This technology is useful for small production volumues only though. It's too slow to produce chips at 5nm at high volumes. If it's also that much cheaper such that you can just throw money at it to produce in parallel, then it may work, but it I haven't seen such comparisons yet.
But do-it, do-it-cheap, do-it-at-scale, do-it-right has been the standard playbook out of Asia for 50 years now. I'd suggest that Canon is going down the road of being a player in the 5nm market.
He is trying to say that until they succesfully move to the "do-it-at-scale, do-it-right" parts, we're at the do-it part atm, and that's no real competition to those doing it at scale and right already.
So the playbook atm is more promise than concrete reality.
Nor is there some law that says "they did it for other technologies, so they'll manage it for this one too" (besides, this is survivorship bias, forgetting about the technologies they didn't manage to do it).
