The R&D and equipment cost for fabrication continues to be closer to exponential growth - which is why so many players have gotten out of the game, why companies with fabs like Samsung and Intel still use TSMC for some parts, and why even Intel is now trying to justify the cost of new processes by becoming a contract fab.
I can certainly see Apple taking a large stake and board position in fabricators, but I can't see them being able to justify the ongoing investment in a closed fab.
Yup; or potentially just purchasing a fab from them, given that Intel has signaled they want to leverage TSMC more, and much of Intel's remaining value is wrapped up in server-grade chips that Apple wouldn't be interested in.
But also; Apple is one of the very few companies at their size that seems to have the political environment to make, and more importantly succeed, at decade investments. The iPhone wasn't an obvious success for 5 or 6 years. They started designing their own iPhone chips ~the iPhone 4 iirc, and pundits remarked: this isn't a good idea; today, the M5 in the iPad Pro outperforms every chip made by EVERYONE else in the world, by 25%, at a tenth the power draw and no active cooling (e.g. 9950X3D). Apple Maps (enough said). We're seeing similar investments today, things we could call "failures" that in 10 years we'll think were obviously going to be successful (cough vision pro).
> Apple is one of the very few companies at their size that seems to have the political environment to make, and more importantly succeed, at decade investments.
Definitely! But I'd recon they would want to bootstrap that part of their supply chain as soon as possible? Say China does invade Taiwan, suddenly their main supplier is gone and the Intel capacity mostly goes to military and other high margin segments. If they instead own Intel they not only control the narrative but also capitalize on the increase in Intel's value.
> the M5 in the iPad Pro outperforms every chip made by EVERYONE else in the world
No, it does not. The core inside the M5 is faster than every other core design in single-threaded burst performance. That is common for small machines with a low core count and no hyperthreading.
The chip itself does not outperform every other chip in the world, nor is it 10x more efficient than the 9950X3D. That's not even napkin math at that point, you're making up numbers with no relation to relevant magnitude.
The 9950X3D has a TDP of 170 watts. M5 has an estimated TDP of around 20 watts.
The comparison point was for single core performance, which certainly makes the TDP comparison unfair if interpreted together. The numbers are ballpark-correct.
No one else is remotely close to Apple. Apple could stop developing chips for four years, and it’s very likely they would still ship the most efficient core architecture, and sit in the top five in performance. If you’re quibbling over the semantics of this particular comparison, you are not mentally ready for what M5 Ultra is going to do to these comparisons in a few months.
The numbers do not exist in isolation. They are "interpreted together" because statistics are more than just advertisement lines. The TDP comparison is mind-bogglingly stupid and you should really feel ashamed for defending it if you care about statistical integrity.
> you are not mentally ready for what M5 Ultra is going to do to these comparisons in a few months
I hope so. The past Ultra chips have been losing to Nvidia laptops in raster and compute efficiency.
Apple could afford Intel, and could get past antitrust by arguing military security. Who's mobile phone can politicians trust?
Then again, Microsoft should have bought Intel: MS has roughly $102 billion in cash (+ short-term investments). Intel’s market value is approximately $176 billion. Considering Azure, Microsoft has heaps of incentive to buy Intel.
I would guess Google are more likely to greenfield develop their own foundry rather than try and buy Intel.
> and could get past antitrust by arguing military security
Antitrust would certainly block Apple specifically for this reason. Apple is not a credible supplier of DoD hardware and acquiring IFS would complicate their status as a Trusted Foundry.
If Apple had more time to reform their image and invest in MIL-STD processes then maybe it would work. As-is, I'd be shocked if the US let Intel become the victim of a hostile takeover. Even for a company as important as Apple.
They could do it, but I wonder if it makes sense financially. It's probably easier for a neutral foundry like TSMC to recoup the costs by selling the capacity to whomever for years to come. Apple probably isn't interested in getting in the foundry business, so they'd be the ones who'd have to use all the capacity a production line has as long as it's running.
