Tech
ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet: No one is coming for us
Every time you use AI, you are, in some small way, depending on a 42-year-old, 44,000-person Dutch company that spends €4.5 billion each year to advance its technology.
ASML, headquartered in the Netherlands, makes the machines that make the chips that make AI possible. More specifically, it makes the only machines in the world capable of printing the microscopic patterns on silicon wafers that define the most advanced semiconductors — a process called extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV. The machines are roughly the size of a school bus, take months to assemble, involve hundreds of suppliers, and cost anywhere from $200 million to upwards of $400 million apiece depending on the generation (prices that give even ASML’s biggest customers pause occasionally).
That monopoly has made ASML the most valuable company in Europe, worth over $530 billion. And with the four largest American tech companies — Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Google — committing more than $600 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year alone, demand for ASML’s machines has surged to the point where the company has openly said the world won’t have enough chips for years.
All that demand has also made ASML a target. Substrate, a San Francisco startup founded by a protégé of Peter Thiel, has raised more than $100 million and been valued at over $1 billion on the claim that it can build a rival lithography machine. Separately, there have been reports that former ASML engineers in China have partly reverse-engineered the technology, a prospect with enormous geopolitical implications.
Christophe Fouquet, who became ASML’s CEO in 2024 after more than a decade at the company, sat down with this editor on the rooftop deck of his Beverly Hills hotel Tuesday morning ahead of his appearance at the Milken Institute Global Conference. Dressed in a blue suit and white shirt, he was relaxed — even when the conversation turned to the rivals.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Did you see the AI explosion coming?
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
CF: No, not at all. We worked very hard, but not with the idea that this would come. You went from a concept — something people thought would eventually arrive — to ChatGPT, which was really the first good example of what AI could do. And now I think we look at AI as the next revolution, not only industrial but societal. Did I see it coming? No. Sitting in the middle of it every day, sometimes we wake up in the morning and still check that what is happening is really happening.
The big question everyone has is whether the supply chain can keep pace with demand. Can it?
The demand is such that the market overall will be supply-limited for quite a bit. Right now, the biggest bottleneck seems to be in chip manufacturing. We, as an equipment supplier, follow our customers, and so far we’ve followed them pretty well — but we know we have to step up our entire supply chain and capacity. If you talk to the hyperscalers, I think they will tell you that for the next two, three, even five years, they’re not going to get enough chips.
TSMC made news recently saying your latest machines are too expensive. How do you respond?
An EUV system, if you look at the price, is going to be more expensive than a low-NA system, but the cost of making a wafer with this tool on some advanced layers will be cheaper. We can get 20%, 30% cost reduction.
[Editors note: Both machines Fouquet is referring to here are EUV machines — the same fundamental technology. NA stands for numerical aperture, a measure of how finely a machine can focus light onto a chip. Low-NA EUV is the current generation; high-NA EUV is ASML’s newest generation, capable of printing even finer patterns but carrying a price tag of $350 million or more apiece. Fouquet is arguing that even though the new machine costs more, it produces chips more cheaply.]
I get a lot of questions about whether it’s going to be this month or next month or the month after. And I usually say it doesn’t really matter, because we designed high-NA for the next 10, 20 years. You can go back to the press from 2016, 2017, and you’ll find the same quotes — low-NA EUV was very pricey. We know what happened after that. The same will happen with high-NA.
There’s a startup called Substrate, backed by Peter Thiel, claiming it can build a rival lithography machine. What do you think of it?
Wanting to have it and having it — that’s still a huge difference. The challenges of lithography are many. Being able to make an image is a starting point, but you need to make that image in very high quantity, at very low cost, at high speed, and with nanometer accuracy. I always say the only reason ASML could build an EUV machine is because 80% of it already existed, based on previous knowledge and products built over time. We had to solve one problem — getting EUV light — and that alone took 20 years. When you start from scratch, the challenge is enormous. I’ve seen a lot of claims. I’ve seen a few pictures. But we had our first EUV picture 30 years ago, and we still needed 20 more years of hard work to turn it into a manufacturing system.
What about xLight, a laser startup partly backed by the U.S. government that wants to work with you?
xLight is focusing on one element of our EUV machine — the source that creates the light. The source we have can be extended for many years to come, and we know how to scale it. What xLight is doing is a new source that still has to be built and proven. The only question is whether it provides a performance or cost advantage over what we have. I think the jury is still out. We are working with them so they can demonstrate their technology — we feel that’s a responsibility on our side. But it’s still a very long journey.
There are also reports that former ASML engineers in China have reverse-engineered your machines.
To reverse-engineer anything, you first need to have the machine. And there is no EUV machine in China — we never shipped any tools there. All the tools we have shipped, we know where they are. They’re either in use with customers, and we track those, or they’ve been dismantled and came back to us. The idea that one of our systems is in China is simply wrong. And because our EUV technology has never been exported there, we also have no people in China trained on EUV.
Very early on, when restrictions came in, we created a complete separation within the company between those who can access EUV technology, documents and training, and those who cannot. Our team in China sits on the other side of that line. The facts point to very little, if any, progress at all. It’s hard for people to accept that because access to this technology is so important.
On export controls more broadly — Jensen Huang was here last night arguing that companies should sell globally, that more corporate revenue means more tax dollars for a company’s home country. He also said the important thing is to keep the best and latest closer to home. Do you agree?
I think he’s totally right. What he adds — and I think this is what Nvidia has done — is that you can keep a technological advantage by maintaining a generation gap in what you sell. Nvidia sells a few generations back, and that lets them find the balance between still doing business and not handing a strong competitive advantage to countries where you won’t sell the latest. We believe the same approach should apply to our products. Today we ship tools to China — allowed by export controls — but it’s a tool we first shipped in 2015. If you apply Jensen’s philosophy to our situation, Nvidia is working with roughly an eight-generation gap. We’re looking at two or three. There’s room for rationalization — finding the right balance between not doing business at all, losing a major opportunity, and strongly inviting others to compete with you.
How do you assess where things stand with the current administration on all of this?
There is a good dialogue, which is very important. I think there’s a genuine understanding of what business needs, but there’s still the challenge of finding the right balance between all the different voices and interests. The dialogue is there, and we appreciate that. I’ve been in Washington many times. At least the discussion is happening. But it’s a very complex topic.
You don’t seem concerned about anyone short-cutting your technology.
People like to have the greatest technology, but they tend to forget what it took to build it. It’s been many years of work — not only at ASML but with our suppliers. Many different groups of people solving very difficult problems, and then one company bringing it all together using decades of lithography expertise to turn it into a manufacturing system. This is in no way easy. And I think that’s also our best protection. It’s simply what it took to put it together.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
>
Tech
Anthropic’s CEO is about to have dinner with President Trump
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei seems to be everywhere this weekend: He was lampooned on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, and tonight, he’s set to have dinner with President Donald Trump at the White House.
Axios first broke the news of Amodei’s dinner plans, which were subsequently confirmed by other publications.
This will be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, who recently found themselves on opposite sides of the AI safety debate. Amodei released a plan to slow AI development (or at least proceed with more caution), while Trump has insisted, without evidence, that the AI backlash is a Democratic hoax; he also wants to rebrand the technology as “super intelligence.”
Even before the current back-and-forth, Amodei and Anthropic have to had a fraught relationship with Trump’s administration. Earlier this year, the Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk in response to the company’s attempt to put guardrails around the use of its technology (Anthropic has been fighting the designation in court), although other administration officials have been friendlier.
>
Tech
Can Muse overcome Meta’s trust issues?
Meta’s new AI agent Muse took the spotlight at the company’s annual Connect event, where CEO Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that Facebook’s parent company plans to push AI features everywhere.
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed Meta’s AI announcements seemed to steal the spotlight during a week of new model launches from OpenAI and Anthropic.
With other big AI companies focused on coding and enterprise tools, it was a little surprising to see Meta move in the opposite direction, with a consumer focus and a cute, Tamagotchi-style AI device that Meta insists is for adults only. But as Kirsten noted, this could be playing to Meta’s strengths.
Sean tried Muse for himself, and while he was pleased that the agent actually found him some unclaimed money, he described the feature as more “a party-trick type thing,” rather than something that will drive ongoing usage. Plus, there’s the question of whether users can trust Meta’s AI with sensitive information.
“Meta’s business is to sell you ads,” Sean said. “And yes, they’ll make the argument that the more they know about you, the more accurate and interesting the ads will be — wake me up when we get to that fever dream.”
Keep reading for a preview of our full conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Kirsten Korosec: So how do you put Muse, which is this new personal AI agent that’s just been released by Meta and [is] clearly a bet on consumer — how does that fit into what you just described, at least with other frontier AI model companies seeing opportunity and business within enterprise? Because Meta Connect, which is their big annual event, just happened, and they are all-in on Muse, that is very clear.
Anthony Ha: That was definitely very head spinning for me, because it certainly feels like what we’ve been talking about has been this shift towards enterprise — not exclusively, but certainly that’s where the money, the attention is going.
Maybe some of that is because of the relative position of these different companies — OpenAI and Anthropic are in the lead in a lot of ways, but also, they’re planning to go public either this year, or next year in the case of OpenAI. And so there’s this feeling of, “I think we’ve got to actually make money now.” Not to say that they’re not making money [already], but because the costs are so high and the valuations are so high, they have to make money on this scale that’s essentially unprecedented. And I think they’re seeing enterprise as the way to do that.
And I wonder if Meta, for a variety of reasons, sees a different opportunity. There’s a part of me that’s like, “Wait, did they not get the memo?” But I think more charitably, you could say, “Well, if that’s where OpenAI and Anthropic are going, then maybe there is more of an opportunity for Meta to make the more consumer-friendly [version and] continue advancing AI on the consumer side.”
Kirsten: I mean, we can complain about or criticize or critique Meta all day long, but they’re very good and have [an] established track record of embedding themselves in everyday people’s lives. I mean, there’s a reason why Facebook has so many users — Instagram, WhatsApp. And I’ve never really thought of them as an enterprise product anyway. So I think it’s smart for them to continue to push on the consumer piece.
Sean, you’ve already tried Muse, which has already been out for a couple weeks. And I’m wondering if you see what your impression is, and if you see it being successful in the bid to become part of every part of your life.
Sean O’Kane: I mean, not really. I understand why some people think that is going to be the case. I’m sure a lot of people understand this, but this is roughly Meta’s kind ground-up version of an on-your iPhone, or on your Android, app of OpenClaw, which we talked about a couple months ago, which Meta went out and basically bought and integrated those folks’ work. It was the first big explosion of like, “Holy smokes, these agents can do all this stuff for me while I’m out and about, and I can just text with it and let it control my whole computer.” There’s a lot of the same elements of that at play. And having it in your hand, on an app that works like a relatively good chatbot as the interface, it does seem pretty powerful.
One of the first things that I did with it was — because it makes a bunch of suggestions for you, as to things that it can do, and one of them was, “I’ll scan to see if you have any unclaimed funds,” this thing that I think no one ever really thinks about and often is going to completely miss, because there’s just not a lot of unclaimed property funds out there in your name. Surprise, surprise, there were some for me.
It helped me make some money on my first day, and that was pretty cool. I wouldn’t have done that if I hadn’t been prompted by this thing to do it. And there’s a check on its way to me in the mail. Fantastic. [But] that ends pretty quickly, right? That was a one-time shot, but it’s not a thing that’s repeatable. That’s more like a party trick-type thing.
Kirsten: I mean, you just killed your own argument. I don’t see how that wouldn’t become wildly popular.
Sean: The more sustainable version of that, and the thing that Meta’s talked up a lot over the last couple of days, is taking that idea and applying it to your real, true everyday financials, like giving it your information for your credit card, your Gmail account, all this other stuff, do things that we’ve seen other companies do, like Rocket Money or whatever, where it’ll go cancel subscriptions that you’re not using or identify double charges, things that frankly the credit card company should be doing already.
And at that point you just run into that trust wall with Meta. I think one of the reasons that I was willing to explore this and was curious to stick with it a little bit — even through to today — is that somewhat shockingly, when I downloaded it, I just assumed that it would like really instantly prompt me and like plug me right into Threads, Instagram, Facebook, which I don’t really use ever, and pull up that context immediately.
But it didn’t. And it was working with me like I was a stranger at first, which made me more willing to use it, because I didn’t feel like Meta had everything on me already. But you can see, as you start to use it, it really tries to grab you and pull those things into the system, so that it can learn all this stuff about you.
I don’t know that I will ever trust Meta the same way. I think it’s an interesting timing for me, having just upgraded my iPhone and getting onto the new iOS with the new Siri that actually works and can do some controls on your phone in a way that is surprising and helpful, that it’s never been able to do. [I’ve been] thinking about how much I’ve been using that over the last week and how much more how much more willing I would be to have the Siri version of Muse take that information, because I just trust Apple more with that really sensitive information and not only trust it with the information from a cybersecurity perspective, but from the fact that its business is not to sell me a bunch of crappy ads.
Meta’s business is to sell you ads. And yes, they’ll make the argument that the more they know about you, the more accurate and interesting the ads will be — wake me up when we get to that fever dream.
And beyond the one-time money lever that I got, which was great, I don’t feel like I’ve found anything else that’s really all that useful — other than the fact that it is, to Anthony’s point, really tailored at keeping it sort of consumer-y in your interactions with it, with which I do think helps it and is why people are talking about it so much.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
>
Tech
Anthropic’s Dario Amodei gets the SNL treatment
Saturday Night Live took on the AI industry’s recent warnings of doom last night, as cast member Jane Wickline offered her impression of Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.
Weekend Update host Michael Che — who sounded a little uncertain about how to pronounce Amodei’s last name — kicked the segment off by describing the CEO as having “stumbled through a press tour” where he seemingly agreed with a former employee’s claim that artificial intelligence might destroy humanity.
Wickline’s version of Amodei sported an impressive wig and delivered halting answers that occasionally devolved into full-on Gollum-style exchanges with their dark side, at one point confessing, “AI is the devil and I its maker.”
Wickline-as-Amodei assured the audiences that AI executives “are all on the same page here: We do not condone what we are doing.”
“AI is not a weapon, it’s a tool: A tool for building weapons,” she declared. “And I urge you to urge me to stop.”
As for the technology’s supposed benefits, like potentially curing cancer, the fictional Amodei said, “Put it this way: In 10 years, there’s about a 10% chance that cancer won’t be a problem for anyone.”
>
-
movies4 months agoSearch For Canadian TV Actor Stewart McLean Now Homicide Investigation
-
Fashion9 years agoThese ’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Fashion9 years agoAccording to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Fashion9 years agoModel Jocelyn Chew’s Instagram is the best vacation you’ve ever had
-
Fashion9 years agoEmily Ratajkowski channels back-to-school style
-
Fashion9 years ago9 Celebrities who have spoken out about being photoshopped
-
Anime4 months agoRurouni Kenshin: Hokkaido Arc Manga Takes 1-Issue Break – News
-
Anime3 months agoHIDIVE to Stream English Dubs for The World Is Dancing, The Forsaken Saintess and Her Foodie Roadtrip in Another World, The Dangers in My Heart: The Movie Anime – News
