China's chips are completely independent and controllable, but it may mean that they are self-closed and backward!
We all know that compared with the international advanced level, there is indeed a certain gap in China's chip design, manufacturing and supporting electronic design, IP, semiconductor devices and materials and other industrial chains.
Therefore, the United States can use various means to restrict chip manufacturing equipment, electronic design, lithography machines, intellectual property rights, etc., thereby slowing down the development of China's chip industry, which is due to the fact that many of China's industrial chains are not controlled by ourselves and must rely on foreign countries.
As a result, there is a call for "independent development", independent development of EDA technology, independent manufacturing of chips, independent manufacturing of semiconductor devices, independent development of chips, independent development of semiconductor materials, completely independent and independent, completely achieved domestic substitution, and no longer have to rely on foreign technology.
Many even believe that once China has complete autonomy and control, and stops exporting goods to foreign countries, foreign producers will be hit hard. China is a big market, and if the Chinese market is lost, then their earnings will decline significantly.
Others believe that with China's full independence, China's semiconductor industry will become a region controlled by China, bringing more manufacturers into the chain.
However, the ideal is plump, but the reality is skinny. It's not that China can't do independent research and development, and if we continue to persevere, maybe one day we will achieve it.
However, with such an awareness, will there really be a tomorrow? Not really. Mr. Wei Shaojun, a well-known integrated circuit scientist, once said that a complete automatic control semiconductor is a self-packaging and reverse.
At the same time, Wei Shaojun is also an academician of the Eurasian Academy of Sciences, and a leader in the field of microelectronics and nanoelectronic devices in China, he has been committed to IC design theory and configurability for the past few decades, and is also the chairman of the IC Design Branch of the China Semiconductor Industry Society, so he has enough confidence to say such things. So, he does have such capital.
In fact, the truth in this is not too difficult to understand, because today's semiconductor industry is already global, many chips are from global design to global production, to global packaging, and finally sold to the world, in fact, everyone belongs to the same industry, all have a common standard, and the industrial chain is also mutually supportive.
And if it's completely autonomous control, the difference between upstream and downstream becomes irrelevant, in essence, this is incompatible with the integration of this world, for example, you produce chips, you produce electronic products, and you can't cooperate with each other before the environment that forms the world, so you will be trapped in a closed environment, playing with your own world, closed and backward.
Many people may say that it is the United States that is dragging us down, so should we stick our heads out and wait for the United States to join? To achieve true global integration, it is necessary to accommodate each other.
For example, if you are a master of EDA, and I am a master of lithography, you are a master of materials, and I am a master of patents, then you are my opponent, I am your opponent, and in the end, everyone must join forces, and no one should try to pit anyone.
So, we have to make a breakthrough, we have to make a breakthrough in some equipment, we have a breakthrough in some technology, we have to be the leader of the world, the United States will punish us, we will reward the United States, and this is the fundamental thing that we can work together, when one side has a hammer, and not being hit by a hammer, they will build a wall, and then close it, and then call it autonomy and control, do you think this explanation is correct?