Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021, the Company had approximately $92.3 million and $81.8 million, respectively, of outstanding purchase commitments primarily for purchases of semiconductor raw materials, wafers, spare parts, packaging and testing services and others. As of December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021, the Company had approximately $119.6 million and $90.0 million, respectively, of capital commitments for the purchase of property and equipment. Other Commitments See Note 7 and Note 8 of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for descriptions of commitments including bank borrowings and leases. Contingencies and Indemnities The Company has in the past, and may from time to time in the future, become involved in legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities. The semiconductor industry is characterized by frequent claims and litigation, including claims regarding patent and other intellectual property rights as well as improper hiring practices. Irrespective of the validity of such claims, the Company could incur significant costs in the defense of such claims and suffer adverse effects on its operations. In December 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced an investigation into the Company's compliance with export control regulations relating to its business transactions with Huawei and its affiliates (“Huawei”), which were added to the “Entity List” maintained by the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) on May 16, 2019. The Company is cooperating fully with federal authorities in the investigation, including responding to requests for documents, information and interviews from DOJ in connection with the investigation. The Company has maintained an export control compliance program and has been committed to comply fully with all applicable laws and regulations. In connection with this investigation, DOC requested the Company to suspend shipments of its products to Huawei, and the Company complied with such request, and the Company has not shipped any product to Huawei after December 31, 2019. The Company is currently working with DOC to resolve this issue. Given the case is in still ongoing and neither DOJ nor DOC have provided the Company with any clear indication of the timing and schedule for the investigation, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may occur. Also, the Company is unable to predict the duration, scope, result or related costs of the investigation, although the Company expects to incur additional professional fees as a result of this matter. In addition, the Company is unable to predict what, if any, further action that may be taken by the government in connection with the investigation, or what, if any, penalties, sanctions or remedial actions may be sought. On March 19, 2020, Darryl Gray, a stockholder of the Company (the “Plaintiff”), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Gray Action”), alleging that the Company and its management members made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company’s business and operations, including its export control practices relating to business transactions with Huawei and its affiliate. The Gray Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the “Defendants”), as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Among other remedies, the Gray Action seeks to recover compensatory and other damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff moved for an order appointing him as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and approving Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the putative class (the “Motion”). On July 1, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Motion and requiring that: (i) Lead Plaintiff file an amended complaint or designate the current complaint as operative within sixty days; (ii) Defendants answer the complaint or otherwise move within sixty days of such filing or designation; (iii) Lead Plaintiff file an opposition, if any, within forty-five days; and (iv) Defendants file a reply, if any, forty-five days thereafter. On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims against the Defendants, and adding the Company’s Executive Vice President of Product Line as a defendant on both claims. On October 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 11, 2020 and Defendants filed their reply brief on January 25, 2021. On September 27, 2021, the Court entered an opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion and dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. In so doing, the Court found, among other things, that Plaintiff failed adequately to allege that any of AOS’s indirect sales to Huawei were illegal, and therefore none of the Company’s statements regarding its positive performance or its efforts to contend with a difficult geopolitical climate and trade tensions could plausibly be seen as “inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.” The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint by October 27, 2021, attempting to cure the various deficiencies, barring which the matter would be dismissed with prejudice. As of that date, however, no such filing was made and the Joint Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was entered on November 9, 2021, dismissing the case with prejudice and directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The Company is a party to a variety of agreements that it has contracted with various third parties. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company may be obligated to indemnify another party to such an agreement with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise in the context of contracts entered into by the Company, under which the Company customarily agrees to hold the other party harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to such matters as title to assets sold, certain intellectual property rights, specified environmental matters and certain income taxes. In these circumstances, payment by the Company is customarily conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the particular contract, which procedures typically allow the Company to challenge the other party's claim. Further, the Company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in time and/or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by it under these agreements. The Company has not historically paid or recorded any material indemnifications, and no accrual was made at December 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021. The Company has agreed to indemnify its directors and certain employees as permitted by law and pursuant to its Bye-laws, and has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and executive officers. The Company has not recorded a liability associated with these indemnification arrangements, as it historically has not incurred any material costs associated with such indemnification obligations. Costs associated with such indemnification obligations may be mitigated by insurance coverage that the Company maintains. However, such insurance may not cover any, or may cover only a portion of, the amounts the Company may be required to pay. In addition, the Company may not be able to acquire, maintain or renew such insurance coverage in the future under favorable terms or at all.