David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on November 2, 2020 2:07 pm wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on November 2, 2020 1:51 pm wrote:
> > Mr. Camel (no.delete@this.thanks.com) on November 2, 2020 1:14 pm wrote:
> > > With Apple helping to fund TSMC process dev, it seems like TSMC
> > > is likely to maintain its process lead for many years to come.
> > >
> > > Intel may have had a chance to win Apple's business but blew it. They probably
> > > feel pretty stupid now that they won't have access to Apple's coffers.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but Intel would still have had to execute. No one has ever suggested lack of
> > investment was the reason for Intel's failure with 10nm. Once they got stuck Apple would
> > have been looking for alternatives - designing an SoC for both Intel fabs and TSMC fabs
> > would be a cheap hedge for them (and something they already did with the A9)
> >
> > In hindsight had Intel taken on Apple's SoC business it might have hurt them more than it helped. They were
> > already capacity constrained due to making Apple's modems,
> > it would have been worse if they were also making
> > all their SoCs. Apple SoCs with their limited margins (due
> > to having to compete with TSMC/Samsung foundry pricing
> > to win Apple's business) would have displaced Intel CPUs most of which have a higher selling price.
> >
> > The only win for Intel would have been keeping Apple's cash away from TSMC and possibly slowing
> > their progress somewhat so Intel would not be falling quite as far behind in the next few years.
>
> Alternative realities are hard to understand :)
>
> My guess is that if Intel had done the iPhone originally and was fabbing for Apple, they
> would have been forced to acknowledge the problems even earlier and made some less risky
> choices. Apple isn't shy about giving suppliers feedback that they need to improve!
>
> David

Great point! It would have actually helped them.