Comment by readitalready
1 day ago
You can easily end up like AMD or Intel spending years with your own fab that’s uncompetitive.
You could.
Or you could have no fab and no supply of chips for your business.
1 day ago
You can easily end up like AMD or Intel spending years with your own fab that’s uncompetitive.
You could.
Or you could have no fab and no supply of chips for your business.
Yeah, one of those two bad scenarios sinks a corporation the other is a tax write off.
Being short on chips means you can raise prices.
Making chips on an uncompetitive lithographic process means your chips are worth less.
No, you CAN'T raise prices because no one will buy them, destroying your brand and your business. And you won't have supply anyways.
There is no scenario where not having a fab is beneficial.
Apple will have to build their own fabs, whether they like it or not. And they will need to make it competitive if they want to stay in business.
> There is no scenario where not having a fab is beneficial.
Mmm, I think that's an overly strong statement.
In the scenario where Apple has a fab that's doing work at a 2030 level in 2030, that's great, especially if everyone else is, by their standards, doing work at a 2025 level. In the scenario where Apple's fab is doing work at a 2030 level in 2035, and another fab is doing work at a 2035 level, owning their own fab has suddenly become a liability. If they had used that money to hire the output of other fabs, then as soon as it became clear that another one was eclipsing the one they were using, they could simply switch. And given the way businesses operate, it would be very hard to justify closing down their own fab to use the one that was outperforming it.
Now, granted, that's not an especially likely scenario, but it is a very realistic one.