Apple is fighting for TSMC capacity as Nvidia takes center stage
culpium.com695 points by speckx 21 hours ago
695 points by speckx 21 hours ago
Calling Nvidia niche feels a bit wild given their status-quo right now, but from a foundry perspective, it seems true. Apple is the anchor tenant that keeps the lights on across 12 different mature and leading-edge fabs.
Nvidia is the high-frequency trader hammering the newest node until the arb closes. Stability usually trades at a discount during a boom, but Wei knows the smartphone replacement cycle is the only predictable cash flow. Apple is smart. If the AI capex cycle flattens in late '27 as models hit diminishing returns, does Apple regain pricing power simply by being the only customer that can guarantee wafer commits five years out?
So let's say TMSC reciprocated Apple's consistency as a customer by giving them preferential treatment for capacity. It's good business after all.
However, everyone knows that good faith reciprocity at that scale is not rewarded. Apple is ruthless. There are probably thousands of untold stories of how hard Apple has hammered it's suppliers over the years.
While Apple has good consumer brand loyalty, they arguably treat their suppliers relatively poorly compared to the Gold standard like Costco.
At this scale and volume, it's not really about good faith.
Changing fabs is non-trivial. If they pushed Apple to a point where they had to find an alternative (which is another story) and Apple did switch, they would have to work extra hard to get them back in the future. Apple wouldn't want to invest twice in changing back and forth.
On the other hand, TSMC knows that changing fabs is not really an option and Apple doesn't want to do it anyway, so they have leverage to squeeze.
At this level, everyone knows it's just business and it comes down to optimizing long-term risk/reward for each party.
Apple has used both Samsung and TSMC for its chips in the past. Until the A7 it was Samsung, A8 was TSMC, and the A9 was dual-sourced by both! Apple is used to switching between suppliers fairly often for a tech company; it's not that it's too hard for them to switch fab, it's that TSMC is the only competitive fab right now.
There are rumours that Intel might have won some business from them in 2 years. I could totally see Apple turning to Intel for the Mac chips, since they're much lower volume. I know it sounds crazy, we just got rid of Intel, but I'm talking using Intel as a fab, not going back to x86. Those are done.
But wasn't the reason they split with Samsung because they copied the iphone in the perspective of Jobs (to which he reacted with thermonuclear threats)?
They did had the expertise building it after all. What would happen, if TSMC now would build a M1 clone? I doubt this is a way anyone wants to go, but it seems a implied threat to me that is calculated in.
Job's thermonuclear threats were about Android & Google, not Samsung because Schmidt was on Apple's board during the development of Android.
> "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
The falling out with Samsung was related, but more about the physical look of the phone
If Samsung (or any other fab) were to make Apple chips they wouldn’t learn anything that a good microscope couldn’t already tell them.
Samsung still makes the displays and the cameras for most iPhones. They continued to do business even while engaged in legal action. That they are still competitors wont stop them doing business when it suits them. Business doesn’t care about pride or loyalty; only money.
I believe just locking at a chip, does not enable you to to make such a chip, otherwise china would not be behind.
TSMC already makes them in their labs. They could tweak a few things, claim it is novel and just sell to the competition. (Apple would fight back of course with all they have and TSMC reputation would take damage)
Doesn't seem likely, TBH. Nevermind the legal agreements they would be violating, TSMC fabs Qualcomm's Snapdragon line of ARM processors. The M1 is good, but not that good (it's a couple generations old by this point, for one). Samsung had a phone line of their own to put it in as well. TSMC does not.
>They did had the expertise building it after all. What would happen, if TSMC now would build a M1 clone
What do you mean by cloning? An exact copy of Apple SOC? What would that be useful for?
There are already other ARM SOCs that are as performant as Apple's, according to benchmarks.
I thought Intel was too far behind on their process nodes?
At the end of the month, laptops with Intel's latest processors will start shipping. These use Intel's 18A process for the CPU chiplet. That makes Intel the first fab to ship a process using backside power delivery. There's no third party testing yet to verify if Intel is still far behind TSMC when power, performance and die size are all considered, but Intel is definitely making progress, and their execs have been promising more for the future, such as their 14A process.
>Apple has used both Samsung and TSMC for its chips in the past. Until the A7 it was Samsung, A8 was TSMC, and the A9 was dual-sourced by both! Apple is used to switching between suppliers fairly often for a tech company; it's not that it's too hard for them to switch fab, it's that TSMC is the only competitive fab right now.
This is false. Samsung competes with Apple on smartphones. Apple even filed a lawsuit against Samsung over smartphones.
Apple moved to TSMC because how can you trust someone to make chips for you containing your phone's core IP?
>I could totally see Apple turning to Intel for the Mac chips
I could totally see Apple will be wary turning their core IPs to Intel
Which but is false? Samsung definitely did manufacture Apple chips.
Common manufacturer Samsung[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC
Apple A6 which is fabricated with Samsung 32 nm HKMG (Hi dielectric K, Metal Gate) CMOS process
TSMC holds the real power. Apple’s stability and Nvidia’s cash both matter but AI demand is distorting the entire semiconductor ecosystem. There are no easy exits. Building fabs, switching suppliers or waiting out the cycle all carry massive risk.
In the long run, competition (where via Intel, Samsung or geopolitical diversification) is the only path that benefits anyone other than TSMC
Trust comes first. That's why TSMC is a pure play fab. Unless there's something that can 100% guarantee protection for fabless players like Apple, no one will trust Samsung or Intel.
Fabless players' IPs are their entire business.
It'll be hard to trust Intel given Intel's past behavior, especially against AMD.
Then why are they switching from Sony to Samsung for custom camera sensors for the next iPhone?
Why do they keep using Samsung for their customized screens despite LG and Chinese competitors being competitive?
Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon? What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP (Apple's own chip, the most important IP from Apple)?
wait til you find out who supplies iPhone screens.
Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon? What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP (Apple's own chip, the most important IP from Apple)?
Apple owns a few patients on micro LED display. Those look like R&D to my untrained eye.
Apple is the company that just over 10 years ago made a strategic move to remove Intel from their supply chain by purchasing a semiconductor firm and licensing ARM. Managing 'painful' transitions is a core competency of theirs.
I think you’re correct that they’re good at just ripping the band-aid off, but the details seem off. AFAIK, Apple has always had a license with ARM and a very unique one since they were one of the initial investors when it was spun out from Acorn. In fact, my understanding is that Apple is the one that insisted they call themselves Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. because they did not want Acorn (a competitor) in the name of a company they were investing in.
Doesn't Apple have an ARM "Architectural License" arising from being one of the original founding firms behind ARM, which they helped create back in the 90s for the Apple Newton. That license allows them to design their own ARM-compatible chips. The companies they bought more recently gave them the talent to use their existing license, but they always had the right to design their own chips.
Which acquisition are you referring to? Apple bought PA Semi in 2008 and Intrinsity in 2010.
Not all of Apple‘s chips need to be fabbed at the smallest size, those could certainly go elsewhere. I’m sure they already do.
Is there anyone who can match TSMC at this point for the top of the line M or A chips? Even if Intel was ready and Apple wanted to would they be able to supply even 10% of what Apple needs for the yearly iPhone supply?
> Not all of Apple‘s chips need to be fabbed at the smallest size, those could certainly go elsewhere.
Another thing: I am seeing a bunch of comments here alluding to Apple changing fabs. While I am not an expert, it is surely much harder than people understand. The precise process of how transistors are made is different in each fab. I highly doubt it is trivial to change fabs.
I think this misses a key point. TSMC is leading edge. When Apple switched they were leading edge for pure play, but not far ahead of Samsung and certainly behind Intel. Now not only TSMC is the best, it is also the largest. Which means Apple don't have a choice.
It the old days the leverage was that without Apple, no one is willing to pay for leading edge foundry development, at least not enough money to make it so compared to Apple. Now it is different. The demands for AI meant plenty of money to go around. And Nvidia is the one to beat, not Apple any more. The good thing for Apple is that as long as Nvidia continues to grow, their order can be spilt between them. No more relying on single vendor to pus.
I would imagine they could split their orders between different fabricators; they can put in orders for the most cutting edge chips for the latest Macs and iPhones at TSMC and go elsewhere for less cutting edge chips?
presumably they already do that (since non cutting edge chip fab is likely to be more competitive and less expensive) so, given they are already doing that, this problem refers to the cutting edge allocations which are getting scare as exemplified at least by Nvidia's growth
It's ridiculous that a trillion dollar company feels beholden to a supplier. With that kind of money, it should be trivial to switch. People forget Nvidia didn't even exist 35 years ago. It would probably take like 3 to 5 years to catch up with the benefit of hindsight and existing talent and tools?
And anyway consumers don't really need beefy devices nowadays. Running local LLM on a smartphone is a terrible idea due to battery life and no graphics card; AI is going to be running on servers for quite some time if not forever.
It's almost as if there is a constant war to suppress engineer wages... That's the only variable being affected here which could benefit from increased competition.
If tech sector is so anti-competitive, the government should just seize it and nationalize it. It's not capitalism when these megacorps put all this superficial pressure but end up making deals all the time. We need more competition, no deals! If they don't have competition, might as well have communism.
It can be interpreted a different way too. Apple is just a channel for TSMCs technology. Also the cost to build a fab that advanced, in say a 3 year horizon, let alone immediately available, is not one even Apple can commit to without cannibalising its core business.
I know you are maybe joking but I don't think the government nationalizing the tech sector would be a good idea. They can pull down the salaries even more if they want. It can become a dead end job with you stuck on archaic technology from older systems.
Government jobs should only be an option if there are enough social benefits.
I'm joking yes but as an engineer who has seen the bureaucracy in most big tech companies, the joke is getting less funny over time.
I've met many software engineers who call themselves communists. I can kind of understand. This kind of communist-like bureaucracy doesn't work well in a capitalist environment.
It's painful to work in tech. It's like our hands are tied and are forced to do things in a way we know is inefficient. Companies use 'security' as an excuse to restrict options (tools and platforms), treat engineers as replaceable cogs as an alternative to trusting them to do their job properly... And the companies harvest what they sow. They get reliable cogs, well versed in compliance and groupthink and also coincidentally full-blown communists; they're the only engineers remaining who actually enjoy the insane bureaucracy and the social climbing opportunities it represents given the lack of talent.
I understand completely.
I'm going through a computer engineering degree at the moment, but I am thinking about pursuing Law later on.
Looking at other paths: Medicine requires expensive schooling and isn't really an option after a certain age and law, on the other hand, opened its doors too widely and now has a large underclass of people with third-tier law degrees.
Perhaps you can try to accept the realities of the system while trying to live the best life that you can?
Psyching yourself all the way, trying to find some sort of escape towards a good life with freedom later on...
Maybe consider patent law? I have a friend who worked for the patent office, and the patent office paid for their law school. Now they’re a patent attorney and doing quite well.
Nice advice. I was also considering something to do with cybercrimes, leveraging the initial degree, but your advice got me thinking!
Bruh, with some very rare exceptions like valve, every company is run as a dictatorship or oligarchy. That goes beyond tech, hell big tech at least gives some agency to their engineers.
The only way you don’t need to be versed in compliance or group think at a US firm as an employee is to either be
1) independently wealthy, so your job is a hobby you can walk away from
2) have some leverage on a currently in demand skill, but the second that leverage evaporates they will demand the compliance
Also I realized I undersold it, they aren’t just run as dictatorships/oligarchies, they are usually run as command economies as well.
The whole capitalist competition style behavior only happens with inter firm interactions, not internal ones
Find a small company with a founder who loves their team and wants them to be happy. They exist, I assure you. They're not even rare.
I spent most of my career working in companies with <50 employees, and only hit a couple of unpleasant founders. The few large companies that I worked in were always bureaucratic nightmares by comparison.
Small companies won't pay FAANG salaries, but they also won't make you feel like a meaningless cog in a vast unsympathetic, unproductive, machine.
> I spent most of my career working in companies with <50 employees
I’ve worked for 3 companies like that. It was really great if your views aligned with the founder. If they didn’t, you got fucked.
I really enjoyed when a bunch of juniors were fired the day before Christmas because the founder heard them discussing the latest movies they watched and decided that they had bad opinions and shouldn’t work at his company since he’d be embarrassed if his peers heard their tastes. Not hyperbole, direct statements. We referred to it as the Red Christmas at the time.
I believe you got lucky, I don’t find your advice actionable.