Breaking down TSMC's glass core substrate slide On June 11, at JPCA Show 2026 in Japan, TSMC gave a roughly 40-slide presentation titled "Advanced Packaging Technology Essential to the Evolution of AI" (AIの進化に不可欠な先端パッケージング技術). One slide from the deck, titled "Glass Substrate Development for CoWoS," has since leaked online and widespread attention. Here's a closer read of that slide (see attached image). I'll skip the technical background that is already widely available. One thing to flag: the "COP" on the slide does not stand for Chip-on-Package. It means Coplanarity. ▌ Key conclusions: 1. TSMC has officially announced a partnership with Ibiden and Innolux to develop a glass core substrate. The structure is a three-layer design, a glass core sandwiched between two ABF build-up layers. This is the "oS" in CoPoS. 2. The market underestimates how important the glass core substrate is. It's a must-have capability for TSMC. In other words, within CoPoS the "oS" matters more than the "CoP", which is also why, when it was tested, it was paired with the existing CoW rather than with CoP. 3. The glass core substrate costs several times more per unit than existing ABF substrates. The glass processed by Innolux is very expensive per unit and is the single most critical material. Besides Nvidia, two US-based customers have also expressed strong interest. ▌ Industry checks tied to this slide: 1. The glass core substrate shown on the slide is cut from a full-size 250×250mm one. The ABF build-up layers mainly use Ajinomoto's GL107, mixed with ABF-GCP, and were tested at 24–28 layers, which is the mainstream ABF spec for AI chips in 2027–2028. 2. The CoW used in TSMC's experiment is a test vehicle. It is sufficient to validate the most challenging mechanical-structure issues that arise when working with composite materials. Good results mean TSMC, Ibiden, and Innolux have together broken through the critical technical bottleneck. 3. Ibiden currently handles cutting the 250×250mm glass core substrate. When the 510×515mm format is used for pre-mass-production simulation in 2H27, if Ibiden still wants to reduce production complexity to protect its ultra-high gross margins, it may hand the cutting over to Innolux, which is more familiar with the properties of glass. ▌ The leaked slide shows the validation results of pairing CoW with the "oS" in CoPoS, i.e., the glass core substrate (labeled "glass-SBT" on the slide). This addresses the "Substrate mechanical and electrical Dilemma" raised on the previous slide, and it strongly underscores how important the "oS" is within CoPoS. 1. Within CoPoS, what CoP solves is production efficiency / cutting economics, which ties to cost and price. What the oS solves is warpage and durability, which determines whether the chip can be made at all, and whether it can work. 2. CoP and oS complement each other well when integrated, but looking out over the next few years their technical roles still differ. CoP is a very-nice-to-have optimization, and going without it simply means a more expensive chip. But the oS is a must-have. Without it, even being able to make a usable chip is in doubt. 3. Comparing their roles isn't about elevating oS at the expense of CoP. It comes down to the practical question of which technical piece customers are willing to pay for. Details below. ▌ The real gold here is the power integrity (PI) improvement shown on the slide. This matters a great deal to customers, and it means that once glass core substrate production stabilizes, TSMC's profitability and competitive edge should rise in tandem. 1. How it works: the glass core substrate is thin → the vertical conduction path through TGV (through-glass vias) is short → conduction-path resistance (R) and loop inductance (L) both drop → PI improves. 2. Why it matters to customers: better PI → more stable power delivery → frees up power headroom → room to integrate more transistors, or to push clock speeds higher → more AI compute. 3. For customers, production efficiency is TSMC's basic responsibility, so they won't pay extra for it. But gains in AI compute translate directly into the customer's own competitiveness and profit, so customers are willing to pay for that. This is why Nvidia is so positive on the glass core substrate. 4. For TSMC, the glass core substrate raises yield and lowers cost while also boosting both the compute and the selling price of AI chips. It's both a cost-cutting tool and a pricing lever, a plus for profitability and competitiveness alike. 5. Substrate cost currently accounts for a low single-digit percentage of an AI chip's BOM, while losses from packaging yield run roughly 5–10× the substrate cost. So even if the glass core substrate ends up costing several times more than today's, its share of the BOM stays low, and it can cut the losses from packaging yield. The high unit price is therefore not expected to dampen customers' willingness to adopt it. ▌ In the Q&A after the presentation, an audience member asked about TGV details for the glass core substrate. TSMC declined to answer on the spot, because TGV is the key technology behind the glass core substrate, and the core know-how currently sits with TSMC and Innolux. By contrast, when another attendee asked about integrating IVR, eDTC, and LSI, TSMC answered at length. ▌ According to industry checks, if all goes well, TSMC is aiming to start mass production of the glass core substrate in 4Q28–1Q29, to match the cadence of Nvidia's AI chip iterations. As a side note: the Ibiden earnings presentation slide that many people have been circulating lists the glass core substrate timeline as CY30. My read is this: Ibiden, which has always been conservative and cautious in public, has now formally put the glass core substrate on its roadmap, which further confirms the long-term trend for this technology. That said, some other details on Ibiden's slide don't fully line up with what's known in the market. For example, its reticle timeline is off from TSMC's public claims by about a generation, and the Rubin Ultra substrate size is clearly larger than the 90×90 it marked for CY26–27. It's a reminder to always cross-check across multiple sources when forecasting the future.

科技巨头到2万亿市值要多久？ Alphabet：23 年 SpaceX：24 年 Amazon：30 年 NVIDIA：31 年 Broadcom：35 年 TSMC：39 年 Apple：44 年 Microsoft：46 年 Saudi Aramco：86 年

半導体覇権、読了。非常に面白かった。 半導体の技術そのものよりも、NVIDIA、TSMC、Samsung、Intel、ASML、中国企業などが、どういう経緯で今の地位を築き、業界の中でどんな役割を担っているのかがよく分かる本。 技術的な説明は必要最低限で、とても読みやすい。半導体の技術書で挫折した人でも、業界全体の構造や企業同士の関係をつかみやすいと思う。 特におもしろかったのは、半導体企業の「キャラ」や立ち位置が見えてくるところ。 AI時代到来を早期に見抜き世界一の企業になったNVIDIA、台湾の奇跡といわれる製造に徹して世界中の企業を支えるTSMC、メモリと製造の両方で巨大投資を続けるSamsungの政治に翻弄される苦悩、EUの希望・最先端半導体に不可欠なEUV露光装置を握るオランダのASML、復権を狙う日本のラピダス。 なんで強いのか、何を背負って戦っているのか、業界の中でどこに位置しているのか、その背景を歴史とともにわかりやすく説明してくれる。 中国の躍進も印象的。 かつて東芝やソニー、キヤノンなどの技術者がSamsungへ移り、韓国の半導体産業の成長を支えた。 ところが今は、Samsungの技術者が中国DRAM大手のCXMTなどに数倍の年収で引き抜かれている。そうやって技術が移転していく。 ワイの知り合いでも昔サムスンに行った人はいる。数年だけ超高待遇で技術吸収したら基本はポイだが、それわかって行く。十分ペイするし。ガチ優秀な人はそのまま幹部にもなる。 そして、やっぱり日本の凋落は残念な気持ちになる。 この本を読んでわかるのは、半導体覇権は一企業だけでは到底無理で、国家規模の戦略と長期投資が不可欠だったということ。 台湾、韓国、中国は、半導体を国家の競争力や安全保障に直結する産業として扱い、採算が悪い時期も含めて投資を続けてきた。 一方、日本はバブル崩壊やリーマンショック後に企業の体力が落ち、半導体も一企業の不採算事業として整理されていった。国家として産業を守り育てる視点がほぼなく、そりゃ負けるよなと。 で、今になってTSMCやマイクロンに兆単位の補助金を注いでる。う〜ん、投資下手すぎる。 ラピダスには頑張ってほしい。めちゃくちゃ応援するぞ。

【TSMCが熊本地震に2億5000万円の寄付、日本人「台湾にはいつも感動させられる」】 「すべての被災者に心からのお見舞いの意を表するとともに、寄付を通じて被災地域が一日も早く日常生活を取り戻せるよう支援したい」

ただ「TSMCが来る」というだけでは長期的な日本の発展には寄与しないということがよくわかる記事。国内でのサプライチェーンが使われること、そして何より国内における最終需要者の存在が必要不可欠だ。突き詰めれば強い個人消費。日本はコレを抑制してきたから経済が低迷した