Connect with us

Published

on

Samsung’s brand is everywhere. From Galaxy phones and smart TVs to washing machines and refrigerators, the company says its products can be found in nearly three-quarters of U.S. households. 

But Samsung is much more than gadgets and appliances, and there’s another reason why it’s one of the world’s most valuable companies. It’s the second-biggest maker of chips that are powering so many popular devices.

For more than three decades, Samsung has been a leader in memory chips, which are used for digital data storage. But that’s been a market in turmoil. Over the last year, prices for memory chips have taken a dive, and they’re expected to fall up to 23% more in the current quarter. In April, Samsung reported dismal earnings for the first quarter, with profit plunging to its lowest level since 2009.

Samsung responded by cutting production of memory chips. Elsewhere in the industry, smaller rival Micron said recently that it expects to slash 15% of its workforce.

Amid the wreckage, the giant company has found growth in another corner of the semiconductor market, doubling down on its foundry business, the side that makes custom chips for massive customers like Qualcomm, Tesla, Intel and Sony, as well as thousands of smaller players.

Samsung is building a $17 billion chip fabrication plant, or fab, in Taylor, Texas, where it’s promised to start the first U.S. production of advanced chips next year. In February, applications opened for companies like Samsung to get their cut of the $52.7 billion CHIPS and Science Act, passed by lawmakers last year with the aim of bringing chip manufacturing to the U.S. after 30 years of market share losses to Asia.

Samsung is also adding capacity in its home country of South Korea, spending $228 billion on a mega cluster of five new fabs that are scheduled to come online by 2042.

“They’re spending and spending and spending,” said Dylan Patel of research and consulting firm SemiAnalysis. “And why is that? So they can catch up on technology, so they can continue to maintain their leadership position.”

Samsung’s $17 billion new chip fab is under construction in Taylor, Texas, on April 19, 2023.

Katie Brigham

‘We do not settle’

Samsung is one of only three companies that manufacture the world’s most advanced chips, ranking second behind Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and ahead of Intel.

Now Samsung is setting its sights on catching TSMC.

“We do not settle to be No. 2,” said Jon Taylor, Samsung’s corporate vice president of fab engineering, in an interview. “Samsung is never satisfied with No. 2 as a business, as a company. We’re very aggressive.”

The company announced an ambitious new road map in October, pursuing a goal to triple capacity of leading-edge manufacturing, and to make industry-leading 2-nanometer chips by 2025 and get them down to 1.4-nanometer by 2027.

“If Samsung hits their targets, they’ll leapfrog ahead of TSMC, but that’s a big if,” Patel said. “TSMC is the only one that the industry trusts to hit their road map.”

CNBC recently went inside Samsung’s Austin chip fab, for the first in-depth tour given on camera to a U.S. journalist. While there, we got a rare interview with the head of Samsung’s U.S. chip business, Jinman Han.

A 34-year veteran of the company, Han’s U.S. oversight includes the foundry operations and the memory chips business.

“We really want to be a bedrock for U.S. industry,” Han told CNBC.

Samsung got its start in 1938 as the Samsung Sanghoe Trading Company, founded by Lee Byung-chull in Korea.

Samsung

Samsung got its start 85 years ago, when founder Lee Byung-chull created it as a trading company for exporting fruit, vegetables and fish in Korea. 

“His vision was for our company to be eternal, strong and powerful,” Han said. “So, he chose the name Samsung, which literally means three stars.”

To survive two major wars, the company diversified into industries like textiles and retail. Samsung Electronics was established in 1969, the first Samsung TV came out in 1972, and two years after that Samsung bought Hankook Semiconductor in a bold effort to establish the vertically integrated consumer electronics giant the company is today.

Samsung opened its first U.S. offices in New Jersey in 1978. By 1983, it was making 64KB dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) chips, which were commonly used in computers, and the company had a new U.S. office in Silicon Valley.

Lee Kun-hee took over after his father’s death in 1987, and Samsung’s first mobile phone came a year later. And now Samsung is the world’s biggest smartphone provider, going head-to-head with Apple.

Just a decade after making its first memory chip, Samsung was coming to market with a version that had 1,000 times the capacity. It gained international acclaim in 1992 with the world’s first 64MB DRAM chip, placing the company squarely in first place in memory, where it remains today.

“Its presence is so ubiquitous in South Korea that they call their country the Republic of Samsung,” said Geoffrey Cain, author of the book “Samsung Rising,” published in 2020.

Samsung started making chips in the U.S. with its fab in Austin, Texas, which broke ground in 1996. It opened a second fab in the Texas capital city in 2007. Today, Samsung’s Austin operation is entirely devoted to foundry.

Samsung workers in the cleanroom of the company’s Austin chip fab on April 19, 2023.

Samsung

Samsung’s expansion has brought with it some legal conflict.

In 2018, the company finally ended a seven-year legal battle with Apple over whether Samsung copied the iPhone. Terms weren’t disclosed.

“Apple got a payment from Samsung, so Apple technically won,” Cain said. “But when you add up all the legal costs, all the fighting, all those years, it was just a neutral zero on zero for both sides.”

Challenges haven’t been limited to the courtroom.

In South Korea, protests have erupted around Jay Y. Lee, the third generation of Samsung’s founding family to take the helm. He served time in prison for bribery before being pardoned in August and becoming executive chairman in October.

And during the pandemic, Samsung was hurt by the global chip shortage as demand peaked and the supply chain was disrupted.    

“It was really painful,” Han said. “When you look at your customers asking for more chips, but there’s no way you can provide that, it was so painful.”

That dynamic is changing. As consumers rein in their spending in the face of rising inflation, demand for memory chips has weakened sharply. Han said Samsung’s internal data analysis shows “the market will rebound possibly by end of this year.”

Geopolitical tug of war

Investors have already been coming back. The stock dropped almost 30% last year, alongside a broader decline in the global tech industry. The shares are up 28% this year and hit a 52-week high on June 5, on the Korea Stock Exchange. Morgan Stanley recently named it a top pick.

Part of the rally may reflect the latest chapter in the geopolitical chip war between China and the U.S.

In May, China banned products from U.S. memory maker Micron, which led to a stock pop for Samsung. The U.S. also granted Samsung a one-year waiver to operate its two chip fabs in China, despite new rules in October that stop many chip companies from exporting their most advanced technology to the world’s second-biggest economy.

Samsung says it’s adding capacity in Taylor, Texas, which is northeast of Austin, because of U.S. demand. More than 90% of advanced chips are currently made in Taiwan.

“Bringing Taylor on board is just going to increase their ability to source their chips domestically and not have to go into areas of the world where they may have some discomfort,” said Samsung’s Jon Taylor.

Over the last three decades, the U.S. share of global chip production has plummeted from 37% to just 12%. That’s largely because estimates show it costs at least 20% more to build and operate a new fab in the U.S. than in Asia, where labor is cheaper, the supply chain is more accessible and government incentives are far greater.

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol looks on as U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks during a visit to a semiconductor factory at the Samsung Electronics Pyeongtaek Campus in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, May 20, 2022. 

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

Power and water

For Samsung’s Texas expansion, environmental concerns are big and growing.

The highest-price pieces of equipment Samsung will bring into Taylor are probably the $200 million EUV lithography machines made by ASML. They are the only devices in the world that can etch with enough precision for the most advanced chips. 

Each EUV machine is rated to consume about 1 megawatt of electricity, which is 10% more than the previous generation. One study found Samsung used more than 20% of South Korea’s entire solar and wind power capacity in 2020.

“Electricity is the lifeblood of a semiconductor fab in a sense,” said Patel of SemiAnalysis. “There have been multiple instances where electricity has gone out and companies have had to scrap months of production.”

Texas’ energy grid is largely cut off from its neighbors, limiting its borrowing power across state lines. In 2021, that grid failed during an extreme winter storm, leaving millions of Texans without power and causing at least 57 deaths.

“I already signed 12 laws to make the power grid more reliable, more resilient and more secure,” Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott told CNBC in April. “And so we can definitely assure any business moving here they will have access to the power they need, but also at a low cost.”

Water is another major need for chip fabs. In 2021, Samsung used about 38 billion gallons of water to make its chips. Roughly 80% of Texas remains stricken by drought.

“We have the Texas Water Board that’s working on that and legislation that we’re working on this session to make sure that with a growing population in Texas, we will be able to provide for the water needs, not just of businesses, but also for our growing population,” Abbott said.

Samsung told CNBC its goal in Austin is to reuse more than 1 billion gallons of water in 2023. At the new Taylor fab, it aims to reclaim more than 75% of the water used.

Of late, all the hype in technology has been around artificial intelligence models to power services like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Those applications require even more powerful processors, made primarily as of now by Nvidia.

“There are more and more people around the world who can make memory chips,” Cain said. “To stay ahead of the game, you’ve got to get into the newer logic technologies.”

Cain said he sees Samsung “diving deeper into the logic chip segment. So, [that’s] the AI chips, the future applications for semiconductor technology.”

When asked about what’s next, Samsung’s Taylor said the company eventually plans to add more chip manufacturing capacity at its 1,200-acre site in Texas.

“We currently just have one fab announced there,” he said. “But plenty of room for more.”

Watch the video to go behind the scenes at Samsung’s Austin chip fab and the building project in Taylor, Texas.

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending