标签: china

A comment that is even vaguely critical of industry in China always seems to be welcomed by an avalanche of responses in its defence. Often, they fight fire with fire, and so I write this blog with some trepidation. Let me say at the outset that all my experiences are based on the statistically insignificant sample of two. If you are dealing with companies like Foxconn, then I can't believe you would see any of what I am about to describe. Perhaps you won't even see it at much smaller companies—but it did happen to us. Apparently, it is very difficult to ship equipment into China, and it is really complicated to ship PCs even if they form part of some test equipment. Somehow we have managed to do it. In one case we had a test jig comprising a PC plus some electronics plus a bed of nails. Since the unit was based on obsolete PC ISA bus technology, and because we were planning on shipping it over long distances, we upgraded the system to an industrial computer (with a solid state disc) so that it certainly did not look like a PC. This test jig was in use for several years, moving from one manufacturer to another. Eventually, the jig failed, so it was shipped it back to Canada. At the same time, we dispatched our duplicate jig to China. Imagine our surprise when the original jig arrived and we discovered that the PC was a beaten-up, non-functional, commercial-grade PC with a dead disc drive. No one knows when or where the substitution occurred. In another case of test jig malfunction, I tried to perform some diagnostics over the phone. The conversation would go like this: I would ask the interpreter here in Toronto to ask the technician in China if a particular LED on a relay was on. This was communicated via a relatively lengthy conversation, which I presume was defining exactly which LED to look at. The conversation would then pause for about five minutes. The technician would then come back on the phone and there would be another conversation before I got the answer. This carried on for quite some time. Eventually, I asked why there was always the long hang time before we received an answer. It turned out that the phone was about two minutes' walk away from the test jig—the technician had to walk over, take a look, and then return! Based on this experience, we reappraised the intercontinental exchange of test jigs. The production facilities that I have seen in China are not climate-controlled. Not only is the shop hot and humid in summer and cold in winter, there is dust as well. Due to this, our test jigs became grimy and even rusty. Some of the gold-plated relays failed well before their rated operational life in one of the failures described above. We were actually asked (after our complaints) if we wanted the test jigs to be stored in air-conditioned storerooms. We have an ongoing problem with printed circuit boards (PCBs). We email the Gerber plots to our subcontractor, who farms them out to a board shop. For some reason, the board shop moves tracks around. There is no logic to the changes and I can think of no justifiable reason to do this without the customer's permission, but it is especially concerning when your products carry UL/CSA agency approvals. To counteract these spurious changes, once the Gerbers have been reproduced, they are transmitted back to us and we have to check by overlaying the original against the new. This is wasteful and prone to human error, so occasionally unwanted, unrequested, and unauthorised changes do sneak through. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of fake parts, but this dropped off after we demanded that our subcontractor should not use brokers, but only official distributors. Nevertheless, you can end up with unexpected substitutions. We connected (still do in fact) a TO-220 package to a commercially available heat sink with a metal clip made by the heat sink manufacturer. In an attempt to shave costs, our subcontractor had asked a metal shop to reproduce the clip. Unfortunately, the metal shop didn't anneal the part and the clips broke in shipping. It was bad enough that the TO-220 was no longer connected to its heat sink; even worse, there was now a fairly large piece of metal floating around in a 300V environment! We once asked our subcontractor to design a test jig to generate an AC current of up to 15 amps. Despite advice we gave to the contrary, the subcontractor opted for a resistive load with a stepped down AC voltage. The photographs below show the internals of the resulting test jig:       It turned out that they had made their own custom rheostats using a power resistor with an exposed element, and then they'd used a carbon brush as a wiper. The brush was mounted on a threaded rod mounted in holes drilled into the box. To top it all, in order to dissipate the power, they connected two rheostats in parallel. The end result is that, in order to adjust the current, you have to turn both threaded rods (isolated by heat shrink). Unfortunately, the pressure on the brush changes and—because the width of the brush is less than the turns spacing—it loses contact for periods, you have to turn both rods to try to distribute the current equally. This all makes for a very erratic adjustment process. This last issue has become the bane of my life. To prevent random semiconductor substitutions, we insist that nothing is substituted without our permission (or ECN), but this has backfired on us. The resistor manufacturers that we use in North America are not generally the preferred ones in China. The sub's favoured manufacturer also changes, and then—just to compound the issue—manufacturers have stopped making 5% resistors. The number of change requests at times can make your head spin. Our relationship with our subcontractor has become more stable over time as we've become accustomed to each other's practices, and obviously the experience is profitable for us. So, have you had experience with Asian manufacturers and—if so—were your experiences better or worse than mine? Aubrey Kagan is Engineering Manager at Emphatec  

Typically, a comment I see (or write) that is even vaguely critical of industry in China is followed by an avalanche of responses in its defence. Often, they fight fire with fire, and so I write this blog with some trepidation. Let me say at the outset that all my experiences are based on the statistically insignificant sample of two. If you are dealing with companies like Foxconn, then I can't believe you would see any of what I am about to describe. Perhaps you won't even see it at much smaller companies—but it did happen to us. Apparently, it is very difficult to ship equipment into China, and it is really complicated to ship PCs even if they form part of some test equipment. Somehow we have managed to do it. In one case we had a test jig comprising a PC plus some electronics plus a bed of nails. Since the unit was based on obsolete PC ISA bus technology, and because we were planning on shipping it over long distances, we upgraded the system to an industrial computer (with a solid state disc) so that it certainly did not look like a PC. This test jig was in use for several years, moving from one manufacturer to another. Eventually, the jig failed, so it was shipped it back to Canada. At the same time, we dispatched our duplicate jig to China. Imagine our surprise when the original jig arrived and we discovered that the PC was a beaten-up, non-functional, commercial-grade PC with a dead disc drive. No one knows when or where the substitution occurred. In another case of test jig malfunction, I tried to perform some diagnostics over the phone. The conversation would go like this: I would ask the interpreter here in Toronto to ask the technician in China if a particular LED on a relay was on. This was communicated via a relatively lengthy conversation, which I presume was defining exactly which LED to look at. The conversation would then pause for about five minutes. The technician would then come back on the phone and there would be another conversation before I got the answer. This carried on for quite some time. Eventually, I asked why there was always the long hang time before we received an answer. It turned out that the phone was about two minutes' walk away from the test jig—the technician had to walk over, take a look, and then return! Based on this experience, we reappraised the intercontinental exchange of test jigs. The production facilities that I have seen in China are not climate-controlled. Not only is the shop hot and humid in summer and cold in winter, there is dust as well. Due to this, our test jigs became grimy and even rusty. Some of the gold-plated relays failed well before their rated operational life in one of the failures described above. We were actually asked (after our complaints) if we wanted the test jigs to be stored in air-conditioned storerooms. We have an ongoing problem with printed circuit boards (PCBs). We email the Gerber plots to our subcontractor, who farms them out to a board shop. For some reason, the board shop moves tracks around. There is no logic to the changes and I can think of no justifiable reason to do this without the customer's permission, but it is especially concerning when your products carry UL/CSA agency approvals. To counteract these spurious changes, once the Gerbers have been reproduced, they are transmitted back to us and we have to check by overlaying the original against the new. This is wasteful and prone to human error, so occasionally unwanted, unrequested, and unauthorised changes do sneak through. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of fake parts, but this dropped off after we demanded that our subcontractor should not use brokers, but only official distributors. Nevertheless, you can end up with unexpected substitutions. We connected (still do in fact) a TO-220 package to a commercially available heat sink with a metal clip made by the heat sink manufacturer. In an attempt to shave costs, our subcontractor had asked a metal shop to reproduce the clip. Unfortunately, the metal shop didn't anneal the part and the clips broke in shipping. It was bad enough that the TO-220 was no longer connected to its heat sink; even worse, there was now a fairly large piece of metal floating around in a 300V environment! We once asked our subcontractor to design a test jig to generate an AC current of up to 15 amps. Despite advice we gave to the contrary, the subcontractor opted for a resistive load with a stepped down AC voltage. The photographs below show the internals of the resulting test jig:       It turned out that they had made their own custom rheostats using a power resistor with an exposed element, and then they'd used a carbon brush as a wiper. The brush was mounted on a threaded rod mounted in holes drilled into the box. To top it all, in order to dissipate the power, they connected two rheostats in parallel. The end result is that, in order to adjust the current, you have to turn both threaded rods (isolated by heat shrink). Unfortunately, the pressure on the brush changes and—because the width of the brush is less than the turns spacing—it loses contact for periods, you have to turn both rods to try to distribute the current equally. This all makes for a very erratic adjustment process. This last issue has become the bane of my life. To prevent random semiconductor substitutions, we insist that nothing is substituted without our permission (or ECN), but this has backfired on us. The resistor manufacturers that we use in North America are not generally the preferred ones in China. The sub's favoured manufacturer also changes, and then—just to compound the issue—manufacturers have stopped making 5% resistors. The number of change requests at times can make your head spin. Our relationship with our subcontractor has become more stable over time as we've become accustomed to each other's practices, and obviously the experience is profitable for us. So, have you had experience with Asian manufacturers and—if so—were your experiences better or worse than mine? Aubrey Kagan is Engineering Manager at Emphatec.

Do you recall when China's rise to become a semiconductor manufacturing powerhouse seemed inevitable? That hasn't exactly panned out. In the 2000s, a number of indigenous Chinese foundries, including Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., sprang to life. With China's relatively low labour costs and a steady flood of new engineers being churned out by Chinese universities, many believed that it was only a matter of time before the bulk of semiconductors were made in China. Last year, on a value basis, chips made in China accounted for only about 3.5 per cent of the $292 billion global chip market, according to market research firm IC Insights. China-based IC production is forecast to rise to $20 billion by 2017, but it will still make up only about 5.6 per cent of the forecasted 2017 global chip market value of $359.1 billion, according to a mid-year update to the firm's 2013 McClean Report, set for release at the end of July. What's more, most of the chips built in China are being built by fabs set up by foreign companies, not indingenous Chinese foundries or IC vendors. According to the IC Insights report, 58 per cent of IC production in China last year came from fabs owned and run by companies based outside of China, including Intel and SK Hynix. With Intel continuing to ramp up its 300mm fab in Dalian and Samsung set to build a 300mm fab in Xian, that percentage is expected to rise to 70 per cent in 2017, according to the report. "Most of the production in China is Intel, Hynix, and soon to be Samsung," said Bill McClean, president of IC Insights, in an interview with EE Times.   According to McClean, the Chinese government did everything it could to create a vibrant, home-grown semiconductor manufacturing industry, including fast-tracking permits and granting substantial tax holidays to the likes of SMIC, Hua Hong, Grace Semiconductor, and others. "I think they had their shot at it and it really hasn't worked out for them," McClean said. Facing stiff competition and technology hurdles, the indigenous Chinese foundries have had a tough time gaining meaningful marketshare. SMIC, which IC Insights currently ranks as the world's No. 5 foundry by sales, is at least two years behind market leader TSMC in process technology, McClean said. SMIC's 2012 sales of about $1.7 billion were less than one tenth of TSMC's $17.2 billion, according to IC Insights. Attracting more foreign investment McClean said China's best hope now is to try to entice more foreign companies to set up fabs in China, creating a larger semiconductor production base, even if it's not by indigenous Chinese companies. He noted that China has given life to several successful fabless chip companies, including Spreadtrum and Hisilicon, each of which is ranked among the top 20 fabless chip suppliers. Samsung got the approval of the South Korean government to build an advanced 300-mm fab in Xian in April 2012. The firm started construction of the fab late last year and expects to invest some $7 billion in the project, according to IC Insights. McClean said China's ability to attract more foreign fabs—especially by Intel and Samsung—will depend largely on the experiences Intel and Samsung have with their first two fabs there. Concern over intellectual property protection in China remains very much an issue. According to McClean, the lack of adequate IP protection in China is one reason that many large fabless chip vendors such as Qualcomm and Broadcom have not brought their leading-edge chip designs to Chinese foundries. (Though, he added, so far SMIC and other Chinese foundries haven't really had the production capability to build those chips, anyway.) "I think a lot of people are going to see what happens with this Samsung fab," McClean said, noting that Samsung plans to produce sub-20nm chips there.   McClean added that it was bold of both Intel and Samsung to open fabs in China. For the most part, he said, Intel likes to have its fabs in the US and Samsung likes to have its in South Korea. Opening up a factory in China was "stepping a little out of the comfort zone" for both, McClean said. If Intel and Samsung have success with their Chinese fabs, they might be open to building more there, McClean said. "But I don't think this is opening the flood gates to foreign investment," he added.   Dylan McGrath EE Times  

Do you recall when China's touted to become a semiconductor manufacturing powerhouse? That hasn't exactly turned out as expected. In the 2000s, a number of indigenous Chinese foundries, including Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., sprang to life. With China's relatively low labour costs and a steady flood of new engineers being churned out by Chinese universities, many believed that it was only a matter of time before the bulk of semiconductors were made in China. Last year, on a value basis, chips made in China accounted for only about 3.5 per cent of the $292 billion global chip market, according to market research firm IC Insights. China-based IC production is forecast to rise to $20 billion by 2017, but it will still make up only about 5.6 per cent of the forecasted 2017 global chip market value of $359.1 billion, according to a mid-year update to the firm's 2013 McClean Report, set for release at the end of July. What's more, most of the chips built in China are being built by fabs set up by foreign companies, not indingenous Chinese foundries or IC vendors. According to the IC Insights report, 58 per cent of IC production in China last year came from fabs owned and run by companies based outside of China, including Intel and SK Hynix. With Intel continuing to ramp up its 300mm fab in Dalian and Samsung set to build a 300mm fab in Xian, that percentage is expected to rise to 70 per cent in 2017, according to the report. "Most of the production in China is Intel, Hynix, and soon to be Samsung," said Bill McClean, president of IC Insights, in an interview with EE Times.   According to McClean, the Chinese government did everything it could to create a vibrant, home-grown semiconductor manufacturing industry, including fast-tracking permits and granting substantial tax holidays to the likes of SMIC, Hua Hong, Grace Semiconductor, and others. "I think they had their shot at it and it really hasn't worked out for them," McClean said. Facing stiff competition and technology hurdles, the indigenous Chinese foundries have had a tough time gaining meaningful marketshare. SMIC, which IC Insights currently ranks as the world's No. 5 foundry by sales, is at least two years behind market leader TSMC in process technology, McClean said. SMIC's 2012 sales of about $1.7 billion were less than one tenth of TSMC's $17.2 billion, according to IC Insights. Attracting more foreign investment McClean said China's best hope now is to try to entice more foreign companies to set up fabs in China, creating a larger semiconductor production base, even if it's not by indigenous Chinese companies. He noted that China has given life to several successful fabless chip companies, including Spreadtrum and Hisilicon, each of which is ranked among the top 20 fabless chip suppliers. Samsung got the approval of the South Korean government to build an advanced 300-mm fab in Xian in April 2012. The firm started construction of the fab late last year and expects to invest some $7 billion in the project, according to IC Insights. McClean said China's ability to attract more foreign fabs—especially by Intel and Samsung—will depend largely on the experiences Intel and Samsung have with their first two fabs there. Concern over intellectual property protection in China remains very much an issue. According to McClean, the lack of adequate IP protection in China is one reason that many large fabless chip vendors such as Qualcomm and Broadcom have not brought their leading-edge chip designs to Chinese foundries. (Though, he added, so far SMIC and other Chinese foundries haven't really had the production capability to build those chips, anyway.) "I think a lot of people are going to see what happens with this Samsung fab," McClean said, noting that Samsung plans to produce sub-20nm chips there.   McClean added that it was bold of both Intel and Samsung to open fabs in China. For the most part, he said, Intel likes to have its fabs in the US and Samsung likes to have its in South Korea. Opening up a factory in China was "stepping a little out of the comfort zone" for both, McClean said. If Intel and Samsung have success with their Chinese fabs, they might be open to building more there, McClean said. "But I don't think this is opening the flood gates to foreign investment," he added.   Dylan McGrath EE Times

第十九届国际广告新媒体、新技术、新设备、新材料展示交易会  举办地址：北京朝阳区北三环东路六号 中国国际展览中心 举办时间：2012年4月17日～2012年 4月19日 InfoComm China 2012 举办地点：北京市国家会议中心 举办时间：2012年4月11日～2012年 4月13日 EMC 2012  China 2012第十七届中国国际电磁兼容与微波技术交流展览会 举办地点：北京市国家会议中心 举办时间：2012年4月17日～2012年 4月19日   第八届中国国际轨道交通技术展览会 举办地点：北京市国家会议中心 举办时间：2012年4月26日～2012年 4月28日 中国国际模型博览会 展会场馆：北京展览馆 展会日期：2012年4月30日～2012年5月3日