If there's really such a bottleneck around ASML, why not design some extra chips for legacy processes that presumably already have well known design workflows?
I mean we're not talking AMD FX and Core 2 Duo here, it's Raptor Lake and Zen 3, it's perfectly viable and still being sold in droves right now.
It is unavoidable that, at some point, China will have its own matching or better machine because they obviously how incredibly strategically important it is.
It's been mentioned before, but Chris Miller's Chip War from a few years back is an excellent, very-readable book on the topic. Goes into depth on the history and development of chips and their production. He did the rounds on the interviews back then, and it's definitely worth a read. The EUV stuff is great, but I particularly liked his history on how the USSR was always going to lose and how integral Apollo really was.
> By betting on extreme ultraviolet lithography long before it worked, ASML became the chokepoint for cutting-edge chips.
Makes one wonder: Would we be much better off of worse off if we reshaped society to do more of things, where a new technology is unlikely to work but highly beneficial in the limits? Would we sooner have 10 additional ASMLs or waste a lot of resources?
> Would we sooner have 10 additional ASMLs or waste a lot of resources?
It seems obvious that the answer would be both? All of these things are "bets", at almost every level.
What happens is someone comes along and notices the 9/10 failed attempts and decides that the right thing to do is only to make bets which are guaranteed to win. So they get smaller and smaller.
> These machines are roughly the size of double-decker buses. To ship one requires 40 freight containers, three cargo planes, and 20 trucks. They are the world’s most complex objects. Each contains over one hundred thousand components, all of which have to be perfectly calibrated for the machine to produce light consistently at the right wavelength.
As a software engineer by trade, the above parable communicates to me two very important things and little else by comparison: that the machines are ultimately fragile and nowhere near "optimised", since the complexity is by own admission substantial to put it mildly; the machine is not a commodity, exactly, one of the million pieces breaking subtly likely renders it inoperable; its cost is proportional to its complexity (read: astronomic); by mere fact it's a focal point of geopolitics only supports the rest of the argument it's a machine of current stone age much like siege engines were at some point the closely guarded secret win-or-lose multiplers of feudal culture.
I mean it's certainly interesting to read about the complexity, but reducing the complexity and commoditising the whole thing is what's really going to be impressive I think :-)
I am probably speaking out against the nerd in us, and none of what I said should detract from enjoying the article or the subject, it's just that I think complexity here is the giveaway of us not having conquered UVL exactly, not quite yet :-) Or maybe we lack the right materials which would allow us to reduce the machine or make it less complex or prone to calibration related errors.
> reducing the complexity and commoditising the whole thing is what's really going to be impressive I think
What do you think "cutting edge" is, or Moore's law has been?
At one point you could have written a similar article about, say, 165nm, which is now going to the scrapyard. In the past these things have always gradually got more available and easier, with higher yields - but a new, better one appears.
But at some point we're going to reach an equilibrium with physics itself. Where, even with all the complexity we can muster, it's not possible to make it easier or get smaller.
Hey, author of the piece here. Glad people seem to have enjoyed it. If you're looking for more sources on ASML/EUV I put together a bibliography of things I looked at while writing the piece https://neilhacker.com/2026/04/28/asml-article-bibliography/
Every part of this technology is astounding and you need a reasonable basis in physics to truly appreciate just how astounding it is. And the tolerances are so ridiculously precise, it boggles the mind.
Even before you get to the lithography machine you need silicon. For a long time we've known how this is done. You create what's called a boule, which is where you create a cylinder of almost pure silicon by seeding molten silicon with a crystal and slowly forming it. You then cut the boule into the silicon discs we often see. That machining and polishing itself has to be super-precise.
But I can remember when the tolerance for impurities was at 1 part per 300 million. I read recently that even 1 part per billion is now too impure. And that makes sense. The biggest chips are what? 80 billion transistors? I seem to remember NVidia makes chips in that range (or rather TSMC does for NVidia). At 1ppb that might make ruining your chip just too likely.
So my point is that there's a whole industry to make super-pure silicon which itself took amazing advancements and without that this machine would be a lot less useful.
Another part that amazes me is just how pervasive multiple layers on chips have become. I can remember when that was novel. The upper layers are made by cheaper machines with EUV reserved for a transistor "base layer" where all the interconnects really are.
It's amazing just how many problems had to be solved to make this posible.
My understanding is step size has divergred from physical feature size for the past decade or so eg. 3 nm step (marketing) may actually be 42 nm physical. so in other words progress has slowed (diminishing returns to inverse scaling)
Is the ASML machine actually the world's most complex machine under some metric, or is this a claim that someone made up? I.e., did someone actually compare the ASML machine to the Space Shuttle, LHC, Internet, and so forth and show that it is more complex under some definition? (I've done various historical questions, so I'm sensitive to how statements are sourced.)
An orthogonal question is what makes sense as a measure of complexity. One could use "number of parts" (whatever that means): NASA says the Space Shuttle has 2.5 million moving parts, while the article says the ASML machine has over 100,000 components. Another issue is how to deal with composition. A TSMC fab is obviously more complex than a lithography machine since it contains a lithography machine, but maybe the fab doesn't count as a "machine". Another issue is complexity vs parts: a 32-Gb DRAM chip has about 68 billion transistors and capacitors, but it's not extremely complex, since it's mostly the same thing repeated. And then there's the question of distribution: can you really count the Internet as one "thing"?
haha, I actually had exactly this question for myself and I asked Gemini in comparison to Falcon/Musk Rockets.
It said that from a complexity level to construct, the ASML Twin:EXE machine is much more complicated, esp. much more freh research was required to achieve their nanometer structures - a Falcon is a complex vehicle, but compared to "how much do we need to know to create it on an industrial scale",the ASML devices seems to be more complex.
I thought the power grid is the most complex machine. The power grid is a gigantic machine spanning a country or significant parts of a country. It includes all the power production plants, millions of miles of transmission and distribution lines, substations for transmission and distribution, and billions of devices consuming power for residential and industrial use. The grid ensures these billions of devices are operating at 60 Hz frequency—all the time. The grid's primary function is to maintain this frequency, no matter what.
ASML are not the chokepoint for chips. Zeiss are. ASML can hire more engineers and build more machines. Zeiss cannot hire more mirror grinders. And noone wants to train as one.
I have an interesting discussion with a senior colleague: why ASML? why are they by far the best? Their competitors are a few generations behind.
The colleague claimed that there is no special magic. It's not that ASML is using some otherwise unknown laws of physics nor is any single step or component particularly special or novel. It's just that they meticulously optimized each step, and the sum of such steps is the winning solution.
In fact, this is probably why it's so hard to copy ASML. If there was a single magic component, a single or few engineers could be poached away to a competitor to copy it. However, copying a well-optimized company with many simultaneous optima is a much harder task.
Our discussion was in the context of why our quant hedgefund competitor was performing so well, far above the market norm. By nature and design, quant finance is an incredibly efficient field (and most techniques are more or less known by veterans), and we had thought unlikely that one fund could do so much better. Our conclusion was that this fund must be the well-optimized ASML of our field. My colleague happened to know the founder and indeed that was his personal impression as well.
> It's not that ASML is using some otherwise unknown laws of physics nor is any single step or component particularly special or novel. It's just that they meticulously optimized each step, and the sum of such steps is the winning solution.
Previously in the context of Apple I likened this to becoming a chess grandmaster: all you have to do is make the optimal decision every time you make a move, over and over again, for years
People don't like hearing that there isn't One Weird Trick which you can just copy, but it's the reality of these situations. To the extent that they can be analyzed, the best people to send are often anthropologists to look at the decision making culture. Culture is even harder to copy; this was a factor in the difficulties of TSMC Arizona starting up, despite it being literally the same company it's not the same people.
ASML actually did develop new (understanding of the) laws of physics, the so called Extended Nijboer-Zernike theory in the early 2000's (which extended diffraction optics to work in the high-NA regions relevant to modern lithography) and subsequently patented its application.
Zernike, a Nobel prize winning physicist who worked on optics, was also Dutch, and developed the original Zernike theory of aberrations in the mid 20th century. This was a vast improvement over previous theories as it was far more useful for optical design and analysis.
So the Dutch have a rich history of developing the most advanced physical theories for optical engineering (all the way back to Huygens even)
38 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadI mean we're not talking AMD FX and Core 2 Duo here, it's Raptor Lake and Zen 3, it's perfectly viable and still being sold in droves right now.
Makes one wonder: Would we be much better off of worse off if we reshaped society to do more of things, where a new technology is unlikely to work but highly beneficial in the limits? Would we sooner have 10 additional ASMLs or waste a lot of resources?
It seems obvious that the answer would be both? All of these things are "bets", at almost every level.
What happens is someone comes along and notices the 9/10 failed attempts and decides that the right thing to do is only to make bets which are guaranteed to win. So they get smaller and smaller.
As a software engineer by trade, the above parable communicates to me two very important things and little else by comparison: that the machines are ultimately fragile and nowhere near "optimised", since the complexity is by own admission substantial to put it mildly; the machine is not a commodity, exactly, one of the million pieces breaking subtly likely renders it inoperable; its cost is proportional to its complexity (read: astronomic); by mere fact it's a focal point of geopolitics only supports the rest of the argument it's a machine of current stone age much like siege engines were at some point the closely guarded secret win-or-lose multiplers of feudal culture.
I mean it's certainly interesting to read about the complexity, but reducing the complexity and commoditising the whole thing is what's really going to be impressive I think :-)
I am probably speaking out against the nerd in us, and none of what I said should detract from enjoying the article or the subject, it's just that I think complexity here is the giveaway of us not having conquered UVL exactly, not quite yet :-) Or maybe we lack the right materials which would allow us to reduce the machine or make it less complex or prone to calibration related errors.
What do you think "cutting edge" is, or Moore's law has been?
At one point you could have written a similar article about, say, 165nm, which is now going to the scrapyard. In the past these things have always gradually got more available and easier, with higher yields - but a new, better one appears.
But at some point we're going to reach an equilibrium with physics itself. Where, even with all the complexity we can muster, it's not possible to make it easier or get smaller.
In this case, its the latter.
Is this just restating the size of the same shipment three times?
Even before you get to the lithography machine you need silicon. For a long time we've known how this is done. You create what's called a boule, which is where you create a cylinder of almost pure silicon by seeding molten silicon with a crystal and slowly forming it. You then cut the boule into the silicon discs we often see. That machining and polishing itself has to be super-precise.
But I can remember when the tolerance for impurities was at 1 part per 300 million. I read recently that even 1 part per billion is now too impure. And that makes sense. The biggest chips are what? 80 billion transistors? I seem to remember NVidia makes chips in that range (or rather TSMC does for NVidia). At 1ppb that might make ruining your chip just too likely.
So my point is that there's a whole industry to make super-pure silicon which itself took amazing advancements and without that this machine would be a lot less useful.
Another part that amazes me is just how pervasive multiple layers on chips have become. I can remember when that was novel. The upper layers are made by cheaper machines with EUV reserved for a transistor "base layer" where all the interconnects really are.
It's amazing just how many problems had to be solved to make this posible.
since replicating EUVs is close to impossible.
Is this the correct term? Why do these long radio waves have the name "London"?
Unfortunately all that I get googling the term is a guide to local FM station frequencies.
An orthogonal question is what makes sense as a measure of complexity. One could use "number of parts" (whatever that means): NASA says the Space Shuttle has 2.5 million moving parts, while the article says the ASML machine has over 100,000 components. Another issue is how to deal with composition. A TSMC fab is obviously more complex than a lithography machine since it contains a lithography machine, but maybe the fab doesn't count as a "machine". Another issue is complexity vs parts: a 32-Gb DRAM chip has about 68 billion transistors and capacitors, but it's not extremely complex, since it's mostly the same thing repeated. And then there's the question of distribution: can you really count the Internet as one "thing"?
It said that from a complexity level to construct, the ASML Twin:EXE machine is much more complicated, esp. much more freh research was required to achieve their nanometer structures - a Falcon is a complex vehicle, but compared to "how much do we need to know to create it on an industrial scale",the ASML devices seems to be more complex.
The colleague claimed that there is no special magic. It's not that ASML is using some otherwise unknown laws of physics nor is any single step or component particularly special or novel. It's just that they meticulously optimized each step, and the sum of such steps is the winning solution.
In fact, this is probably why it's so hard to copy ASML. If there was a single magic component, a single or few engineers could be poached away to a competitor to copy it. However, copying a well-optimized company with many simultaneous optima is a much harder task.
Our discussion was in the context of why our quant hedgefund competitor was performing so well, far above the market norm. By nature and design, quant finance is an incredibly efficient field (and most techniques are more or less known by veterans), and we had thought unlikely that one fund could do so much better. Our conclusion was that this fund must be the well-optimized ASML of our field. My colleague happened to know the founder and indeed that was his personal impression as well.
Previously in the context of Apple I likened this to becoming a chess grandmaster: all you have to do is make the optimal decision every time you make a move, over and over again, for years
People don't like hearing that there isn't One Weird Trick which you can just copy, but it's the reality of these situations. To the extent that they can be analyzed, the best people to send are often anthropologists to look at the decision making culture. Culture is even harder to copy; this was a factor in the difficulties of TSMC Arizona starting up, despite it being literally the same company it's not the same people.
Zernike, a Nobel prize winning physicist who worked on optics, was also Dutch, and developed the original Zernike theory of aberrations in the mid 20th century. This was a vast improvement over previous theories as it was far more useful for optical design and analysis.
So the Dutch have a rich history of developing the most advanced physical theories for optical engineering (all the way back to Huygens even)