竖子不足与谋？Intel与AMD相继退出WSTS

近日《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)报导，继超微(AMD)去年底宣布退出世界半导体贸易统计组织(WSTS)后，英特尔(Intel)日前也宣布退出，未来WSTS的每月全球芯片销售统计，将不会再包含这两家芯片供货商的数字。 WSTS的每月芯片销售报告一直广泛为业界采用。包括半导体产业协会(SIA)和市场分析机构等，都采用WSTS的资料做为判断芯片产业是否健康的依据。而在无法获得英特尔与AMD的芯片销售资料后，WSTS大概必须估计这两家公司的销售额，以便提供微处理器和整体半导体市场等统计资料。 “针对我们所参与的组织，我们会进行评估，以判断是否真有需要加入，或是作为该组织会员的利益为何，”英特尔发言人在本周二发出的一封电子邮件中如此表示。“我们认为，WSTS已经不再是适合我们参与的组织了。” 在WSTS的网站上，该组织声称拥有62家会员公司，占全球半导体市场75%以上。而全球最大的芯片供货商──英特尔决定退出，应该会改变这个数字。该网站还声称全球前二十大芯片制造商都是他们的会员，包括英特尔和AMD在内。 据《华尔街日报》报导，一些分析师认为，在AMD和英特尔相继退出后，WSTS的统计资料恐怕不会像以往那样有价值了。在PC微处理器领域，英特尔约占全球超过80%的销售额。 AMD的发言人也透过一封电子邮件证实该公司已经于去年底退出WSTS。“我们一直在评估所参与的业界组织和各种机构，并于去年底决定不再与WSTS续约，”AMD发言人说。 目前当无法明确得知英特尔和AMD退出后将对WSTS的报告产生何种程度的影响。据《华尔街日报》报导，WSTS的主管Bernd Schniggenfiggig表示，针对不提供销售资料的半导体公司，该组织会使用多种不同的技术来进行预估。 IC Insight市场分析总裁 Bill McClean在一封电子邮件中对《EE Times》表示，英特尔和AMD的退出，将使WSTS的统计资料出现巨大缺口，但他也指出，这对该组织所公布的其它部份资料影响不会太大。“英特尔和 AMD代表了90%的微处理器市场，若没有这两家公司的资料，那么所有有关微处理器的统计报告都只不过是猜测罢了，”McClean说。 “我的感觉是，这可能会削弱WSTS每月销售统计的可信度，”IC市场分析师Mike Cowan说。“时间会证明一切。” Cowan表示，现在我们可以看看，在没有英特尔参与的情况下，全球一月份的芯片销售数字。WSTS预订在3月7日公布一月份销售额。 《EE Times》尚未获得Schniggenfittig的响应。而SIA的发言人则表示，她无法在尚未与WSTS讨论前发表评论。 WSTS的会员是依照营收比例来缴交费用。根据WSTS网站公布资料，AMD公司2011年营收为65.7亿美元，会员年费为1,700美元。该网站并未列出营收超过100亿美元的公司会费，而英特尔正属于此一类别。 本文下一页：产业合作精神荡然无存？ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载

相关阅读：
• SIA: 同比下滑8.8%，1月全球半导体销售额跌至231亿美元
• WSTS：2011年全球半导体销售额增长0.4%
• 2011年全球半导体销售额首次超越3000亿美元大关UMSesmc

{pagination} 对半导体产业来说，业界间的团结合作一直是最重要的关键。对我这个产业记者来说，能够看到来自不同公司的人们齐聚一堂，报告突破性的技术成果或是各式各样的详细资料，是最吸引我的事。许多在市场上激烈竞争的公司，也都在此齐聚。来自科学界、工程界的专家们都能沉浸在全然开放的知识氛围中。 从商业角度来看，半导体产业的厂商们合作程度一直很高，他们为了‘更大的利益’共同合作，以解决所面对的难题。正如我的同事（事实上也是我的老板）──吉田顺子(Junko Yoshida)──稍早前所写的一篇文章《 Why it’s wrong for Intel, AMD to abandon WSTS 》所指出的，SIA曾经扮演着推动半导体产业发展的关键角色，特别是在1980和1990年代，当时美国的半导体产业正与日本激烈竞争。 WSTS收集并分析会员公司的资料，让半导体产业能获得更多所需信息，不仅能提高整个产业的运作效率，而且也有助于说服各国政府采取更加支持半导体产业发展的策略。 唉….或许合作精神已经荡然无存了。过去几天以来，我们听到英特尔和AMD都选择退出了WSTS；而台湾的台积电(TSMC)、联电(UMC)和南亚科技(Nanya Technology)则是在去年退出了SIA的半导体产能利用率(SICAS)计划。 某种程度来说，产业合作的想法一直充满矛盾。英特尔或许会在个贸易组织中与AMD携手合作，但你也知道，英特尔一直想尽办法要让AMD出局。同样的情况也在台积电和联电之间上演。因此，你可以看到标准程序──在有利可图时，企业会参与一些业界组织，但或许，竞争对手会更加狡滑。 今天，我们经常听到这样的言论：技术和供应链的复杂性更甚以往，因而更加突显了产业之间合作的重要性。许多在《EE Times》网站或其它地方留言发表意见的业界人士都表示，这些短视近利的公司做出了退出产业组织的决策。正如同一位在美国版《EE Times》论坛留言的读者所说的，当业界缺乏所需信息，因而使供应链产生更大波动，反过头来对他们自己造成影响时，这些企业或许会考虑改变他们的策略。 我们必须寻求更好的解决之道。IC Insight总裁Bill McClean几天前投稿了一篇文章：《 Hoping Intel, AMD will reconsider exiting WSTS 》，他建议这些公司和WSTS应该坐下来商量寻求共识，他们应该体认到，妥协的结果，可能会让未来的产业报告缺乏精确度和可信度。今天，信息的流通程度比以往都更加自由，半导体产业应该追随此一发展趋势，而非背道而行。 编译： Joy Teng 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文： Intel, AMD pull out of WSTS ； End times for industry cooperation?，by Dylan McGrath

相关阅读：
• SIA: 同比下滑8.8%，1月全球半导体销售额跌至231亿美元
• WSTS：2011年全球半导体销售额增长0.4%
• 2011年全球半导体销售额首次超越3000亿美元大关UMSesmc

{pagination} Intel, AMD pull out of WSTS Dylan McGrath SAN FRANCISCO—Intel Corp. confirmed Tuesday (Feb. 28) it is no longer a member of the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS) organization, a non-profit organization which publishes monthly reports about global chip sales. Intel's decision, first reported by the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, follows the exit from WSTS of rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) late last year. The WSTS's monthly sales report is a widely used metric for chip sales. Groups such as the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) and market research firms use the WSTS data to gauge the health of the chip industry. Without the sales data supplied by Intel and AMD, the WSTS will presumably need to estimate the firm's sales to provide data on the microprocessor market and the total semiconductor market. "From time to time we evaluate organizations where we have membership and make decisions about our needs and the benefits of that membership," said an Intel spokesman in an email exchange Tuesday. "We decided the WSTS was no longer a fit for us." On its website, WSTS claims 62 member companies that represent more than 75 percent of the global semiconductor market. The withdrawal of Intel, the world's biggest chip maker, would presumably alter these figures. The website also claims that the world's top 20 chip makers are all members, a group that would include both Intel and AMD. The Wall Street Journal reported that some analysts believe Intel concluded the WSTS data was no longer valuable to the company after the withdrawal of AMD, it's only meaningful competitor in the PC microprocessor space. Intel accounts for more than 80 percent of global microprocessor sales. A spokesman for AMD confirmed via email that the company left the WSTS late last year. "We are always evaluating our membership in industry associations and trade groups and made the decision last year to not renew our members with WSTS," the spokesman said. It is unclear how the withdrawal of Intel and AMD from the WSTS will impact the reports that the organization generates. The Wall Street Journal reported that the group's administrator, Bernd Schniggenfittig, said the organization uses a variety of techniques to estimate sales for companies that do not report data. Bill McClean, president of market research firm IC Insights Inc., said in an email exchange with EE Times that the withdrawal of Intel and AMD would leave an enormous hole in microprocessor data published by the WSTS, though he added it would have minimal impact on the rest of the data published by the organization. "Intel and AMD represent about 90 percent of the MPU market and, without them, it will be pure guessing," McClean said. "My feeling is that this could result in the demise of the WSTS as a viable source of monthly industry sales data," said veteran IC market analyst Mike Cowan. "Time will tell." Cowan said it should be interesting to see what January's global chip sales look like without Intel's participation. The WSTS is currently scheduled to report January sales numbers on March 7. Schniggenfittig could not immediately be reached by EE Times for comment. An SIA spokeswoman said she could not comment until she had conferred with the WSTS. WSTS members pay for membership on a sliding scale, based on revenue. AMD, with 2011 revenue of $6.57 billion, would pay $1,700 for an annual membership, according to data on the WSTS site. The site does not list the cost of membership for companies with sales of more than $10 billion, which would apply to Intel. End times for industry cooperation? Dylan McGrath Industry cooperation has always been important to the semiconductor industry. It has always been fascinating to me to attend an industry conference and hear an engineer provide detailed data about technical achievements and breakthroughs to a room full of people that includes some of their biggest competitors. As men and women of science, engineers are steeped in a tradition of openness and the knowledge that great achievements are built on the shoulders of other great achievements. On the business side, as an industry, the semiconductor industry has always been pretty good about working together to solve common issues and work collectively for "the greater good." As my colleague (actually, technically my boss) recalled Wednesday, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has at times been a very successful vehicle for advancing the cause of the semiconductor industry, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s when the U.S. semiconductor industry was duking it out with Japan. As she stated, an important part of the SIA's power at that time and since has been the pooling of data from member companies, arming the industry with the information it needs to not only run efficiently, but also to persuade governments to adopt policies that support the semiconductor industry. Alas, the spirit of cooperation may be crumbling. In the past two days, we have learned that both Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. opted out of the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics program, which pools and reports data on monthly chip sales, and that the SIA is pulling the plug on its quarterly industry capacity report, SICAs, after Taiwanese companies Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., United Microelectronics Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp. withdrew last year. In a sense, the idea of industry cooperation has always been a bit of an oxymoron. Intel may cooperate in a trade group with AMD, but at the same time you know at some level Intel would just as soon AMD be put out of business. Same thing for TSMC and UMC. So you can see where the idea of participating in a program that benefits your own firm but also—perhaps more so—your competitors is tricky. But a rising tide lifts all boats. We hear now more than ever how complex technology and lean supply chains make industry cooperation more vital than ever. As others have already said in the pages of EE Times and elsewhere, the decisions by these firms to withdraw completely from these important programs are short sighted—cutting off the nose to spite the face. As one commenter on the EE Times Forum put it, these firms may change their tune when the decrease in information leads to more frequent supply chain hiccups that come back to bite them in the rear end. There really has to be a better way. As IC Insights Inc. President Bill McClean suggested in an EE Times opinion piece Wednesday, the companies and the organizations that administer these programs should really sit down and try to work out a deal—a compromise that would result in the reports containing less precise (and thus less valuable) information, rather than none at all. The free flow of information in the world is greater than ever; for the semiconductor industry to buck the trend and go the other way would be to its detriment.