwan’s Prime Minister called him and said: “The government has been very good to you for the last twenty years. You better do something for the government now.” The check arrived shortly after.
Gordon Moore’s Rejection: When Chang asked Intel to invest in the foundry model, Moore told him: “Morris, you’ve had a lot of good ideas in your time. This isn’t one of them.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
TSMC made Taiwan “irreplaceable” to the world economy. By moving the world’s most advanced fabrication to an island claimed by China, Morris Chang created the “Silicon Shield” that still dictates global geopolitics today.

6. Facts:

TSMC Share: By 2021, TSMC had over 50% of the world’s foundry market.
Funding: The Dutch company Philips provided $58 million and the initial technology transfer for a 27.5% stake in TSMC.
Production: By 1980, the TI facility in Taiwan had already shipped its billionth unit.

30: “All People Must Make Semiconductors”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
While Taiwan was rising, mainland China was mired in self-inflicted chaos. This chapter explores why China—which had many of the same ingredients as Japan and Taiwan—failed to build a chip industry for decades. The blame is laid squarely on Mao Zedong. Mao associated socialism with “smokestacks” and steel; he viewed electronics and expertise with suspicion.

During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), China’s best scientists were sent to work as farmers in destitute villages. Maoists exhorted that “all people must make semiconductors,” leading to the absurdity of peasants trying to forge high-purity silicon in backyard conditions. While Hong Kong and Taiwan were integrating into the global supply chain, China was imposing a “self-imposed embargo” on foreign ideas. It wasn’t until the 1978 National Science Conference, under Deng Xiaoping, that China realized it was “hopelessly behind.” The chapter introduces Ren Zhengfei, a former army engineer who founded Huawei in 1987. At the time, Huawei was just a trading company importing cheap telephone switches from Hong Kong. The chapter ends with the recognition that China’s “Made in China” obsession was hardwired into the Party’s worldview, but their strategy of top-down control and bureaucracy made catching up nearly impossible.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The 1KB DRAM: By the early 1980s, China’s most advanced chip was a decade behind the cutting edge—roughly equivalent to what Intel had produced in the early 70s.
Backyard Semiconductors: The failed attempt to mass-mobilize the proletariat to create high-tech goods, illustrating the “brawn over bytes” fallacy.
Trading vs. Producing: The realization by early Chinese entrepreneurs (like Ren Zhengfei) that it was easier to import and “re-sell” foreign chips than to manufacture them domestically.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Mao Zedong: Whose anti-intellectual policies “ruined the research—and the lives” of China’s semiconductor pioneers.
Deng Xiaoping: Who identified “science and technology” as the crux of China’s modernization and tried to undo the damage of the Mao era.
Ren Zhengfei: The founder of Huawei who began his career as a middleman for foreign electronics.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Snake Diet: One leading Chinese optics expert, sent to the countryside for reeducation, survived on a diet of “rough grains, boiled cabbage, and an occasional grilled snake” while waiting for Mao’s radicalism to subside.
The Standard of Failure: One party leader complained in 1975: “Out of every 1,000 semiconductors we produce, only one is up to standard.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
China’s initial failure created a dependency on “foreign silicon” (from the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan) that persisted for decades. This dependency became the “fragile foundation” of the modern Chinese tech miracle.

6. Facts:

The Computer Gap: A 1979 study found only 1,500 computers in the entire People’s Republic of China.
The “Formula”: The Chinese policy in the 80s was “the first machine imported, the second machine imported, and the third machine imported,” emphasizing their failure to reach the “Made in China” goal.
Date: Mao Zedong died in 1976, marking the pivot toward economic openness.

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By the late 1990s, China’s leadership was desperate for a homegrown chip industry. They found their champion in Richard Chang, a Nanjing-born, Taiwan-raised, and Texas-trained engineer who had spent twenty years at Texas Instruments working under Jack Kilby. Chang was a devout Christian with a “missionary’s zeal” to bring advanced chipmaking to the mainland. In 2000, with vast subsidies from the Shanghai government and $1.5 billion from international investors like Goldman Sachs and Motorola, he founded SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation).

Chang’s strategy was a direct clone of TSMC’s road map: hire the best foreign-trained talent (including over 400 engineers from Taiwan), buy the best tools, and training local engineers religiously. He even secured permission from the atheist CCP to build a church inside the Shanghai fab facility. However, SMIC’s rapid rise was fueled by more than just zeal; it was plagued by allegations of intellectual property theft from TSMC. A series of bruising lawsuits eventually led to Chang’s ouster in 2009. The Chinese state eventually displaced private investors, turning SMIC from a “startup” into a primary tool of Chinese national policy.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The “Foundry Clone”: SMIC was the first successful attempt to replicate the TSMC “Pure-play Foundry” model in mainland China.
Domesticating Technology: SMIC implemented a “one old staffer brings along two new ones” training system to rapidly bridge the decades-long expertise gap in the Chinese workforce.
Node Catch-up: By the end of the 2000s, SMIC was only a couple of years behind the world’s leaders, producing chips that were “near the cutting edge.”

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Richard Chang: The founder of SMIC. He utilized his TI pedigree to build China’s first world-class fab but was eventually forced out after losing an IP battle with TSMC.
Jiang Mianheng: Son of Chinese President Jiang Zemin; he was involved in early joint ventures (like Grace Semiconductor) that paved the way for SMIC by securing high-level political cover.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Missionary Mindset: Richard Chang explicitly stated he wanted to “share God’s love with the Chinese” through semiconductors, showing how personal ideology intersected with industrial development.
The Secular Compromise: The CCP was so desperate for chips that they allowed a church to be built on the SMIC campus, a rare concession for a state-backed project.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
SMIC’s founding marked the moment China stopped trying to build chips in “backyard furnaces” and started playing by the global rules of capital and scale. It set the stage for the modern U.S.-China “Chip War” by creating a domestic champion that could eventually challenge U.S. and Taiwanese supremacy.

6. Facts:

Founding Year: SMIC was founded in 2000.
Funding: Initial capital was $1.5 billion.
Workforce: Roughly one-third of SMIC’s engineering personnel were hired from overseas during its first decade.
U.S. Listing: SMIC listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2004.

32: Lithography Wars

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the 1990s, the “printing press” of the digital age—lithography—faced an existential crisis. To continue Moore’s Law, the industry needed light with wavelengths smaller than anything visible to the human eye. The chapter focuses on the “war” between different light sources: Electron beams, X-rays, and Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) light. Intel’s John Carruthers approached CEO Andy Grove in 1992, asking for $200 million to bet on EUV—a technology many thought was physically impossible to mass-produce.

Intel formed a consortium with U.S. National Labs (Lawrence Livermore and Sandia) to develop EUV. Crucially, the U.S. government, still scarred by the 1980s trade war, blocked Japan’s Nikon and Canon from participating in this research. This left ASML, a small Dutch spin-off from Philips, as the only viable partner. ASML succeeded not by building everything itself, but by becoming the ultimate “system integrator,” managing a network of thousands of specialized suppliers. By the time Nikon and Canon realized EUV was the only path forward, they were locked out of the U.S.-led research, granting ASML a permanent global monopoly on the most advanced manufacturing tool in history.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV): Uses a 13.5nm wavelength. To generate this light, a laser must pulverize a tiny ball of tin measuring thirty-millionths of a meter, moving at 200 mph, twice—at a rate of 50,000 times per second.
The Stepper Monopoly: ASML’s machines became the only tools capable of carving shapes smaller than a dozen nanometers.
Mirror Smoothness: Zeiss (Germany) developed mirrors for EUV that are so smooth that if scaled to the size of Germany, the largest bump would be a tenth of a millimeter.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

John Carruthers: The Intel R&D leader who convinced a skeptical Andy Grove to spend “infinite money for solving an impossible problem.”
Peter Wennink: ASML CEO who turned the company into a global orchestrator of optics and laser technology.
Frits van Hout: The ASML leader who engineered the business relationships that allowed the company to integrate components from the U.S., Germany, and beyond.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

“There Is No Plan B”: The industry-wide realization by the mid-2010s that if EUV lithography didn’t work, Moore’s Law would finally hit a physical wall and stop.
The 95-Percent Gorilla: Intel was the “95-percent gorilla” in the EUV consortium, funding almost the entire research phase to ensure they would have the tools for future chips.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The “Lithography War” resulted in the total “monopolization” of the supply chain. Instead of globalization spreading technology everywhere, it concentrated the most critical step into one company (ASML) in one country (Netherlands), using research from a second (U.S.) and components from a third (Germany).

6. Facts:

Wavelengths: DUV (Deep Ultraviolet) used 193nm; EUV used 13.5nm.
Machine Cost: An EUV machine costs over $100 million (now $300M+ for High-NA versions).
Component Count: A single Trumpf laser within the EUV system requires exactly 457,329 parts.

33: The Innovator’s Dilemma

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 2006, Intel sat at the peak of its power, holding a near-monopoly on PC and server chips. However, this chapter details a “colossally bad decision” that would eventually lead to the company’s decay. Steve Jobs approached Intel CEO Paul Otellini with a request: build the processor for a new “computerized phone”—the iPhone. Intel’s economists ran the numbers and concluded that the volume wouldn’t justify the cost of development, and the profit margins were too low compared to their lucrative PC chips.

Otellini said no. This was a classic case of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”: a successful company being too focused on its current profitable business to notice a disruptive new market. Consequently, Apple turned to ARM architecture and contracted Samsung and later TSMC to build its chips. As the smartphone market exploded, consuming a third of all chips sold globally, Intel was left on the sidelines. The power in Silicon Valley shifted from Intel’s “chips for computers” to Apple’s “computers in pockets.” Intel tried to catch up by spending billions on the “Atom” chip, but they had already lost first-mover advantage.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

x86 vs. ARM: Intel’s x86 architecture was powerful but “bulky” and power-hungry. ARM was optimized for battery-powered mobile devices.
The Smartphone SOC (System on a Chip): Integrating modem, radio frequency, image sensors, and memory into one tiny package.
Energy Efficiency: The new metric for success shifted from “raw speed” to “performance per watt.”

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Paul Otellini: The first Intel CEO with an MBA rather than a PhD; his focus on the “balance sheet” over “transistors” led to the iPhone rejection.
Steve Jobs: The visionary who wanted to control the silicon inside his devices, eventually leading Apple to become a world-leading chip designer.
Robin Saxby: CEO of ARM, who bet that “Silicon is like steel—a commodity” and built a business model based on licensing architecture rather than building chips.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Rejection: Otellini later admitted: “I couldn’t see it… It wasn’t one of those things you can make up on volume.” He was wrong by a factor of 100x.
The Moat: Andy Grove used to sketch a picture of a “castle surrounded by a moat.” The castle was Intel’s profit, and the moat was the x86 architecture.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter marks the end of Intel’s “unipolar moment.” By failing to capture the mobile market, Intel allowed TSMC to gain the volume needed to eventually surpass Intel in manufacturing technology.

6. Facts:

Market Share: Mobile devices now consume nearly 1/3 of all chips sold.
Intel Profits: Despite missing mobile, Intel made $250 billion in profit between the late 80s and 2010s.
Smartphone Shift: Within four years of the iPhone launch, Apple was making 60% of all global smartphone profits.

34: Running Faster?

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the 2010s began, a new consensus formed in Washington: the “Run Faster” strategy. The belief was that the U.S. didn’t need to block China’s tech progress because “globalization” was unstoppable and mutually beneficial. U.S. leaders focused on befriending Chinese counterparts while the U.S. Department of Commerce gave SMIC special status as a “validated end-user,” effectively exempting them from many export controls.

However, Andy Grove, now a retiree, was deeply paranoid. Dining in Palo Alto in 2010, he saw Chinese venture capitalists everywhere and wondered if the U.S. was being smart by offshoring its “brawn.” He argued that losing “commodity” manufacturing (like batteries or low-end chips) would eventually lock the U.S. out of the next generation of innovation. He advocated for a tax on offshored labor. Meanwhile, a Pentagon study by Richard Van Atta warned that U.S. leadership was eroding seriously. The chapter highlights the “hubris of America’s unipolar moment”: while Washington talked about “multilateralism” and “innovation,” they ignored the fact that the actual production of the world’s most advanced logic chips had moved almost entirely to a single earthquake-prone island: Taiwan.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The 10nm and 7nm Delays: Intel began announcing “temporary” delays in its manufacturing process, while TSMC and Samsung charged ahead.
The Design-Production Gap: U.S. firms dominated chip design software (Cadence, Synopsys) and machinery (Applied Materials, Lam Research), but the actual “printing” was now offshore.
Taiwanization: Miller argues that “globalization” hadn’t occurred; instead, the industry had “Taiwanized,” creating a massive, single point of failure in the global economy.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Andy Grove: The aging titan who warned that “abandoning today’s commodity manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow’s emerging industry.”
Robert Zoellick: The diplomat who coined the term “responsible stakeholder,” representing the optimistic Washington view that trade would make China a peaceful partner.
Richard Van Atta: The Pentagon official who produced the ignored 2007 report warning that U.S. military access to chips would soon depend on foreign countries.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Death Spiral: Bob Noyce’s old warning returned to haunt the industry: “Can you name a field in which the U.S. is not falling behind?”
The “Run Faster” Myth: Miller notes that “Run Faster” was an elegant strategy with one problem: “The U.S. wasn’t running faster; it was losing ground.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter exposes the “fragile foundation” of U.S. power. The U.S. became “critically dependent” on TSMC for its most irreplaceable military and civilian components, while assuming its lead in design was enough to maintain global dominance.

6. Facts:

U.S. Fab Share: Fell from 37% in 1990 to 19% in 2000, and 13% by 2010.
Software Control: Three U.S. firms control 75% of the EDA (Electronic Design Automation) software market.
The 1999 Earthquake: A 7.3 magnitude quake in Taiwan knocked TSMC offline, proving how much the global market relied on just one island.

35: “Real Men Have Fabs”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter explores the death of the “Integrated Device Manufacturer” (IDM) model outside of Intel. Jerry Sanders of AMD famously declared that “Real men have fabs,” believing that a company wasn’t a real semiconductor firm unless it owned its own factories. But the math of Moore’s Law was becoming “Darwinian.” As transistors shrunk, the cost of the machines needed to make them skyrocketed. A single fab that cost $100 million in the 60s now cost $20 billion.

One by one, the “real men” surrendered. Motorola and National Semiconductor went bankrupt or were bought out. Even AMD, facing bankruptcy while trying to compete with Intel, was forced to spin off its factories into a new company called GlobalFoundries in 2009, funded by the Abu Dhabi government. This left the world with only three companies capable of fabricating leading-edge logic chips: Intel, Samsung, and TSMC. The chapter also distinguishes between the three sectors of the modern industry: Logic (the brain), Memory (the storage), and Analog (the sensors). While the U.S. stayed strong in Analog and Logic design, it completely ceded Memory and high-end Logic manufacturing to East Asia.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The 20nm Wall: Moving beyond 20nm required a shift from 2D transistors to 3D structures called FinFETs (which look like a fish fin). These were staggeringly difficult to make, requiring atomic-scale precision.
The $20 Billion Fab: The realization that the “entry fee” for the cutting edge had become so high that only states or the world’s largest corporations could afford to play.
Logic vs. Memory split: Logic chips (CPUs/GPUs) require constant innovation (Moore’s Law), while Memory (DRAM/NAND) is a brutal commodity business based on volume.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Jerry Sanders: The brawler who finally had to give up his “pet sharks” (fabs) to keep AMD alive.
Mubadala: The investment arm of the Abu Dhabi government that saved AMD’s manufacturing but moved the ownership of U.S. strategic assets to the Persian Gulf.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Pet Shark: Sanders compared owning a fab to “putting a pet shark in your swimming pool… it could end up killing you.”
The 3D FinFET: Described as transistors “smaller than a coronavirus,” illustrating the extreme physical limits the industry was pushing against.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The industry underwent a “monopolization of choke points.” By 2018, the number of companies capable of making the most advanced chips fell from dozens to just three. This concentration made the entire world’s economy vulnerable to a single company’s failure or a single region’s instability.

6. Facts:

Consolidation: In the 1980s, there were dozens of DRAM producers; today, there are only three (Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix).
Cost: A next-generation fab now costs twice as much as a nuclear aircraft carrier.
Node Scale: High-end fabrication moved from 180nm in 1999 to 5nm and below by the 2020s.

36: The Fabless Revolution

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the 1980s progressed, the “Darwinian” economics of the chip industry forced a divide between those who could afford to build factories and those who had the ideas to design them. This chapter traces the rise of the “fabless” business model. It began with Gordon Campbell and Dado Banatao, who founded Chips and Technologies in 1984. They were mocked by industry veterans for not being a “real” semiconductor company because they didn’t own a fab. However, they proved that a small team with a good idea and a few million dollars in venture capital could compete by outsourcing manufacturing.

The most significant player in this revolution was Nvidia, founded in 1993 by Chris Malachowsky, Curtis Priem, and Jensen Huang during a meeting at a Denny’s in a rough part of San Jose. While Intel held a monopoly on CPUs, Nvidia bet on a niche: 3D graphics for video games. They designed Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) that utilized “parallel processing”—doing many simple tasks at once rather than one complex task at a time. This approach, originally meant for rendering pixels, would later become the backbone of artificial intelligence. By 2006, Jensen Huang made another massive bet: CUDA, a software platform that allowed any programmer to use Nvidia’s chips for purposes beyond graphics, like weather forecasting or molecular biology. This ecosystem created a new “moat” that was even harder to cross than Intel’s x86 monopoly.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Fabless Model: The strategic decision to divest from manufacturing and focus purely on design and software. This lowered the barrier to entry from hundreds of millions to a few million.
GPU (Graphics Processing Unit): Unlike CPUs, which process calculations serially (one after another), GPUs use parallel processing to handle thousands of simple calculations simultaneously. This is essential for 3D graphics and, eventually, training AI models.
CUDA: A proprietary software layer that made Nvidia’s hardware programmable for general-purpose computing. Huang spent $10 billion on this software effort, realizing that hardware is only as good as the software ecosystem surrounding it.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Gordon Campbell: The pioneer who proved the fabless model was viable, allowing chip designers to escape the “tyranny” of factory ownership.
Jensen Huang: The public face of Nvidia who wore a black leather jacket and possessed a Steve Jobs-like aura; he steered the company from a gaming niche to an AI powerhouse.
Chris Malachowsky & Curtis Priem: The technical co-founders of Nvidia who brought IBM and Sun Microsystems expertise to the “parallel processing” challenge.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Denny’s Origin: Nvidia was founded in a Denny’s because the founders needed a place with cheap coffee and a booth to brainstorm, proving that the next generation of titans didn’t need the “aristocracy” of Palo Alto.
The “Not a Real Company” Slur: Early fabless founders were told they weren’t “real” semiconductor companies, a cultural bias that nearly allowed Intel to miss the shift in the industry’s power structure.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The fabless revolution meant that while U.S. companies (Nvidia, Qualcomm, Apple) would continue to lead in the most profitable part of the industry (design), they would become completely dependent on one or two factories in Asia (TSMC) to actually build their products.

6. Facts:

Nvidia Founding: 1993 in San Jose.
CUDA Investment: Nvidia spent at least $10 billion on the CUDA software ecosystem by 2017.
Software Monopoly: Today, nearly every major data center uses either Intel/AMD (x86) or Nvidia (GPUs) to function.

37: Morris Chang’s Grand Alliance

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By the late 1990s, TSMC was no longer just an experiment; it was becoming the “hub” of the global chip industry. Morris Chang realized that because TSMC did not design its own chips, it was a “neutral player” around which an entire ecosystem could coalesce. He called this the “Grand Alliance.” This partnership included chip designers (Apple, Nvidia), toolmakers (ASML), and materials suppliers. Because all these firms needed their products to work on TSMC’s production lines, Chang could effectively set the standards for the entire industry.

The chapter details the 2005 succession planning where Chang stepped down as CEO, handing the reins to Rick Tsai. However, the “Darwinian” nature of the industry was unforgiving. During the 2008 financial crisis, Tsai made a standard CEO move: he laid off workers and cut R&D to save cash. Chang viewed this as “defeatist” and “stagnation.” In 2009, at age 77, Chang fired Tsai and retook direct control. He did the exact opposite of what Wall Street wanted: he rehired the workers and doubled capital spending to $5.9 billion. He knew that during a downturn, you must invest in the next “node” to ensure you are the only one ready when the market returns. This decision cemented TSMC’s lead over Intel and Samsung, as they successfully navigated the transition to the 40nm and 28nm processes while others stumbled.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Supply Chain Orchestration: TSMC’s ability to align its manufacturing schedule with the R&D cycles of thousands of other companies.
Node Migration: The regular two-year cadence of moving from one manufacturing “node” to a smaller one (e.g., 90nm to 65nm to 45nm). Each jump required billion-dollar investments in new machinery.
Capital Expenditure (Capex): The “brute force” financial requirement of staying at the leading edge. Chang’s “too much capacity is better than too little” philosophy became TSMC’s primary weapon.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Morris Chang: The “Foundry Father” who returned from retirement to save TSMC from the “MBA mindset” of cost-cutting.
Rick Tsai: The successor who was fired for prioritizing the balance sheet over the technological road map.
Don Brooks: The former president who noted that most of TSMC’s early executives were trained in U.S. doctoral programs and worked at Motorola or TI.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Return of the King: When Chang retook control in 2009, TSMC’s stock price fell as investors feared his risky spending. Chang countered that the real risk was “accepting the status quo.”
The “Grand Alliance”: Chang noted that the combined R&D of TSMC and its ten biggest customers “exceeds that of Samsung and Intel together.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter marks the point where manufacturing leadership became more important than design leadership. By orchestrating the “Grand Alliance,” Chang ensured that any company wanting to innovate had to do so on Taiwan’s terms.

6. Facts:

Succession: Chang retired as CEO in 2005 and returned in 2009.
Investment Surge: Chang announced multibillion-dollar increases in capital spending in 2009 and 2010 despite the global recession.
Team Growth: TSMC’s R&D team grew from 120 people in 1997 to 7,000 in 2013.

38: Apple Silicon

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The most significant beneficiary of TSMC’s model was a company that most people didn’t even realize was a chip company: Apple. Since the 1980s, Steve Jobs had been obsessed with the idea that “software is something that you didn’t have time to get into hardware.” Initially, the iPhone (2007) relied on off-the-shelf chips from Samsung and others. But Jobs wanted to perfect the user experience by designing his own silicon.

In 2008, Apple bought a small design firm called PA Semi and began poaching the industry’s best designers. This led to the creation of the A4 chip, the first “Apple Silicon.” Crucially, Apple realized that they were funding their primary rival, Samsung, by buying their chips. To break this dependency, Apple moved its manufacturing to TSMC. This move was a masterclass in “platform power”: Apple provided TSMC with the massive volume of orders needed to fund the most expensive factories, and in return, TSMC gave Apple exclusive access to the world’s most advanced transistors. By 2010, the “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China” label became a half-truth. The most irreplaceable part—the chip—could only be made in Taiwan.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Application Processors (SoC): Highly customized chips that integrate the “brain” (CPU) with graphics, memory controllers, and neural engines into one package.
Custom Instruction Sets: Apple’s shift to using ARM architecture but customizing it so heavily that it outperformed Intel’s PC chips in energy efficiency.
Poaching Talent: The migration of elite engineers from “old-school” firms like TI and IBM to Apple’s secretive design labs in Silicon Valley and Israel.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Steve Jobs: The driver behind the strategy to “own” the silicon, ensuring that Apple’s hardware and software were perfectly optimized for each other.
Tim Cook: The supply chain wizard who negotiated the “monopolistic” partnership with TSMC, providing the billions in orders that kept the Taiwanese foundries at the cutting edge.
Johny Srouji: (Though Miller focuses on the corporate move) The team at PA Semi who provided the technical “know-how” for mobile efficiency.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

What is Software?: Jobs’ 1980 definition: “Software is something that is changing too rapidly… or you didn’t have time to get it into hardware.” This quote foreshadows Apple’s drive to bake its software features directly into its own chips.
The Profits: Within four years of the iPhone’s launch, Apple was making 60% of all the world’s profits from smartphone sales, leaving rivals to fight over the “low-margin” leftovers.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Apple’s pivot to in-house silicon design destroyed the leverage of traditional chipmakers like Intel and Motorola. It also inextricably linked the most valuable company in the world to the political stability of the Taiwan Strait.

6. Facts:

Profit Monopoly: Apple captures over 60% of global smartphone profits despite having lower unit volume than some competitors.
Design Locations: Apple designs chips in Bavaria, Israel, and Silicon Valley.
Dependency: Apple’s iPhone processors are fabricated exclusively in Taiwan.

39: EUV

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the industry approached the “3-nanometer” and “2-nanometer” nodes, the physics of light became the ultimate barrier. Traditional lithography used wavelengths of 193nm, which was like “trying to write a book with a crayon.” The solution was Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, which used a 13.5nm wavelength. This chapter details the technical “miracle” achieved by ASML.

Building an EUV machine was so complex and expensive that it took three decades and tens of billions of dollars. No single company could do it. ASML functioned as a “Grand Orchestrator,” integrating a German laser from Trumpf and mirrors from Zeiss. To create the light, the Trumpf laser has to strike a tiny drop of molten tin—moving at 200 mph—twice. This happens 50,000 times per second, generating a plasma that is hotter than the surface of the sun. In 2012, to ensure this technology didn’t fail, Intel, Samsung, and TSMC all took the unprecedented step of investing billions directly into ASML. This wasn’t a standard business deal; it was a “forced marriage” to ensure the survival of Moore’s Law.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Tin Droplet Method: Pulverizing tin with a CO2 laser to create 13.5nm light.
Multi-layer Mirrors: Because EUV light is absorbed by almost everything (including glass), Zeiss had to create mirrors made of 100 alternating layers of molybdenum and silicon to reflect it.
Computational Lithography: Using software to intentionally “distort” the light pattern so that it creates a perfect shape (like an “X”) once it hits the silicon wafer.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Peter Wennink: The ASML CEO who famously told a misbehaving supplier, “If you don’t behave, we’re going to buy you.”
Frits van Hout: The leader of ASML’s EUV business who treated the supply chain like a “machine” that had to be managed with constant surveillance.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Moon Shot: Zeiss boasted that their sensors were so exact they could be used to “aim a laser to hit a golf ball as far away as the moon.”
The Cost of Failure: Every hour an EUV machine is offline costs a chipmaker hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost production.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
EUV created a “monopoly within a monopoly.” ASML is the only company that can make these machines, and they rely on U.S. and German parts. This gave the U.S. government a “choke point” it could use to block China’s access to the future of computing.

6. Facts:

Laser Complexity: A single Trumpf laser for EUV contains 457,329 component parts.
Machine Cost: Each EUV machine costs over $100 million.
Intel Investment: Intel alone invested $4 billion in ASML in 2012.

40: “There Is No Plan B”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By 2015, the chip industry had arrived at a “Gutenberg moment” of crisis. Either EUV worked, or the miniaturization of transistors would stop. Tony Yen, a lithography expert who had worked at both TI and TSMC, was asked what the alternative was. His answer: “There is no Plan B.”

The chapter highlights the cultural and work-ethic gap that allowed TSMC to pull ahead of its Western rivals. While U.S. engineers at Intel or GlobalFoundries would fix a machine at 9 a.m. the next morning if it broke at 1 a.m., TSMC engineers (and their spouses) were expected to fix it by 2 a.m. the same night. Shang-yi Chiang, TSMC’s R&D head, pushed his team to work all night long, testing three different EUV scanners simultaneously.

Meanwhile, the “Real Men” continued to fall. GlobalFoundries, after spending $1.5 billion on EUV development, realized they couldn’t make it financially viable. In 2018, they “canceled” their EUV program and stopped trying to reach the 7nm node. This reduced the number of companies capable of making cutting-edge chips from four to three: TSMC, Samsung, and Intel. The chapter ends with the ominous realization that as the decade closed, the U.S. was left with only one champion (Intel), and even that champion was starting to stumble in its adoption of EUV.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Quantum Tunneling: As silicon dioxide layers became only a couple of atoms thick, electrons began “jumping” through barriers they shouldn’t (tunneling), causing power leakage.
FinFET Architecture: The transition from 2D “flat” transistors to 3D “fin” transistors to better control electron flow.
The 7nm Node: The threshold where EUV became mandatory for high-volume, profitable manufacturing.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Tony Yen: The lithography expert who warned that the entire industry’s future was tied to a technology that was “staggeringly difficult to make.”
Shang-yi Chiang: The “soft-spoken” R&D head who Morris Chang ordered back from retirement over a bowl of beef noodle soup to save TSMC’s 40nm process.
Rick Tsai: Fired (again mentioned for context) as his successor for the lack of investment in these 3D structures.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Beef Noodle Soup: Morris Chang recruited his top engineer back to the company over a meal of beef noodle soup, emphasizing the personal, “team-based” culture of Taiwanese industry.
The 1 AM Fix: Chiang noted that in Taiwan, engineers “do not complain” about working through the night, which gave TSMC an “uptime” advantage that U.S. firms couldn’t match.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The failure of GlobalFoundries and the struggles of Intel meant that by 2020, the U.S. was “one stumble away” from losing its ability to manufacture leading-edge chips at all. The entire digital world was now effectively hosted on two islands: Taiwan and the “island” of the Samsung conglomerate in Korea.

6. Facts:

R&D Team Size: TSMC expanded its R&D team from 120 people in 1997 to 7,000 in 2013.
Fab Capacity: In 2015, TSMC had the capacity to produce 1.8 million wafers per month, while GlobalFoundries had only 700,000.
Consolidation: The number of leading-edge logic chip manufacturers fell from 4 (TSMC, Samsung, Intel, GlobalFoundries) to 3 in 2018.

41: How Intel Forgot Innovation

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As the 2010s progressed, Intel, once the undisputed king of semiconductors, began to suffer from an internal rot that prioritized financial metrics over engineering excellence. This chapter tracks the decline of Intel’s manufacturing lead. Despite spending over $10 billion annually on R&D—four times more than TSMC—Intel’s integrated model (designing and making its own chips) became a liability. While TSMC focused solely on perfecting the “printing” process for dozens of customers, Intel’s leadership was distracted by maintaining the high profit margins of its PC and server monopoly.

The crisis came to a head with the bungling of the 10nm and 7nm nodes. Intel repeatedly announced “temporary” delays starting in 2015, while TSMC and Samsung successfully transitioned to these sizes using EUV technology. Intel’s leadership, increasingly dominated by managers and accountants rather than chemists and physicists, hesitated to bet early on ASML’s expensive EUV machines. By 2020, half of all EUV installations were at TSMC, while Intel was still struggling to make its older DUV (Deep Ultraviolet) processes work at smaller scales. The chapter concludes with the appointment of Pat Gelsinger as CEO in 2021, tasked with a desperate “three-pronged” strategy to save the company and, by extension, the last vestige of advanced logic chip manufacturing on U.S. soil.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The 10nm Failure: Intel’s attempt to reach 10nm using older DUV lithography involved “quad-patterning” (running the wafer through the machine four times), which was so complex it destroyed their “yields.”
Integrated Device Manufacturer (IDM) 2.0: Gelsinger’s plan to open Intel’s factories to outside customers (becoming a foundry like TSMC) while also outsourcing some of Intel’s own high-end designs to TSMC.
EUV Lag: The specific technical decision to delay the adoption of Extreme Ultraviolet lithography, which allowed TSMC to achieve a two-generation lead in transistor density.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Brian Krzanich: Intel CEO (2013–2018) under whose watch the culture shifted toward “hitting short-term margin targets” and the 10nm delays began.
Pat Gelsinger: An Andy Grove protégé who returned to Intel in 2021 to attempt a cultural and technical “resurgence.”
Paul Otellini: (Mentioned as the origin of the shift) The CEO who transitioned Intel from an engineer-led firm to one focused on the “balance sheet.”

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Accountant Takeover: Employees noted that under the new management, “executives’ shirts became steadily whiter and they wore ties more often,” a symbolic shift away from the “bunny suit” culture of the cleanroom.
Gelsinger’s Mission: ”God decided where the oil reserves are, we get to decide where the fabs are,” highlighting his push for U.S. government subsidies (the CHIPS Act).

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Intel’s stumble turned a U.S. monopoly into a dependency on Taiwan. If Intel fails to regain its lead, the U.S. will have no domestic ability to manufacture the “brains” of its most advanced military and AI systems.

6. Facts:

R&D Spending: Intel spent $10 billion+ per year in the 2010s.
Yield Comparison: In the late 1980s, Intel equipment ran 30% of the time; by the 2010s, TSMC’s uptime and yield significantly outperformed Intel’s logic fabs.
Date: Intel announced the 7nm delay in July 2020, causing its stock to drop 16% in one day.

42: Made in China

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 2014, Xi Jinping made a declaration that would redefine global trade: “Without cybersecurity, there is no national security.” This chapter explores the Chinese leadership’s realization that their “miracle” economy was built on a “fragile foundation of imported silicon.” Despite having domestic internet giants like Baidu and Tencent, the hardware they ran on was almost entirely American or Taiwanese. The 2013 Edward Snowden leaks had a profound impact in Beijing; they revealed that U.S. intelligence could tap into Chinese networks through vulnerabilities in foreign hardware.

Xi viewed this as an “untenable risk.” He recognized that the “vital gate” of the supply chain was held by others. For years, China had spent more money importing semiconductors than it spent on oil. Unlike oil, which can be bought from many countries, high-end chips were controlled by a small “oligopoly” of U.S. allies. The chapter describes the pivot from “importing everything” to a state-mandated goal of “Self-Reliance.” This wasn’t just about security; it was about the “low-profit pattern.” Chinese workers were tired of “screwing and gluing” iPhones for a few dollars while Apple and the chipmakers pocketed the vast majority of the value.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Informatization vs. Modernization: The Chinese strategic concept that a nation cannot be a superpower without controlling the flow of data and the hardware that processes it.
Surveillance Integration: The development of Chinese AI (face recognition, Uighur tracking) which, ironically, still relied on Nvidia GPUs to function.
The “Core Technology” Gap: China’s realization that they controlled less than 1% of the global software tool market for chip design.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Xi Jinping: The “Chameleon” politician who consolidated power and identified the “Chip Choke” as the primary obstacle to his “Chinese Dream.”
Edward Snowden: The whistleblower whose leaks provided the CCP with the “proof” they needed to justify an aggressive, isolationist tech policy.
Robert Zoellick: The U.S. diplomat whose “responsible stakeholder” theory was proved wrong by Xi’s shift toward zero-sum competition.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Vital Gate: Xi declared: “However great its size… if an internet enterprise critically relies on the outside world for core components, the ‘vital gate’ of the supply chain is grasped in the hands of others.”
The Oil Comparison: Miller notes that for China, “High-powered chips were as important as hydrocarbons in fueling economic growth.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter marks the end of the “Win-Win” era of globalization. China’s pursuit of semiconductor independence signaled a future where tech supply chains would be weaponized and divided into rival blocs.

6. Facts:

Trade Value: China’s import of chips reached $260 billion in 2017.
Global Share: Across the entire supply chain, Chinese firms had only a 6% market share in the mid-2010s.
Software Gap: China had less than 1% of the EDA (Electronic Design Automation) market.

43: “Call Forth the Assault”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In January 2017, Xi Jinping stood at Davos and presented himself as the defender of globalization against the protectionism of the incoming Donald Trump. However, this chapter exposes the reality behind the “claptrap.” Months earlier, Xi had given a secret speech in Beijing using “martial metaphors” to describe his semiconductor policy. He called for “shock brigades” and “special forces” to “assault the fortifications of core technology.”

To fund this war, China launched the “Big Fund” (National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund). This was not a venture capital fund in the Silicon Valley sense; it was a state-led effort that forced state-owned enterprises—even the China Tobacco company—to pour tens of billions into chip startups. The target was the “Made in China 2025” plan, which aimed to reduce China’s reliance on foreign chips from 85% to 30% by 2025. The chapter describes how this massive influx of capital led to a “reckless investment competition” where every provincial governor wanted a “prestige” chip fab in their backyard, often leading to massive waste and the industry’s most high-profile scams.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Big Fund (Phase 1 & 2): A government-guided investment vehicle that raised $150 billion to $250 billion to subsidize the domestic supply chain.
Made in China 2025: A policy framework focusing on 10 strategic sectors, with semiconductors as the “foundation of the foundation.”
Lagging-Edge Focus: Because they couldn’t reach 5nm or 7nm quickly, China began dominating the market for “older” 28nm and 45nm chips used in cars and appliances.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Liu He: Xi Jinping’s top economic advisor, appointed as the “Chip Czar” to oversee the national assault on the industry.
Donald Trump: Whose aggressive rhetoric on trade provided the CCP with a convenient excuse to further internalize their supply chains.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Martial Metaphor: Xi exhorted: “We must assault the fortifications of core technology… compose shock brigades and special forces to storm the passes.”
The Tobacco Connection: The absurdity of the state-owned cigarette company funding microchips illustrates the non-market, command-style nature of the Chinese effort.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The “Big Fund” created a global price war. By subsidizing its own firms to the tune of billions, China threatened to drive non-subsidized U.S. and European firms out of the “commodity” chip market, just as they had done with solar panels.

6. Facts:

Funding Scale: The Big Fund and local subsidiaries were estimated to measure in the tens of billions of dollars.
Target: Reducing the foreign chip share in China from 85% to 30%.
Timeline: Xi appointed his “Chip Czar” in 2021 to accelerate the response to U.S. sanctions.

44: Technology Transfer

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
As China poured money into the industry, they realized that “buying” technology was faster than inventing it. This chapter details how China used access to its massive market to “strong-arm” U.S. companies into transferring their “crown jewels.” The primary example is IBM, which, following the post-Snowden slump in sales, offered an “olive branch” to Beijing. CEO Ginni Rometty announced IBM would open its proprietary “Power” chip technology to Chinese partners.

The narrative also covers Qualcomm and AMD. Qualcomm, facing a massive anti-monopoly fine in China, agreed to a joint venture called Huaxintong in Guizhou province to build server chips. Most controversially, AMD, struggling to compete with Intel, cut a deal in 2016 to license its “Zen” architecture to a Chinese consortium led by Sugon—a firm with deep ties to the Chinese military. While the U.S. government (CFIUS) was distracted, these companies traded long-term technological advantage for short-term market access. The chapter illustrates the “Faustian bargain” of Silicon Valley: to stay profitable today, they were training their “number one competitor” for tomorrow.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The x86 Licensing: The x86 architecture (owned by Intel and AMD) is the standard for servers. AMD’s “Zen” licensing allowed China to produce modified x86 chips, a “shortcut” to high-end computing.
Joint Ventures (JVs): A legal structure used to bypass export controls; foreign companies provide the “IP,” while Chinese companies provide the “Labor and Land.”
Server Chip Mastery: China’s goal to eliminate reliance on U.S. data center processors, which are the backbone of supercomputers used for nuclear and hypersonic weapon simulations.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Ginni Rometty: IBM CEO who viewed China as a “great opportunity” for technology partnerships rather than a threat.
Chen Min’er: An up-and-coming CCP official who governed Guizhou and used the Qualcomm JV to bolster his political standing.
Shen Changxiang: Former cybersecurity chief for China’s nuclear missile arsenal, who worked directly with the IBM-transferred technology.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Quid Pro Quo: Chinese state media was blunt about the IBM deal: “Enhancing cooperation in integrated circuit development” was the price of doing business.
The “Hollow” Deal: Analysts suggested the AMD deal was designed to let Chinese firms claim they were designing cutting-edge chips when they were “simply tweaking AMD designs.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
These transfers significantly narrowed the technical gap between the U.S. and China in server and supercomputing capabilities. It forced the U.S. government to eventually transition from a “Laissez-faire” approach to strict “Export Controls.”

6. Facts:

AMD Deal Price: AMD sold an 85% stake in its testing facilities for $371 million.
Intel Warning: Intel reportedly warned the U.S. government that the AMD-Sugon deal would harm national interests.
Closure: The Qualcomm-Huaxintong JV was shuttered in 2019 after producing little of value.

45: “Mergers Are Bound to Happen”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter focuses on the meteoric rise and “shopping spree” of Zhao Weiguo, the head of Tsinghua Unigroup. Zhao, a former “goatherder” from China’s western frontier, became a billionaire by leveraging high-level political connections (his college roommate was a close associate of Xi Jinping). In 2013, Zhao began a global acquisition blitz, buying up Chinese design firms like Spreadtrum and then setting his sights on the world.

Zhao attempted to buy Micron (the last U.S. memory maker) for $23 billion and proposed buying a 25% stake in TSMC. His philosophy was that of a “hunter”: “If you carry your gun up the mountain… maybe you’ll catch a deer.” His aggressive moves finally “raised eyebrows” in Washington. For the first time, CFIUS (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.) began blocking deals on national security grounds, rejecting his bid for Western Digital. The chapter illustrates the pivot point of the “Chip War”: the moment the U.S. government realized that China wasn’t just competing for market share, but was attempting a “government-led effort to seize the commanding heights of the industry.”

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

3D NAND Expansion: Zhao’s effort to fund YMTC (Yangtze Memory Technologies) to break into the flash memory market.
Consolidation Strategy: The attempt to merge low-end Chinese design firms into a single entity that could challenge Qualcomm.
CFIUS Veto Power: The industrial implication of the U.S. government’s power to block mergers based on “technological leakage” rather than just antitrust laws.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Zhao Weiguo: The “Chip Billionaire” whose reckless spending and political ties fueled a decade of Chinese tech expansion.
Neil Bush: Brother of President George W. Bush, who was hired by a Chinese firm for $400,000 to advise on “business strategies,” illustrating how China bought Western influence.
Mark Liu: TSMC Chairman who warned that allowing Chinese investors onto their board would make it impossible to protect IP.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Gun on the Mountain: Zhao’s quote on his investment strategy: “If you carry your gun up the mountain, you just don’t know if there’s game there… maybe you’ll catch a deer, maybe a goat.”
The “Keys to the Kingdom”: The Wall Street Journal used this phrase to describe the technology AMD was selling to China, alerting the public to the strategic stakes.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Zhao’s failure to buy Micron and TSMC forced China to realize that they could not simply “buy” their way out of dependency. This led to a more secretive and aggressive era of industrial espionage and domestic development.

6. Facts:

The Bid: Zhao offered $23 billion for Micron in 2015.
Unigroup Investment: In 2017, Unigroup received $22 billion in new investment from the China Development Bank and the Big Fund.
Default: Despite the state backing, Tsinghua Unigroup eventually ran out of cash and defaulted on its bonds in 2021.

46: The Rise of Huawei

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter traces the rise of Huawei from a small trading company to a global telecommunications juggernaut, comparing its trajectory to that of Samsung. Founded in 1987 in the special economic zone of Shenzhen by Ren Zhengfei, a former People’s Liberation Army engineer, Huawei initially imported telecom switches from Hong Kong. When his suppliers cut him off to prevent competition, Ren pivoted to building his own equipment, employing a “wolf culture” characterized by extreme persistence and a militaristic ethos of sacrifice.

Unlike many Chinese tech firms that grew fat and lazy behind China’s “Great Firewall,” Huawei thrived by embracing foreign competition and learning from the best. In 1997, Ren led a delegation of executives on a tour of the U.S., visiting HP, IBM, and Bell Labs. Realizing they were “a hundred years behind” in management, Huawei hired IBM in 1999 for 50million to overhaul their business processes. This “Westernization” of their management, combined with 15 billion annual R&D budget and an estimated $75 billion in Chinese state support, allowed Huawei to crush Western rivals like Nortel and Alcatel-Lucent. By the late 2010s, Huawei’s HiSilicon unit was designing some of the world’s most advanced smartphone and server chips, fabricated by TSMC, positioning the company as the primary challenger to the U.S. national security state.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

HiSilicon Design Unit: Huawei’s internal chip design arm, which became TSMC’s second-largest customer after Apple. They mastered the architecture for 5G base stations and high-end smartphone processors.
Telecom-Digital Convergence: The integration of cell tower hardware with digital infrastructure, where the same hardware that transmits voice calls also manages the world’s data flow.
Network Equipment Dominance: Huawei developed high-quality, lower-cost versions of Western routers and switches, eventually becoming one of the top three global providers alongside Nokia and Ericsson.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Ren Zhengfei: The founder of Huawei. He instilled the “wolf culture” and made the strategic decision to hire IBM consultants to transform Huawei into a world-class competitor.
Vice Premier Wu Bangguo: A top Chinese official who traveled with Ren in the 1990s to help Huawei secure contracts in Africa, illustrating the company’s “mercantilist” support from Beijing.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

Wolf Culture: Ren Zhengfei’s philosophy is captured by calligraphy on his lab walls: “Sacrifice is a soldier’s highest cause. Victory is a soldier’s greatest contribution.”
The IBM Consultant’s View: A former IBM consultant noted that Huawei’s engineers “weren’t too daunted by engineering tasks… but they felt they were a hundred years behind when it came to economic knowledge.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
Huawei’s rise represented a “Sputnik-scale” threat to the U.S. because it proved a Chinese firm could innovate at the top of the technology ladder while remaining politically tied to an authoritarian state. It was the first time a Chinese company threatened the West’s control over the world’s communication “backbone.”

6. Facts:

State Subsidies: The Wall Street Journal estimated Huawei received $75 billion in state support.
R&D Spending: Huawei’s annual R&D budget reached $15 billion, rivaling Google and Amazon.
Cisco Theft: In 2003, Huawei acknowledged that 2% of the code in one of its routers was copied directly from Cisco.

47: The 5G Future

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter demystifies 5G, explaining that it is not merely about faster internet on phones but about the “Future of Computing.” Miller explains how we have transitioned through four generations of mobile networking, each requiring new hardware. 5G provides a radical leap by using new radio frequency spectrums and complex algorithms to “stuff” more 1s and 0s into the air. This enables the Internet of Things (IoT), where everything from coffeemakers to tractors will collect and process data.

The chapter uses Tesla as the prime case study for this transition. Tesla cars are described as “smartphones on wheels,” incorporating hundreds of chips to manage everything from battery power to autonomous driving. Because “spectrum is more expensive than silicon,” automakers and telecom firms rely on semiconductors to pack data into the air with unprecedented accuracy via beamforming. Huawei’s leadership in 5G gear meant that they were poised to control the “digital soil” in which the next generation of AI and automated industry would grow. By 2017, it was clear that Huawei was overtaking Nokia and Ericsson in both quality and price, leading to fears that the world would soon depend on Chinese silicon for its most critical infrastructure.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Beamforming: A technique where cell towers identify a device’s location and send radio waves directly toward it rather than in every direction, reducing interference and power waste.
Radio Frequency (RF) Transceivers: Specialized chips (often made by Analog Devices) that sense and produce radio waves with nanosecond precision.
Edge Computing: Processing data in the device itself (the “edge”) rather than in a distant data center, which is necessary for real-time applications like autonomous driving.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Elon Musk: Mentioned through the lens of Tesla, which hires star designers like Jim Keller to build specialized chips for automated driving.
Dave Robertson: A chip expert at Analog Devices who explains the economic trade-off between the cost of radio spectrum and the cost of silicon.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Smartphone Comparison: Analysts in 2014 noted that “Tesla cars resemble a smartphone,” illustrating how chips have fundamentally changed 20th-century products like the automobile.
The Precision Metric: ”Spectrum is far more expensive than silicon,” meaning the industry will always pay for more chips if they can make radio transmission more efficient.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
5G is identified as the “battleground of the electromagnetic spectrum.” Control over 5G hardware allows a nation to set the rules for global automation, making the dependency on Huawei a strategic “choke point” for Western economies.

6. Facts:

Chip Usage: A typical modern car can use over a thousand chips.
Huawei Dependency: A study by Nikkei Asia found that U.S.-made chips constituted nearly 30% of the cost of Huawei’s 5G base stations.
Network Scale: 5G uses frequencies (millimeter waves) that were previously considered impractical for long-distance communication.

48: The Next Offset

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The chapter introduces the concept of the “Third Offset,” a modern military strategy focused on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and autonomy. Recalling the 1970s offset (microprocessors and stealth), the U.S. military—led by officials like Bob Work—admitted that China’s rapid modernization had closed the gap. The future of war will be “intelligentized,” moving from the “volume of firepower” to “swarms of autonomous drones” and invisible battles in cyberspace.

The narrative explains that AI requires a “triad” of data, algorithms, and computing power. While China has parity in data (due to its surveillance state) and algorithms (due to a massive pool of AI researchers), the U.S. still holds a “substantial lead” in computing power. However, this lead is fragile. Chinese military suppliers often advertise their use of American chips on their websites, circumventing export controls with ease. The U.S. military is currently in a race to implement a “zero-trust” approach to microelectronics—assuming that any chip fabricated abroad (even in Taiwan) could have a “backdoor” or a hidden security flaw like Spectre or Meltdown.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The AI Triad: The realization that AI dominance is impossible without high-end GPUs (mostly from Nvidia) to train models.
Spectre and Meltdown: Fundamental security errors discovered in Intel’s x86 architecture in 2018 that allowed for the unauthorized copying of passwords and sensitive data.
Saildrone: A new generation of autonomous, unmanned windsurfers used by the U.S. Navy to track submarines at a tiny fraction of the cost of a traditional ship.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Bob Work: The former Deputy Defense Secretary and “intellectual godfather” of the new offset, who argued that the U.S. must win through AI and autonomy.
Eric Schmidt: Former Google CEO who chaired a commission predicting that China could surpass the U.S. as the world’s AI superpower.
Ben Buchanan: A scholar who identified the data/algorithm/computing triad.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Zero-Sum View: Matt Turpin, a Pentagon official, argued: “This idea of pulling ahead with an offset is nearly impossible if the Chinese are in the car with us.”
Intelligentization: The Chinese military term for applying AI to every weapons system, from missiles to drones.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The U.S. is betting its military future on a technology (chips) over which its dominance is slipping. The chapter suggests that the “Run Faster” strategy is no longer enough; the U.S. must actively “strangle” its rivals’ access to advanced silicon.

6. Facts:

AI Researchers: 29% of the world’s leading AI researchers are from China, but 59% of the world’s top AI researchers work in the U.S.
GPU Dominance: One Chinese study estimated that 95% of GPUs in Chinese data centers were designed by Nvidia.
Military Spending: Only 2% of the U.S. chip market is now bought by the U.S. government/military (down from nearly 100% in 1960).

49: “Everything We’re Competing On”

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
By 2015, the “palpable sense of fear” in the eyes of Intel CEO Brian Krzanich during meetings in Washington signaled a turning point. For years, Silicon Valley had lobbied for less government interference, but now they were begging for help against China’s $250 billion state-led subsidy blitz. The chapter details the “Gears Shifting” in the U.S. government. Late in the Obama administration, officials realized that China’s goal was to “bury” American firms using non-market interventions.

The narrative shifts to the transition to the Trump administration. While Trump focused on tariffs and tweets, a group of “discreet officials” on the National Security Council (NSC), led by Matt Pottinger, began a much more surgical transformation of technology policy. They rejected the old “Run Faster” strategy as code for “inaction.” They concluded that “everything we’re competing on… rests on the cornerstone of semiconductor mastery.” The chapter details the drama surrounding ZTE, a state-owned Chinese firm that violated U.S. sanctions. The U.S. Commerce Department used its authority to cut off ZTE from American chips, nearly destroying the company overnight. Although Trump eventually eased the ban as a trade favor to Xi, the “ZTE Saga” proved to Washington that the chip supply chain was a “devastatingly powerful weapon.”

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

The Entity List: A U.S. regulatory tool used to blacklist foreign companies from buying U.S. technology.
Sanctions Evasion: The methods used by ZTE and Huawei to supply banned goods to Iran and North Korea, often involving complex shell companies.
Export Control Reach: The U.S. government’s realization that it could control any chip made anywhere in the world if it was designed with U.S. software or built with U.S. tools.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Penny Pritzker: Obama’s Commerce Secretary who gave a high-profile 2016 address identifying China’s subsidies as the “central challenge” to U.S. leadership.
Matt Pottinger: The “China hawk” on Trump’s NSC who spearheaded the move toward a combative, zero-sum tech policy.
Wilbur Ross: Trump’s Commerce Secretary who “took it personally” when ZTE lied to him and reimposed the restrictions.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Revolving Door: Administration officials cited the “revolving door between the Commerce Department and law firms” as a reason why regulations were historically too weak.
The Zero-Sum View: ”Our fundamental problem is that our number one customer is our number one competitor.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter documents the end of the U.S. policy of “befriending Chinese counterparts.” It marks the transition to an era where the U.S. would use its control over “choke point” technologies (software and machinery) to protect its geopolitical position.

6. Facts:

ZTE Fine: ZTE signed a plea deal and paid a massive fine in 2017 to regain access to U.S. chips.
Sanctions Date: April 2018 (reimposition of ZTE restrictions).
Subsidies: The Obama administration identified a planned $150 billion Chinese industrial policy for chips.

50: Fujian Jinhua

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
This chapter provides a “perfect case study” of state-backed IP theft through the lens of Fujian Jinhua. The story starts with Kenny Wang, an employee at Micron’s facility in Taiwan. Wang was caught searching Google for “Clear computer data” and “Clear computer use records” before running CCleaner to hide his tracks. He had downloaded 900 confidential files from Micron, containing the “secret recipe” for cutting-edge DRAM chips.

Wang moved to UMC (a Taiwanese foundry), which had signed a $700 million deal with the Chinese state-owned firm Fujian Jinhua to develop DRAM. Micron sued, and in a move that shocked the industry, a “kangaroo court” in Fuzhou, China retaliated by banning Micron from selling its products in China. The U.S. National Security Council saw this as the ultimate example of unfair trade. For the first time, the U.S. didn’t just issue a “stern statement.” Wilbur Ross used the same tool deployed against ZTE: he cut off Jinhua from buying U.S. manufacturing equipment. Because the machinery from firms like Applied Materials and Lam Research is irreplaceable, production at Jinhua ground to a halt within months. The company was effectively destroyed. The chapter ends with the ominous note that the U.S. had achieved “escalation dominance” by weaponizing the supply chain.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

DRAM “Recipe”: The highly specific set of data including chip layouts, mask-making details, and lithography timings that define a firm’s competitive edge.
CCleaner: The software tool used by the spy to attempt (unsuccessfully) to wipe digital footprints of his theft.
Weaponized Interdependence: A concept by academics Farrell and Newman, describing how the U.S. used other nations’ reliance on its “choke point” technology as a political weapon.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Kenny Wang: The Micron employee turned corporate spy who uploaded 900 files to Google Drive, leading to the destruction of Jinhua.
Kenny Wang’s associate, Steven Chen: Former Micron Taiwan president who was put in charge of UMC’s DRAM division to facilitate the technology transfer.
Wilbur Ross: The U.S. official who authorized the ban, famously asking, “why the fuck wouldn’t we use this?” regarding export controls.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Google Search: The absurdity of a corporate spy searching “Clear computer data” on a company-supplied laptop provided investigators with the evidence needed for a criminal case.
A Beautiful Thing: A former senior official mused after the strike on Huawei: “Weaponized interdependence… It’s a beautiful thing.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The Fujian Jinhua case proved that the U.S. could put any chipmaker in the world out of business by denying access to U.S.-built machinery. It was the first time “Trade Regulation” was used as a lethal weapon to destroy a major state-backed rival.

6. Facts:

The Investment: The government of Fujian Province provided over $5 billion in funding for Jinhua.
The Theft: Kenny Wang stole 900 files from Micron Confidential.
Court Speed: The Fujian court reached its decision against Micron in just nine business days, compared to the months typical for a U.S. case.

51: The Assault on Huawei

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
Following the “ZTE Saga,” the U.S. government realized it had the leverage to cripple China’s national champion, Huawei. While President Trump publicly focused on espionage (calling it the “spyway”), the National Security Council and the Commerce Department were executing a more strategic move. They realized that “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China” was a half-truth; the most critical components—the chips—could only be made using U.S. software and tools.

In May 2020, the U.S. implemented a radical regulatory shift: the Foreign Direct Product Rule. This rule dictated that any company in the world (like TSMC) using U.S.-made equipment or software was prohibited from manufacturing chips for Huawei without a specific U.S. license. Because it is impossible to make an advanced chip without U.S. tools, Huawei was instantly severed from the global supply chain. Mark Liu, chairman of TSMC, promised to abide not just by the letter of the law, but by its spirit. Consequently, Huawei was forced to divest its server business and saw its smartphone unit—once the world’s second-largest—slump toward irrelevance. The chapter highlights that the U.S. had achieved “escalation dominance,” proving that interdependence, when asymmetric, is a devastating weapon.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Foreign Direct Product Rule: A legal mechanism that gave the U.S. extraterritorial control over global manufacturing. It weaponized the fact that the “choke points” (EDA software and lithography/etching tools) remained in American hands.
5G Infrastructure Degradation: Without advanced logic chips for its base stations, Huawei’s 5G rollout stalled, and allies like Britain—who previously intended to use Huawei gear—reversed their decisions.
Asymmetric Interdependence: The economic reality where one party relies on a finished product (the smartphone), while the other controls the irreplaceable tools needed to build it.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Donald Trump: Provided the political cover and the “Twitter megaphone” for the assault, though his interest was largely in trade leverage.
Matt Pottinger: The NSC official who viewed Huawei as a proxy for the entire technological competition and pushed for the “strangulation” strategy.
Mark Liu: The TSMC chairman who chose to align with Washington’s “intentions,” effectively cutting off his second-largest customer.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The “Spyway”: Trump’s term for Huawei’s equipment on Fox & Friends: “I call it the spyway… We don’t want their equipment in the United States because they spy on us.”
Weaponized Interdependence: The former senior official’s closing thought: “Weaponized interdependence… It’s a beautiful thing.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter documents the moment the U.S. discarded the “globalized” model of the 1990s and moved toward a “zero-trust” environment. It proved that a private company (TSMC) in a foreign territory (Taiwan) could be used as an arm of U.S. foreign policy due to technological dependency.

6. Facts:

Date: May 2020 (The tightening of the Foreign Direct Product Rule).
Impact: Huawei was forced to sell its key server division and saw a massive drop in smartphone market share.
Dependency: American chips and components constituted nearly 30% of the cost of each Huawei 5G system.

52: China’s Sputnik Moment?

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The U.S. assault on Huawei and ZTE served as a “Sputnik-scale shock” for Beijing. This chapter examines China’s response to being “choked.” In the city of Wuhan, as the COVID-19 pandemic began, the government froze almost all activity—except for one facility: YMTC (Yangtze Memory Technologies Corporation). China’s leaders prioritized chip production even over pandemic containment, providing YMTC with special train cars for its workers during the lockdown.

However, the chapter also details the “dark side” of China’s state-led funding. The “Big Fund” had created such a “gold rush” for subsidies that it attracted blatant scammers. The primary example is HSMC (Wuhan Hongxin). Founded by a group of “scam artists” with fake business cards, HSMC duped the Wuhan government into investing billions. They even hired TSMC’s former head of R&D to provide legitimacy. But the factory was a “shoddily built copy,” and the firm went bust before producing a single chip. Miller argues that while China has “infinite money,” it lacks the “know-how” and the “Darwinian” corporate governance of the West. The chapter concludes that China is now focusing on the “Lagging-Edge”—dominating the production of older chips for cars and appliances—while investing heavily in open-source architectures like RISC-V to bypass U.S. patents.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

3D NAND Flash: YMTC’s specialty and China’s best hope for reaching technological parity in a specific sub-sector of the industry.
RISC-V Architecture: An open-source instruction set that is free to use and not subject to U.S. export controls. Chinese firms like Alibaba are using it to design processors that can’t be “switched off” by Washington.
Lagging-Edge Nodes (28nm+): China’s strategic pivot to dominate the “un-sensational” but essential market for basic logic chips used in everything from dishwashers to EVs.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Dan Wang: A leading tech analyst who argued that U.S. restrictions actually “boosted” Beijing’s quest for dominance by forcing the government to be more surgical in its support.
Liu He: Appointed as the “Chip Czar” to clean up the corruption of the Big Fund and focus on “intelligentization.”
The HSMC “Scammers”: Unnamed individuals who used fake business cards and a stolen ASML machine to embezzle billions from local governments.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Train Cars: During the 2020 Wuhan lockdown, trains had “special passenger cars specifically for YMTC employees,” illustrating that the semiconductor industry had become the CCP’s highest existential priority.
The Admission of Failure: A Chinese government planning official lamented: “The country’s chip industry had no experience, no technology, no talent.”

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
This chapter suggests that China’s “Sputnik Moment” may have been counterproductive for the U.S. in the long run. By cutting off the “front door” (imports), the U.S. forced China to build a “back door” (domestic supply chains and open-source tech) that could eventually become immune to U.S. pressure.

6. Facts:

Investment: YMTC received at least $24 billion in state-backed funding.
The Scam: HSMC was an $18.5 billion “blatant fraud.”
Market Share Projection: Estimates suggest China’s share of global fabrication capacity will increase from 15% to 24% by 2030.

53: Shortages and Supply Chains

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In 2021, a “second chip choke” began, but this one wasn’t caused by the U.S. government—it was caused by the world’s insatiable demand for computing power. This chapter analyzes the 2021 global chip shortage. The narrative describes President Biden sitting in the White House, holding a twelve-inch silicon wafer, and telling a screen full of CEOs (including Ford and GM) that “we have to step up our game.”

Miller explains that the shortage was not a failure of the supply chain, but a success that was overwhelmed by demand. In 2020, as the pandemic hit, carmakers panicked and canceled their chip orders, assuming sales would slump. Meanwhile, demand for laptops and data center servers (for work-from-home) spiked. When car demand recovered, the chipmakers had already sold their capacity to Apple and Dell. The “just-in-time” manufacturing model of the auto industry had zero margin for error. The resulting shortage cost the global auto industry $210 billion in revenue. The chapter concludes that politicians have “misdiagnosed” the problem: the issue isn’t that supply chains are fragile, but that they are so efficient and concentrated that there is no “Plan B” when demand shifts.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Just-in-Time (JIT) Manufacturing: The philosophy of keeping low inventory to save costs, which proved catastrophic when the “bullwhip effect” of the pandemic hit.
Microcontrollers (MCUs): The low-tech chips that caused the most trouble. A modern car needs hundreds of these, and if one is missing, the car cannot be shipped.
TSMC’s Priority List: During the shortage, TSMC (and the Taiwanese government) gained the power to decide which Western industries survived, prioritizing high-margin electronics over low-margin auto parts.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Joe Biden: Pushed for the CHIPS Act to bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil, citing national resilience.
Pat Gelsinger: Used the shortage to argue that “God decided where the oil reserves are, we get to decide where the fabs are,” successfully lobbying for billions in U.S. and EU subsidies.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Missing Chip: Miller notes that “if even one chip is missing, the car can’t be shipped,” illustrating the absolute bottleneck power of semiconductors.
The Vicious Cycle: ASML and Applied Materials (the toolmakers) announced they were delayed in making chip-making machines because they couldn’t get enough chips for their own machines.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The shortage turned semiconductors into a “mainstream” political issue. It ended the era of “Supply Chain Blindness” and led to a new wave of “Chip Nationalism,” where every major power (U.S., EU, China, Japan) began subsidizing domestic production.

6. Facts:

Production Volume: In 2021, the world produced over 1.1 trillion semiconductor devices (a 13% increase over 2020).
Auto Loss: 7.7 million fewer cars were produced in 2021 due to the shortage.
Revenue Impact: The $210 billion loss in the auto industry.

54: The Taiwan Dilemma

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
The final chapter addresses the “ultimate dilemma”: the concentration of the world’s most advanced technology on a single island that is the focal point of the next great power conflict. In July 2021, Mark Liu was asked if TSMC’s customers were worried about a “war against Taiwan.” His reply was that “everybody wants to have a peaceful Taiwan Strait.” However, the very next day, the PLA launched amphibious assault exercises near the coast of China.

Miller details the various military scenarios: a “D-Day” style invasion, a partial blockade, or a surgical strike on Fab 18. He explains why China cannot simply “seize” TSMC; the machines require constant software updates from the U.S. and chemicals from Japan. If China invaded, a few angry engineers could sabotage the world’s most complex factories in minutes. Yet, the “Silicon Shield”—the idea that Taiwan is too important to be attacked—is a fragile deterrent. Miller calculates that if Taiwan’s fabs were knocked offline (by war or the Chelungpu Fault earthquake), the world would produce 37% less computing power the following year. This would be a global catastrophe far worse than COVID-19, with costs measured in the trillions. The book concludes by reflecting on the “hidden circuitry” of history: the world is now fundamentally dependent on a handful of buildings in Taiwan, and the balance of global power rests on whether that peace can be maintained.

2. Technical & Industrial Breakthroughs:

Fab 18: TSMC’s most advanced facility, responsible for 5nm and 3nm production. It is described as “the most expensive building in human history.”
The “Silicon Shield”: The theory that Taiwan’s dominance in chips makes it “indispensable,” forcing the U.S. to defend it and deterring China from destroying its own source of chips.
Remote Sabotage: The technical reality that a fab cannot function without a global network of support, making a “captured” fab useless to an occupier.

3. Key Figures & Their Roles:

Tsai Ing-wen: Taiwan’s President who argues that the chip industry allows Taiwan to protect itself from authoritarian regimes.
Morris Chang: Even in retirement, he serves as a trade envoy, warning that the end of “free trade” in chips will slow down the entire human race.
Mark Liu: The man managing the “Grand Alliance” who has to navigate the “zero-trust” demands of Washington while maintaining facilities in China.

4. Critical Quotes or Anecdotes:

The Seven-Minute Flight: Miller notes that Chinese airbases are just a “seven-minute flight to Taiwan,” illustrating the terrifying physical proximity of the threat.
The Gutenberg Paradox: Miller reflects that while Gutenberg’s press led to a democratization of information, the “digital printing press” (the fab) has led to a monopolization of power.

5. Geopolitical/Business Implication:
The “Taiwan Dilemma” is the defining geopolitical challenge of the 21st century. It has forced the U.S. to consider using export controls as a pre-emptive strike, while forcing China to risk everything for “technological independence.”

6. Facts:

Taiwan’s Share: Taiwan fabricates 37% of the world’s logic chips and 90% of the most advanced chips.
Economic Reliance: Integrated circuits make up 36% of Taiwan’s total exports.
The Cost of War: A shutdown of TSMC would result in a multi-trillion dollar hit to the global economy and take at least half a decade to rebuild elsewhere.

Conclusion (The Archive Final Entry)

1. Detailed Narrative Arc (The Story):
In the final pages of the book, Miller brings the story full circle. He reflects on a cold night in December 1958, where Morris Chang, Gordon Moore, and Bob Noyce all went out for beers after a conference in D.C. and meandered back to their hotel, singing in the snow. No one who passed them would have guessed they were the “titans” who would structure human history. Their invention—the chip—has become the foundation of every facet of modern life.

2. Final Facts:

The Transistor Count: Today, the chip industry produces more transistors each day than there are cells in the human body.
The Price Revolution: Transistors today cost far less than a millionth of their 1958 price.
Final Lesson: Technology only advances when it finds a market, and the chip industry is, and has always been, a story of “sales, marketing, supply chain management, and the imperatives of war.”

The Chip War

1: From Steel to Silicon

2: The Switch

3: Noyce, Kilby, and the Integrated Circuit

4: Liftoff

5: Mortars and Mass Production

6: “I… WANT… TO… GET… RICH”

7: Soviet Silicon Valley

CIA Assessment: A 1959 CIA report estimated that the U.S. was only 2 to 4 years ahead of the Soviets in transistor production.

8: “Copy It”

9: The Transistor Salesman

10: “Transistor Girls”

11: Precision Strike

12: Supply Chain Statecraft

13: Intel’s Revolutionaries

14: The Pentagon’s Offset Strategy

15: “That Competition Is Tough”

16: “At War with Japan”

17: “Shipping Junk”

18: The Crude Oil of the 1980s

19: Death Spiral

20: The Japan That Can Say No

21: The Potato Chip King

22: Disrupting Intel

23: “My Enemy’s Enemy”: The Rise of Korea

24: “This Is the Future”

25: The KGB’s Directorate T

26: “Weapons of Mass Destruction”: The Impact of the Offset

27: War Hero

28: “The Cold War Is Over and You Have Won”

29: “We Want a Semiconductor Industry in Taiwan”

30: “All People Must Make Semiconductors”

31: “Sharing God’s Love with the Chinese”

32: Lithography Wars

33: The Innovator’s Dilemma

34: Running Faster?

35: “Real Men Have Fabs”

36: The Fabless Revolution

37: Morris Chang’s Grand Alliance

38: Apple Silicon

39: EUV

40: “There Is No Plan B”

41: How Intel Forgot Innovation

42: Made in China

43: “Call Forth the Assault”

44: Technology Transfer

45: “Mergers Are Bound to Happen”

46: The Rise of Huawei

47: The 5G Future

48: The Next Offset

49: “Everything We’re Competing On”

50: Fujian Jinhua

51: The Assault on Huawei

52: China’s Sputnik Moment?

53: Shortages and Supply Chains

54: The Taiwan Dilemma

Conclusion (The Archive Final Entry)

Related Posts