|
Lost in translation: Chinese press release turns wafers into chips, press perpetuates faux pas |
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2008 at 06:30 AM |
The government of Shenzhen in southern China may be ecstatic that SMIC will be siting a couple of fabs and an R&D facility in the area, and SMIC's not sneering at the money involved (a cool $1.5 billion and change), but the people in the region's public relations division need a tutorial in the basics of semiconductor terminology.
In a release issued over PRNewswire by the "Shenzhen Government" on Wednesday, the copy repeatedly mixes up "chips" with "wafers," a rather basic error in the semi universe.
The first phrase to get my editorial attention reads as follows: "...South China will now have a production line for ICs larger than 8 inches."
"Damn," I thought, "they're gonna make some BIG chips over there." When I came back to my senses, I realized the painfully obvious: the use of "ICs" instead of "wafers." I was also distressed that copy from a metric-system country (albeit from a region pretty close to Hong Kong) used sorry old English measurements---it's 200 mm, my friends!
After a couple of paragraphs singing the praises of the Shenzhen region, its high-tech advantages and such, both from government officials and SMIC's chairman, comes the concluding statement, where the "chips for wafers" confusion reaches critical mass, along with some other curiously worded phraseology.
Here 'tis in its entirety: "The R&D and production base for the front process of IC will be built in phases in this project and consist of an IC R&D center and two production lines for 8-inch chips and 12-inch chips, respectively. Therein, advanced technology will be introduced from IBM for the 12-inch chip production line. The first-phase construction of the 8-inch production line will be launched in the first half of this year and completed at the end of 2009 and its initial monthly output is estimated at 30,000 to 50,000 chips."
If we insert "wafers" for "chips" where needed, the sense returns. But if we take it literally, we find that not only will those SMIC fabs be producing rather large "8-inch chips," but super-duper-sized "12-inch chips" too! And that IBM has been holding out on us, since Big Blue will be transferring its advanced 12-inch-chip technology. (Another reason for the "Big" in the corporation's nickname, I suppose.) The concluding sentence notes monthly outputs between 30,000 and 50,000 chips, which is small potatoes (even if they are really big chips) in terms of wafer starts or wafer outs per month, especially compared with some volume fabs that crank out that many chips in a few lots.
Then we come back to reality and realize that mistakes were made in crafting the press release language, and something was lost in the translation. Or that the translator was just lost. Those really aren't such big chips after all.
Did that stop this terminological mayhem from being reported nearly verbatim in the trade press? No, of course not! Because in today's instantaneous media environment, especially in the business trades, much of what pass for news stories are actually regurgitated press releases, with little or no rewrite or editing. (Editing, after all, requires an editor to be present.) Many outlets don't bother to slap a byline on such copy, and some PRs (OK, a few) are actually written well enough to pass for a basic wire-copy-style news story.
In the case of the Shenzhen-SMIC-sorry-about-the-chips announcement, at least one publication/Website didn't catch the egregious error. In a bylined story, albeit one with a little extra reporting (or at least the cobbling together of several PRs), the venerable Electronic News picked up the same language as the original press release, thus perpetuating the error.
Since I saw the EN story on Semiconductor International's Website (and it appears on Reed's affiliated EDN site too), the improper verbiage virus has spread even further. A quick Google search reveals that some media outlets were "clarifiers" in their reporting, getting it right (or not using the bogus terminology at all), while others became "perpetuators." Since many sites just pick up or link to whatever comes along, the perpetuators probably carried the day. Despite the error, don't expect a "clarification" or "erratum" notice to be filed.
I've made my share of mistakes, some of omission and others of commission, during my years of covering the micro/nano beat as a reporter, editor, and blogger. And my Chinese language skills certainly won't hold up to scrutiny. But the electronics and semiconductor press, the so-called specialists in the field, should never confuse a chip with a wafer.
|
Comment by GUEST on 2008-02-01 12:09:33
Agreed, a big reason this and many other glaring errors are spread unchecked across media (both trade and mainstream) is b/c many outlets rely on automated 3rd party feeds/RSS, and simply trust that sources haven't screwed up (or have little customization in their RSS to delete stories or make corrections). SI relies heavily on RSS and Lexis-Nexis for much of their news, so they're vulnerable to this.
(Though as you point out it was bylined...i.e., pulled off the wires, massaged, and reposted...the error should have been instantly recognized and fixed.)
fwiw, they fixed it a couple hrs ago, with a footnote. |
|
|
Blogs 
