The Story of Applied Materials

A structural look at how the world's largest semiconductor equipment maker profits from the entire chip industry's expansion without betting on any single winner.

Introduction

Applied Materials (AMAT) does not design chips. It does not fabricate chips. It builds the machines that make chip fabrication possible. This distinction matters structurally: the company sits upstream of the entire semiconductor value chain, selling to every major chipmaker on the planet. Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and dozens of smaller fabs all purchase Applied Materials equipment. The company profits from the industry's aggregate capital spending, not from any single competitor's success.

This is the classic picks-and-shovels position. During a gold rush, the surest profits flow to whoever sells the tools. Applied Materials occupies this role in one of the most capital-intensive industries on earth. Every new fab costs billions of dollars, and a substantial portion of that spending flows to equipment makers. Applied Materials captures the largest share.

Understanding Applied Materials requires understanding the structural forces that shape semiconductor capital equipment spending: the deep cyclicality of fab construction, the relentless increase in process complexity, the geographic redistribution of manufacturing capacity, and the oligopolistic market structure where a few suppliers dominate each process step. These forces interact in ways that make Applied Materials both powerful and vulnerable to cycles most investors underestimate.

The Long-Term Arc

Applied Materials has evolved from a small Silicon Valley supplier into the world's largest semiconductor equipment company. Its arc traces the semiconductor industry's own expansion, punctuated by brutal capital spending cycles that test the company's resilience at regular intervals.

How did Applied Materials grow and diversify early on (1967 - 1990s)?

Founded in 1967 in Santa Clara, Applied Materials initially supplied chemical vapor deposition systems to the nascent semiconductor industry. The company grew alongside its customers, expanding into new process steps as chipmaking became more complex. Early decisions to diversify across multiple equipment categories rather than specializing in one proved structurally important.

By the late 1980s, Applied Materials had become the leading semiconductor equipment company by revenue. This period established the pattern that would define the company: invest heavily in R&D during downturns, capture share during the subsequent upswing, and maintain breadth across process steps so that no single technology shift could be existential.

How did Applied Materials expand globally with its customers (1990s - 2010)?

The 1990s and 2000s brought dramatic expansion of semiconductor manufacturing into Asia. Applied Materials followed its customers, building service and support infrastructure in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and China. The company learned to navigate the deep cyclicality of equipment spending — periods where orders could drop 40% or more in a single year, followed by surges that strained production capacity.

This era also revealed a structural truth about the equipment business: surviving downturns matters more than optimizing upturns. Companies that cut R&D during downturns lost technological position and never recovered. Applied Materials maintained R&D investment through cycles, emerging from each trough with stronger capabilities relative to weakened competitors. Several rivals exited equipment categories entirely during this period.

Why did rising process complexity favor Applied Materials (2010 - 2020)?

As Moore's Law scaling became physically harder, each successive process node required more equipment steps, more layers, and more precision. This was structurally favorable for Applied Materials. Even if the total number of chips produced grew modestly, the equipment content per chip increased substantially. The transition from planar to FinFET transistors, the shift to multi-patterning lithography, and the rise of 3D NAND all required significantly more deposition, etch, and inspection steps.

Applied Materials articulated this as "the inflection era" — the observation that semiconductor complexity was driving equipment intensity upward regardless of unit volume growth. The company invested in materials engineering capabilities, positioning itself for a future where new materials — not just smaller geometries — would drive chip advancement.

What did geopolitics do to fab construction demand (2020 - Present)?

The COVID-era chip shortage, combined with rising geopolitical tensions, triggered a global wave of fab construction. The US CHIPS Act, European semiconductor subsidies, and national programs across Asia directed hundreds of billions of dollars toward new fabrication capacity. Applied Materials sits at the receiving end of all this spending. New fabs in Arizona, Ohio, Germany, and Japan all require equipment from the same small group of suppliers.

Simultaneously, the company's services business has matured into a substantial recurring revenue stream. With a massive installed base of equipment in fabs worldwide, Applied Materials generates revenue from spare parts, upgrades, and service contracts long after the initial equipment sale. This aftermarket business provides stability that partially offsets the cyclicality of new equipment orders.

Structural Patterns

• Picks-and-Shovels Position — Applied Materials profits from aggregate industry capital spending, not from any individual chipmaker's competitive outcome. It sells to all sides of every chip competition simultaneously.
• Deep Cyclicality — Semiconductor equipment spending is among the most cyclical in any industry. Fab construction occurs in waves, and Applied Materials' revenue can swing by tens of billions between peak and trough. These cycles are structural, not anomalous.
• Complexity-Driven Intensity — Each new process node requires more equipment steps than the last. This creates a structural growth driver independent of chip volume: even flat unit demand can produce rising equipment spending as processes become more complex.
• Oligopolistic Market Structure — Each major equipment category is dominated by two or three suppliers. Applied Materials, Lam Research, and Tokyo Electron collectively control the majority of deposition, etch, and process control markets. New entrants face decades of accumulated R&D and entrenched customer relationships.
• Installed Base Economics — The services and aftermarket business generates recurring revenue from the thousands of machines already operating in fabs worldwide. This installed base grows with every equipment sale and provides revenue even when new orders decline.
• Geographic Demand Redistribution — Government subsidies and geopolitical priorities are redistributing fab construction across the US, Europe, and Asia. This geographic diversification of demand creates multiple overlapping investment cycles rather than a single synchronized wave.

Key Turning Points

The decision to maintain broad process coverage rather than specializing in a single equipment category proved foundational. Where competitors concentrated in lithography or etch, Applied Materials built leading positions across deposition, etch, inspection, and ion implantation. This breadth meant the company captured a larger share of total fab equipment spending and was not dependent on any single technology transition. When one category softened, others could compensate.

The 2008-2009 financial crisis and subsequent recovery demonstrated the structural importance of R&D persistence through downturns. Applied Materials continued to invest while competitors retrenched. The company emerged from the crisis with strengthened positions in several categories, particularly as the industry transitioned to advanced nodes that required new materials engineering capabilities — exactly where Applied Materials had been investing.

The failed merger with Tokyo Electron in 2014-2015 — blocked by regulators — marked a pivot point. Rather than pursuing scale through combination, Applied Materials redirected toward organic growth in services, advanced packaging, and next-generation materials. The company's subsequent growth validated the organic path and reinforced its structural position as the broadest-portfolio equipment supplier in the industry.

Risks and Fragilities

The deep cyclicality of equipment spending represents a persistent structural risk. When chipmakers simultaneously reduce capital budgets — as they do periodically — Applied Materials' revenue declines sharply regardless of the company's competitive position. These downturns can last twelve to eighteen months, and the timing is difficult to anticipate because it depends on the collective investment decisions of a small number of large customers.

Export controls on semiconductor equipment to China represent a significant and evolving constraint. China has been one of Applied Materials' largest markets, and restrictions on selling advanced equipment to Chinese fabs directly reduce addressable revenue. Further tightening of controls could compress the market further. Simultaneously, these restrictions create incentive for China to develop domestic equipment suppliers, which — while years behind — represent a long-term competitive threat in mature process nodes.

Customer concentration amplifies individual decisions into system-wide effects. A small number of chipmakers — TSMC, Samsung, Intel, and a handful of memory producers — represent the majority of equipment purchases. A single customer's decision to delay a fab expansion can visibly affect Applied Materials' quarterly results. This concentration is structural to the industry and unlikely to change, as chipmaking continues to consolidate among fewer, larger players.

What Investors Can Learn

1. Picks-and-shovels positions have real structural value — Supplying all competitors in a growing industry eliminates the need to predict technology winners. Applied Materials profits whether TSMC or Intel leads in logic, whether Samsung or Micron leads in memory.
2. Cyclicality is not the same as fragility — Deep revenue cycles can coexist with durable competitive positions. The equipment oligopoly has been stable for decades despite dramatic swings in spending. Surviving cycles is itself a competitive advantage.
3. Complexity growth can decouple from volume growth — When products become structurally more complex to manufacture, equipment intensity rises independently of unit demand. This creates a growth driver that many financial models underestimate.
4. Installed base businesses compound quietly — Recurring revenue from services and aftermarket grows with every equipment sale and persists through downturns. Over time, this stream becomes a significant portion of total revenue and a stabilizing force.
5. Geopolitical forces create demand but also constraints — Government subsidies for fab construction are structural tailwinds, but export controls are structural headwinds. Both forces operate simultaneously, and their net effect depends on geography and technology level.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.