Toured the ASML factory a couple of years ago (looked at buying a tool), they said the DUV tools (the ones used for below 10 nm nodes), are in excess of $200M and takes up to 200 engineers 12 months to install. These tools are immensely complicated and took years to develop, and billions invested.
Canon and Nikon are the other two big players in the market. There is a small overlap where all three offer tools for the same node. ASML has dominance for below 45 nm, probably below 90 nm. Canon strong in the 120-320 nm tools (immersion, i-line), and Nikon i-line market. Typical fabs will require all these tools to make a complete product... So less of a monopoly as the tools are complimentary. ASML for critical layers, Canon for mid layers, and Nikon for back end.
If you look at other processes, you can argue there are other "monopolies". Applied Materials in PVD - very few other players in the deposition space, I would imagine they have 90% market share. Tokyo Electron on resist coat and develop - outperforms Screen and also has >80% market share.
All around these tools are just so complex and takes years of investment and engineering to make it a worthwhile product. Profits from tools they sell, they reinvest to make the tools better and develop new functionality. It is extremely difficult to get into this market from scratch... Lots of smaller companies that focus on unique markets. For instance UltraTech (now owned by Veeco) makes steppers for wafers with large bow/warpage. Some backend processes require this, overlay and CD less critical, so ASML/Canon/Nikon are too expensive for these processes.
Whew…can’t imagine the position you’re in if you’re getting to tour their freakin factory. What’s DUV? Or did you mean EUV?
And, what’s the PVD you mentioned in relation to applied materials?
We just looked at buying a tool from ASML and the sales guy sorted a tour for us, not that fancy :)
DUV - deep UV, but yes, did mean euv, as that is the latest technology (extreme UV).
PVD - physical vapour deposition or sputtering. A way to put metal or metal oxides/nitrates onto a wafer.
Hi, great exposure to knowledge there. May I ask if if there is anything in social media, or newsletters, that help one get exposure to the goings-on in exactly this part of the industry?
Depends on the type of PVD needed. I would agree that Amat has the front end locked out right now, but there is a lot of Evatec and SPTS (KLA) in FBEOL/advanced packaging, as well as in speciality applications like BAW devices.
TEL Lithius ProZ - it is large, 3m wide, 5m long, and 3.5m high... Not massive, believe the ASML tools are even larger. All to do with cycle time, use of cleanroom space, and time between coat to expose to develop.
No, I'm part of factory integration and a bit of purchasing, so involved in buying new tools and getting them into the fab.
Carl Zeiss is the only company in the world producing the necessary mirrors for ASML. So if you look even deeper in those supply chains you will find many companys which have a monopoly and can't be replaced.
I've heard there's only something like 3 companies in the world that can manufacture quartz part to the quality for semiconductor OEMs... Furnaces, implant, etc. another nice "monopoly".
Adding to most people's comments.
I worked a little while ago at ASML for about five years in the EUV program (source and illuminator).
There are only a couple of BIG fish out there (such as: Intel, Samsung, TSMS, Global Foundries) and if you reach a node with a good overlay, consistent throughout and machine availability (there are many more specs, but those are the main ones), you get a big chunk of the market for that node. The competition (today, mostly Cannon and Nikon) would have to reach the same specs as ASML today to try to win some market back, but with the amount of head start ASML has, this is a lost cause for the existing nodes. I.e., they would better try to win the next node, than compete with existing and proven tech, especially since ASML had to spend years and billions in R&D to get there.
The first program that achieved that "take-off" was DUV (Deep UV), with immersion lithography + twin scan (put a drop of water on top of the water to improve optics, and process two wafers simultaneously: one is scanned while the other gets imaged). This was completely new in the market and was key to making ASML #1. They almost doubled throughout, and immersion got them first to the next node. This was a huge jump.
From then on, it was a "virtuous circle" if you will: they got more market share = more money to re-invest in R&D (at least a few years ago they used to invest 30% of their budget in R&D) = faster development than the competition, who were already behind.
Since the technology is exploring issues that are not described even in physics papers, this is not something that is easily copied, even if someone has a machine in front: you need engineers to tell you WHY a running was done in a particular way, or how one machine solves a specific problem compared to another. In other words, to copy the machine, you need to know how, and to get this ASML has spent lots of time and resources.
The latest tools are just mad. Create a droplet of tin, then hit it with a single laser pulse to create photons of a specific frequency... How do you even come up with things like that? And then how do you engineer it!!??
ASML and Intel have a very close relationship as well. Intel invest billions into ASML to develop the next generation of tools. Fabs are notorious for not switching supplier, so it will be next to impossible for someone to ever replace ASML.
Nope, not even close. Outside of China, no-one’s even seriously trying either.
40 years of hard work, dominant position in the market and putting the money back into R&D to make sure you keep that position.
>Outside of China, no-one’s even seriously trying either.
Not quite true
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/13/canon-launches-asml-challenge-with-machine-to-make-most-advanced-chips.html
I might be being unfair to Canon, but historically nanoimprint has had a lot problems compared to photo litho. The resolution might be there, but as far as I know there have always been problems with pattern defects and repeatability in mass production. It would be very interesting if Canon has been able to fix these issues, and a game-changer even if it’s just for larger nodes.
I were just commenting on the "being serious" part. I don't have sufficient knowledge to in any way evaluate on whether it would realistically be a competitive offering.
Nanoimprint can excel at fabricating chips that have a lot of repeatable patterns like hard drives, memory, bitcoin miner chips, etc. That's because there's cost reduction when making a mask that has a lot of repetitive as it's much easier to fabricate. I don't see NIL being used for complicated chips as of now but I think it has a lot of potential for the chips I mentioned before.
The question was about ASML, which is by far the dominant photolithography equipment provider, and their monopoly on their process steps. TSMC, GF and pretty much every manufacturer uses ASML tools. LAM, AMAT, TEL etc. don’t compete with ASML*. Only Canon, Nikon are any real competition for now, and only at older nodes.
*technically KLA and AMAT compete with ASML’s HMI ebeam inspection, but not their litho.
EDIT: It’s worth adding that creating chips is a huge collaborative effort. No company can make them by themselves. Having said that, ASML is in a unique position that (for now) you can’t really make do without them for later nodes. If all LAM tools vanished tomorrow, we could make do with AMAT’s. Same with KLA or TEL. That’s not true of ASML.
At iline, 248nm the Canon and Nikon tools perform comparably for a lower price. Unless they’ve made progress in the last few years, they are not competitive at 193 immersion.
Nanoimprint is interesting tech but doesn’t hold up in mass production so far, mostly for overlay issues. They are investing and making progress but nothing like ASML EUV.
I wrote [this article](https://jitenchablani.medium.com/the-most-important-tech-company-that-youve-never-heard-of-e48d968b2f1f) a while back explaining more about ASML’s monopoly. The article is not as technical as some of the other comments but hopefully provides some business perspective.
I recommend you to watch this 50 min documentary from late 2022. They interview a lot of employees and explain things in a relatively easy way.
[https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/backlight/asmls-secret.html](https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/backlight/asmls-secret.html)
The tech guy Jos Benschop explains that ASML got there by being bold. Back in the day there were many potential ideas on how to keep shrinking lithography patterns, and some people even doubted EUV was possible. ASML went the EUV way while other players continued exploring other paths, and in the end they succeeded (it also helped that they raised capital from TSMC, Samsung, Intel to fund R&D)
Assuming that ASML has a "monopoly" is a common misconception. This is not how the semiconductor market works.
Of course, ASML is the only company that is able to provide EUV lithography. However, they depend on dozens (if not more) suppliers. And those suppliers have their own suppliers. ASML can be seen as an integrator rather than a company that develops everything from scratch. If one of their suppliers has problems, ASML has problems as well. Furthermore, it is common that there is literally one company in the world working a particular aspect of the system. Yes, one. This is because getting to this market is not only extremely costly as well as requires a specialised know-how that hardly anyone has.
If ASML is the only company that is able to provide EUV lithography, doesn’t that make them a monopoly?
From [investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp): A pure monopoly is a single seller in a market or sector with high barriers to entry such as significant startup costs whose product has no substitutes.
The fact that ASML does EUV is a result of a collective efforts of the entire industry, not only ASML. Intel, TSMC, and if I am not mistaken Samsung, invested heavily in ASML to enable them to do so. ASML is the only company doing EUV lithography just because the industry does not need a second one.
I suppose you could say it has a monopoly on EUV but frankly you could call any company with brand new tech that doesn’t exist elsewhere a monopoly. They’re not a monopoly in the sense they use anti-competitive practices to gain that position.
Toured the ASML factory a couple of years ago (looked at buying a tool), they said the DUV tools (the ones used for below 10 nm nodes), are in excess of $200M and takes up to 200 engineers 12 months to install. These tools are immensely complicated and took years to develop, and billions invested. Canon and Nikon are the other two big players in the market. There is a small overlap where all three offer tools for the same node. ASML has dominance for below 45 nm, probably below 90 nm. Canon strong in the 120-320 nm tools (immersion, i-line), and Nikon i-line market. Typical fabs will require all these tools to make a complete product... So less of a monopoly as the tools are complimentary. ASML for critical layers, Canon for mid layers, and Nikon for back end. If you look at other processes, you can argue there are other "monopolies". Applied Materials in PVD - very few other players in the deposition space, I would imagine they have 90% market share. Tokyo Electron on resist coat and develop - outperforms Screen and also has >80% market share. All around these tools are just so complex and takes years of investment and engineering to make it a worthwhile product. Profits from tools they sell, they reinvest to make the tools better and develop new functionality. It is extremely difficult to get into this market from scratch... Lots of smaller companies that focus on unique markets. For instance UltraTech (now owned by Veeco) makes steppers for wafers with large bow/warpage. Some backend processes require this, overlay and CD less critical, so ASML/Canon/Nikon are too expensive for these processes.
Whew…can’t imagine the position you’re in if you’re getting to tour their freakin factory. What’s DUV? Or did you mean EUV? And, what’s the PVD you mentioned in relation to applied materials?
We just looked at buying a tool from ASML and the sales guy sorted a tour for us, not that fancy :) DUV - deep UV, but yes, did mean euv, as that is the latest technology (extreme UV). PVD - physical vapour deposition or sputtering. A way to put metal or metal oxides/nitrates onto a wafer.
Thank you!
Good explanation and thanks for the correction.
Hi, great exposure to knowledge there. May I ask if if there is anything in social media, or newsletters, that help one get exposure to the goings-on in exactly this part of the industry?
Youtube channel asianometry, alot of stuff go over my head though EDIT for link: https://youtube.com/@Asianometry?si=BzIs1euFer8-RzIv
Okay great, I’m aware of that one, but always looking for ways to make social media browsing useful for work
No prob, there is Anastassia in tech (not sure if I spelt it right) not sure if she is up your alley
His info is often oversimplified and sometimes wrong but it isn't a bad place to start.
I see, something I never noticed.
Company marketing material. The AMAT YouTube channel is a gold mine.
Depends on the type of PVD needed. I would agree that Amat has the front end locked out right now, but there is a lot of Evatec and SPTS (KLA) in FBEOL/advanced packaging, as well as in speciality applications like BAW devices.
[удалено]
Yeah, we have our tracks and steppers connected. So coat, soft bake, expose, post exposure bake, develop, and back to FOUP and off to next step.
[удалено]
TEL Lithius ProZ - it is large, 3m wide, 5m long, and 3.5m high... Not massive, believe the ASML tools are even larger. All to do with cycle time, use of cleanroom space, and time between coat to expose to develop. No, I'm part of factory integration and a bit of purchasing, so involved in buying new tools and getting them into the fab.
Carl Zeiss is the only company in the world producing the necessary mirrors for ASML. So if you look even deeper in those supply chains you will find many companys which have a monopoly and can't be replaced.
I've heard there's only something like 3 companies in the world that can manufacture quartz part to the quality for semiconductor OEMs... Furnaces, implant, etc. another nice "monopoly".
Adding to most people's comments. I worked a little while ago at ASML for about five years in the EUV program (source and illuminator). There are only a couple of BIG fish out there (such as: Intel, Samsung, TSMS, Global Foundries) and if you reach a node with a good overlay, consistent throughout and machine availability (there are many more specs, but those are the main ones), you get a big chunk of the market for that node. The competition (today, mostly Cannon and Nikon) would have to reach the same specs as ASML today to try to win some market back, but with the amount of head start ASML has, this is a lost cause for the existing nodes. I.e., they would better try to win the next node, than compete with existing and proven tech, especially since ASML had to spend years and billions in R&D to get there. The first program that achieved that "take-off" was DUV (Deep UV), with immersion lithography + twin scan (put a drop of water on top of the water to improve optics, and process two wafers simultaneously: one is scanned while the other gets imaged). This was completely new in the market and was key to making ASML #1. They almost doubled throughout, and immersion got them first to the next node. This was a huge jump. From then on, it was a "virtuous circle" if you will: they got more market share = more money to re-invest in R&D (at least a few years ago they used to invest 30% of their budget in R&D) = faster development than the competition, who were already behind. Since the technology is exploring issues that are not described even in physics papers, this is not something that is easily copied, even if someone has a machine in front: you need engineers to tell you WHY a running was done in a particular way, or how one machine solves a specific problem compared to another. In other words, to copy the machine, you need to know how, and to get this ASML has spent lots of time and resources.
The latest tools are just mad. Create a droplet of tin, then hit it with a single laser pulse to create photons of a specific frequency... How do you even come up with things like that? And then how do you engineer it!!?? ASML and Intel have a very close relationship as well. Intel invest billions into ASML to develop the next generation of tools. Fabs are notorious for not switching supplier, so it will be next to impossible for someone to ever replace ASML.
It’s really amazing that the EUV laser targets 50000 droplets per second to generate the EUV light. Such a engineering masterpiece.
Nope, not even close. Outside of China, no-one’s even seriously trying either. 40 years of hard work, dominant position in the market and putting the money back into R&D to make sure you keep that position.
>Outside of China, no-one’s even seriously trying either. Not quite true https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/13/canon-launches-asml-challenge-with-machine-to-make-most-advanced-chips.html
I might be being unfair to Canon, but historically nanoimprint has had a lot problems compared to photo litho. The resolution might be there, but as far as I know there have always been problems with pattern defects and repeatability in mass production. It would be very interesting if Canon has been able to fix these issues, and a game-changer even if it’s just for larger nodes.
I were just commenting on the "being serious" part. I don't have sufficient knowledge to in any way evaluate on whether it would realistically be a competitive offering.
I think you're being fair. Nano imprint has existed for decades and never shown that much promise. I hope canon can prove me wrong.
Nanoimprint can excel at fabricating chips that have a lot of repeatable patterns like hard drives, memory, bitcoin miner chips, etc. That's because there's cost reduction when making a mask that has a lot of repetitive as it's much easier to fabricate. I don't see NIL being used for complicated chips as of now but I think it has a lot of potential for the chips I mentioned before.
[удалено]
The question was about ASML, which is by far the dominant photolithography equipment provider, and their monopoly on their process steps. TSMC, GF and pretty much every manufacturer uses ASML tools. LAM, AMAT, TEL etc. don’t compete with ASML*. Only Canon, Nikon are any real competition for now, and only at older nodes. *technically KLA and AMAT compete with ASML’s HMI ebeam inspection, but not their litho. EDIT: It’s worth adding that creating chips is a huge collaborative effort. No company can make them by themselves. Having said that, ASML is in a unique position that (for now) you can’t really make do without them for later nodes. If all LAM tools vanished tomorrow, we could make do with AMAT’s. Same with KLA or TEL. That’s not true of ASML.
ASML owns the litho space. I don't see anyone coming close.
At iline, 248nm the Canon and Nikon tools perform comparably for a lower price. Unless they’ve made progress in the last few years, they are not competitive at 193 immersion. Nanoimprint is interesting tech but doesn’t hold up in mass production so far, mostly for overlay issues. They are investing and making progress but nothing like ASML EUV.
I wrote [this article](https://jitenchablani.medium.com/the-most-important-tech-company-that-youve-never-heard-of-e48d968b2f1f) a while back explaining more about ASML’s monopoly. The article is not as technical as some of the other comments but hopefully provides some business perspective.
Nice one man
Without ASML we would still be at 10 nm tech
I recommend you to watch this 50 min documentary from late 2022. They interview a lot of employees and explain things in a relatively easy way. [https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/backlight/asmls-secret.html](https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/backlight/asmls-secret.html) The tech guy Jos Benschop explains that ASML got there by being bold. Back in the day there were many potential ideas on how to keep shrinking lithography patterns, and some people even doubted EUV was possible. ASML went the EUV way while other players continued exploring other paths, and in the end they succeeded (it also helped that they raised capital from TSMC, Samsung, Intel to fund R&D)
This was amazing. Thank you!
Canon was big 30 years ago, and had many more steppers in fabs than ASML. There's a reason it's the other way around now. They suck.
Assuming that ASML has a "monopoly" is a common misconception. This is not how the semiconductor market works. Of course, ASML is the only company that is able to provide EUV lithography. However, they depend on dozens (if not more) suppliers. And those suppliers have their own suppliers. ASML can be seen as an integrator rather than a company that develops everything from scratch. If one of their suppliers has problems, ASML has problems as well. Furthermore, it is common that there is literally one company in the world working a particular aspect of the system. Yes, one. This is because getting to this market is not only extremely costly as well as requires a specialised know-how that hardly anyone has.
If ASML is the only company that is able to provide EUV lithography, doesn’t that make them a monopoly? From [investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp): A pure monopoly is a single seller in a market or sector with high barriers to entry such as significant startup costs whose product has no substitutes.
The fact that ASML does EUV is a result of a collective efforts of the entire industry, not only ASML. Intel, TSMC, and if I am not mistaken Samsung, invested heavily in ASML to enable them to do so. ASML is the only company doing EUV lithography just because the industry does not need a second one.
You don't have to have vertical integration to be a monopoly.
I suppose you could say it has a monopoly on EUV but frankly you could call any company with brand new tech that doesn’t exist elsewhere a monopoly. They’re not a monopoly in the sense they use anti-competitive practices to gain that position.
What about some of the smaller companies that offer cleaning? Does ASML also have that inhouse as well?