Apple to increase spend with Broadcom to produce billions more U.S. chips
apple.com161 points by soheilpro 4 hours ago
161 points by soheilpro 4 hours ago
>Broadcom will produce advanced radio frequency components — including FBAR filters
Thin-film bulk acoustic resonator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_bulk_acoustic_resona...
>Trends to utilize RF spectrum more efficiently with higher frequencies than roughly 1.5–2.5 GHz and in some cases also simultaneously with increasing RF output power have supported FBAR technology to become one of the key enabling technologies in telecommunication realisations. FBAR technology complements and in some cases competes with surface acoustic wave (SAW) technology and FBAR resonators can replace crystals in crystal oscillators and crystal filters at frequencies more than 100 MHz.
Fascinating. I suppose they can be smaller than quartz crystals?
If you find that fascinating already... did you know that all cellphones use mechanical filters in the GHz range? They combine very good performance with very low energy consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_acoustic_wave
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akustische-Oberfl%C3%A4chenwel... (pictures)
Honestly, the "HF physics is black magic" trope has made me numb to the phantastical contraptions. I appreciate when they look cool, like esoteric orgon wave radiators.
AFAIK, the black magic factor is much higher for HF electronics than for HF mechanics. It's at least partially because you can build more complex systems with HF electronics. The other difference is that high frequency EM oscillations easily radiate energy in the form of photons, while high energy mechanical oscillations radiate nothing for practical purposes (at least in vacuum), gravity waves if you're being pedantic.
Very little uses crystal oscillators, they’re gigantic compared with electronics today and have very wonky performance over temperature and shock.
even txco's?
You probably know this, they don't have wonky performance but are even bigger. An oven around a crystal.
This seems to be paying lip service to creating a supply chain in the USA. These are not anything like Apple Silicon ARM chips, they are not even Wifi chips?
I figure supply chain migration is an incremental process and any progress is a win. In my mind some of the tech needs genuinely experienced staff and that must be seeded somehow.
Note I am talking out of my ass but this is how I see the picture. I have no experience in supply chain or manufacturing :)
I have 15 years experience working in high tech electronics manufacturing (for a global firm with factories around the world, including in the US and China) and can tell you the most difficult thing to manage is the supply chain. For time as much as cost, but if you have to ship a $.10 component 6000 miles to get it to a factory, it's pretty dang inefficient.
That said, you're right about cultivating new experience in younger generations. It's probably not surprising to hear that the majority of factory workers in the US are GenX or older.
Not just experienced staff but an entire ecosystem of supporting startups, industry, talent, and infrastructure around the main fabs.
You forgot education in your list, which the current administration is also at odds with.
As much as I hate the source of the tariff policies, from an uneducated outsider PoV, they do seem to be causing fewer dollars to leave the country in imports.
How does it feel from an insider perspective? Are the increased costs on imported items and dependent services worth it for a bit more local investment?
No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency.
The company that moves (or starts) manufacturing here today might get run out of business when/if tariffs are repealed and their competitor already has production lines in other countries ready to go. Heck, the factory might not even open before the winds shift.
No one can accurately plan with the uncertainty.
All the big names like Apple are just paying lip service to this. They are throwing, quite literally, pocket change or funds from the government (like CHIPS, which was less ham-fisted than the tariffs IMHO but still not something that's going to change the landscape overnight) at these endeavours to appease the current admin in favor of reduced/removed tariffs on _their_ products and good PR.
If congress wanted to actually do their jobs instead of both them and the judiciary abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch then _maybe_ we'd have a chance in hell. Until then you can look forward to more flip-flopping as the government changes and the smaller companies continuing to be ground under the heel of large corporations who can weather (or bribe) their way out of the tariffs.
That isn't 100% true, maybe 99% though. Anyone paying attention to politics for the last 40 years would have seen that there has always been an undercurrent of people unhappy with imports. This is the most power those people have had, but they have always been there and got significant political attention. There have thus been signs to be aware of, and those signs are things a smart company will take into consideration - they may or may not act, but they should know and consider them.
But that's the current dollar-based system. Like the gold-based system before it, today countries as a whole have to have long-term balanced trade, as measured in dollars. That's what a great many countries demanded to keep the system fair. If need be, some temporary imbalances can be forgiven by the world bank, but not much.
Outlawing or taxing imports (=tarriffs) of course helps with this.
However, if you look at economic history this always slowly lead to problems that only got resolved by fresh loans (that's what the move to dollar effectively did), hyperinflation or wars.
Any company should definitely be planning for the inevitable decline or elimination of China as a production and/or trading partner.
If not caused by politics, then by demographic crash.
Labour is one part of the equation. China has really well-designed supply chains and economic zones, where getting access to related components just means walking/driving few minutes down the road. They have made huge strides in robotics as well, so the argument for demographic collapse is weak IMHO.
> inevitable decline or elimination of China as a production and/or trading partner
I don't think this will happen anytime soon, that companies will need short-term planning.
I'm curious why you think China will decline or be eliminated, I always thought that China was a reliable as a production/trading partner and that they planned for decades ahead with programs like Belt and Road Initiative unlike western politics that only looks as far as the next election. Very open to correction on this though, thinking about it not sure what formed my opinion on this.
Their aging population will pose an extremely serious problem in the coming decades.
The Belt and Road initiative is a nice try, but it's not a roaring success. The flaws of democracies are easy to see because of the openness, and whatever goes wrong usually do so over a long time. Dictatorships go wrong in more dramatic ways.
Over what timescale? Is the presumption that China, the country of one child policy, will do nothing about the problem?
> No company can plan based on the tariffs. There is zero guarantee that then next government won't revoked them or that the current one won't flip-flop. Local manufacturing doesn't swing on a 2-4 (or 6 or 8) year timescale. There needs to be consistency.
Indeed, but the role of a government is to steer/push private initiative in a certain direction.
Tariffs and stuff are steering private companies towards building stuff in-house (as in: "in the us").
Future initiative inconsistent with this directions will essentially be a sabotage of the US economy.
Tariff introduced by congress? Sure. Tariffs introduced by fiat? No.
The fact that a president can create them out of thin air means they can be removed just as easily. I'm not anti-tariff or anti-re-homing-production (where it makes sense) but the _way_ it was done is my problem. Additionally there was no ramp, it was 0->100 immediately. A bill passed by congress to slowly ratchet up tariffs or similar over a period of time would have a much larger impact IMHO. It would give companies the ability to plan instead of just react. The tariffs were enacted in a timespan that made it impossible to move production local before they went into effect. Additionally, tariffs being applied unequally is terrible, it just means whoever has the biggest bribes (solid gold plaque holders anyone?) or can pretend they are moving manufacturing back to the US gets an advantage.
The amount of power held in the executive branch is unacceptable. Just look at how they raided/repurposed the CHIPS act money to force Intel (which I have no real love for) to sell a stake to the government.
Authoritarian governments are bad for business.
The American electorate seems quite happy to elect people who will sabotage the US economy, so that isn't any reassurance that it won't happen. Tariffs are currently going up and down based on a single man's whims.
Why would when when they can just bribe the current government to be exempt?
If tariffs were planned, steady increase on a long term we might see a good effect. Like tariffs were used before this trump admin.
Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China. Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead.
Did you get that quote from Patrick McGee's book "Apple in China"?
Wiki says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_in_China
> In the book, McGee says that, under the leadership of Tim Cook, Apple invested $275 billion in China between 2016 and 2021, to manufacture its products in the country (including building factories and supply chains in China, as well as training Chinese workers). McGee compares this to the Marshall Plan, as this is in excess of other corporate spending and, in real terms, was about twice the monetary value of the Marshall Plan.
You fail to understand that Apple investing in China is in their best interest - and then returned back to millions of shareholders. If investing in the USA would be a better ROI, there would be no need for any measures like this to force companies somewhere.
People in favour of tariffs make it seem like the best and wealthiest economy in the world is in a bad shape, and it is completely opposite, while failing to address the inequality issue with the wealth distribution.
You're conflating better for apple (and shareholders) with better for the country overall.
The US economy has been one of the best performing economies ever, which has been great for the country overall. Deeper economic ties with other super powers is also a pretty good at keeping the peace. While there are some specific issues, it's hard to argue it hasn't been good for the country overall.
Best performing for whom?
If the type of prosperity you want to point to is "stock market go up," we need to talk about who owns the stocks and who doesn't.
Then all this 3x amount would have had no ROI, China would have outdid the US comparatively.
I distinctly remember Apple having produced a video showing off an automated assembly line for PCB production for the original Mac. It's not like they didn't try it.
It's a sad commentary on the modern world that state support (ie. tax avoidance, and ... shall we say "help" in labor relations) matters more than even the best people you can possibly hire working on your manufacturing.
Because that's the difference between China and the US. It's not that the US does nothing, just that China does way more. Some companies are apparently paying negative tax (meaning every products sold the state adds 15% to the price, such deals apparently exist)
But, yeah, less tax means less everything for everyone. Especially less social support and less healthcare. But I guess this is what some of the more constructive people mean when they say taxes are too high. As well as what socialists meant 30 years ago when they said that very high import tariffs are a necessity. They compensate for these huge differences. But at the cost of making any foreign product (ie. "your iPhone") a lot more expensive than it already is.
Probably not much. The US doesn’t have the capacity for high volume manufacturing. We cost too much.
Easy to imagine - phones would be 1.5x more expensive than they are now, from get go. The cheap electronics (and goods in large part) have been hallmark of "quality of life in USA" for decades; I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe.
However, it seems that Americans are so tired of growing prices that they are getting used to paying them. Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price? I think we will see the same happening with electronics - Apple breaking news on $500B factory spending in USA is mostly because they believe Apple owners will keep buying Apple regardless of the price. They may be right... will see.
> I still get iPhone and Lenovo laptops 40% cheaper than family members living in Europe.
>Just yesterday there was an article that summarized oil price drop 40% from when the war cooled down, but prize at the pump went down only 12%. The big oil explains this that people will buy gas anyways, so why lowering the price?
Because the gas station across the street will sell it for less. Because a different refinery will sell it to the gas station for less. Gas prices are the pump and oil prices in the commodities market don’t move in perfect unison. But they do move eventually.
Wild how some ragebait “article” can erase people’s memory of gas prices going down. Not to mention that gas at the pump has taxes/labor applied to it that can also change.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2501/crude-oil-vs-gasoline-price...
>Apple invested 3x the Marshall Plan into China.
Apple invested 3x that because they got 30x in return from the savings versus US manufacturing.
>Imagine if they'd spent that on the US instead.
Then iPhones would either have to be 10x more exsolve to keep the same profit margins or Apple would be broke trying to compete with Chinese made goods using US manufacturing.
The tariffs have been highly destructive to local manufacturing because in the US we mostly build complex things made out of simpler parts which we import. The cost of everything we build simply increased and as a result many businesses selling relatively higher margin, higher complexity products had to scale back or shut down.
More to the point, the notion that dollars leaving the country is a real problem is really a kind of primitive understanding of money. Dollars are something we control. If dollars leave the country, that means there is demand for dollars. We control the supply of dollars. We literally can’t lose, so long as people are still using the USD, which they’re less inclined to when we’re tariffing their exports.
Also, by definition, if dollars left the country then stuff came in. We literally traded bit flips in a database for tangible stuff.
Bit flips in a database = years of people’s labor and planning
No, it's literally just bitflips. The supply of dollars increases by trillions a year between fractional reserve banking and, depending on the year, fed policy. We're not even printing them.
Indeed. And according to MMT what that does is claim economic output for the government (work resources etc), without direct taxation.
An arbitrary score that's meant to represent said years, not the actual output of those years.
It's important to remember that money is not value. It's a score that's meant to represent value, but the value itself is entirely distinct.
People literally work their lives for that representation. It’s not the value itself but it’s a way to store and transfer certain kinds of value.
It's a way to represent that value. The number does not itself store the value, nor does changing the number transfer the value.
It's true that people work hard for that representation, because we've built systems where the link between the representation and the underlying value is quite strong, but it is still just a number at the end of the day.
That number that you don’t think is real lets you claim actual resources now and in the future.
...and then whoever sold us the goods turns around and uses those dollars to bid up US assets. Next time you are bidding for a house, take some time to appreciate just how expensive those bit flips have made things.
It did make it easy to raise capital, though, which is nice.
Don’t blame imports for our sclerotic country banning construction nationwide. Plenty of countries have spent billions on new construction in the US and gotten smoked. The buildings still stand though.
> Plenty of countries have spent billions on new construction in the US and gotten smoked.
The point is foreigners reinvesting those dollars into development in the US is... even more stuff in the US in exchange for bits.
Yes, it's owned by foreigners and sends cash overseas but all of the economic activity is here and if push came to shove.. they're not exporting the building.
It's not all gravy, there are issues with having global capital so deeply involved in the country, but it's better than the alternative, there's a reason Americans live so well and its not because they're all smarter or harder working.
> We literally can't lose
Who is "we"? Trade deficit dollars are recycled into assets, which compete with exports in the balance of payments. If you have a big house and fat brokerage account, you win big. If you have a job building shit, you lose big. If you have a job building tradeable shit and a low net worth, may god have mercy on your soul.
If you want the full economist version, "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis
We is the country. Yeah, not everyone gets to win the same amount at the same time. The alternative is just maga communism (pathetic).
"We" is 10% of the country at best. Asset ownership is concentrated.
No, the alternative is Alexander Hamilton protectionism, which built the country into an industrial superpower that eclipsed the very shadow it was put in place to escape.
What's done is done, though. We successfully sold the industrial base of the USA to the Communist Party of China in order to pump our brokerage accounts. Winning?
Putting aside the lack of evidence that tariffs meaningfully reduced the US trade deficit as other posts here remarked, reduction of the deficit would be catastrophic for the USD based global financial system anyway so it's bad for the US and bad for the world.
Dollars can only be created in the US by the Federal Reserve or US banks. Since the USD is the currency in which most global trade is conducted, the US MUST provide USD liquidity to the rest of the world that they can exchange between one another and the US (cf. Triffin Dilemma). If the rest of the world has no dollars, e.g. an Indonesian company cannot sell goods to an Ecuadorian company settled in USD.
The benefits of this system to the US are enormous (cf. Exorbitant Privilege) since US can print dollars out of thin air and 'give away' these bytes in a database and receive real goods in exchange. Real goods that people spent energy and expended labor for, in exchange for bytes in a DB.
If the US stopped supplying dollars to the rest of the world, it'd first spark a massive financial crisis as companies that owe USD to one another default in a chain reaction. Afterwards, an alternate to the USD would emerge as 'hard money that everyone accepts'. Candidates for this currently are limited in the space of fiat, Europe and China are net exporters so they cannot supply EUR/CNY to the rest of the world in net just like a US with trade surpluses cannot. Possibly there could be a return to precious metal backed currencies. But in any case, in such an environment, US could no longer receive goods 'for free' in exchange for bytes in a database and its life standards would greatly suffer.
It's adding a huge amount of economic turmoil, businesses are not investing because there's no certainty, and there's no more "local investment" except in newspaper articles.
The turmoil comes not only from the fact of tariffs but from the manner in which the US operates tariff policy if you can call it that. It's the equivalent of button mashing your game controller. There is a low upper bound to the effectiveness, and this approach isn't just applied to tariffs. Firing scientists, blocking aid to children at random, musing aloud about invading NATO allies all adds up to wanton destruction of US soft power and reputation. The specific policies hardly matter in a shit storm of incompetence.
The tariffs haven't made any difference in the trade deficit. There was a large peak just before the tariffs went into effect but since then the deficit has been largely the same as it was before the tariffs.
https://www.bea.gov/news/2026/us-international-trade-goods-a...
The biggest problem with the tariff policy is not the cost or even the uncertainty, it's the corruption. A single person should not have the power to dictate the terms of trade, because the rational play in such a system is for businesses that rely on trade to pander to that person, and that's corrupt.
It is useful for the president to have emergency powers. However he should have been impeached for abusing emergency powers in a non-emergency. Same for his invasion of Iran - Iran has been building long enough that he had plenty of time to go to Congress for permission if he thought attacks were needed.
Emergency powers should only exist for things that need a very quick response. There's no reason for tariffs to be an emergency power. There's no emergency so urgent that it can't wait for Congress to convene and pass a law enacting the appropriate tariffs. The only reason that power exists at all is some mixture of Congress being too trusting of the President, and Congress not wanting to actually pull its weight in the government.
Exactly — this is CHIPS Act logic, not tariff logic. But the uncomfortable reality is that even with massive subsidies, reshoring mid-node RF components is very different from leading-edge fabs. Broadcom's FBAR filters are important but they're not the bottleneck. The real choke point remains leading-edge lithography equipment and the talent pipeline. Having watched Asia's semiconductor ecosystem up close, the US can throw money at fabs but replicating the dense supplier networks around Hsinchu or Suzhou takes decades, not election cycles. Apple's announcement is smart PR, but it's incremental capacity, not a structural shift.
This comment is odd, not conventional — it reads suspiciously verbose, not consice.
Tariffs are in every way inferior to the prior administration's CHIPS act and IRA, which are in the process of being destroyed merely because they had bipartisan support.
This is more about the CHIPS act than the tariffs.
If Trump sat on his hands for four years, he'd have been the best President ever.
> they do seem to be causing fewer dollars to leave the country in imports
Have you accounted for the dollars that are no longer re-entering the country due to boycotts or retaliatory trade policies?
We are losing a lot more manufacturing due to the new tariffs on industrial parts than we are gaining from tariffs on finished products
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/trumps-ta...
Steel tariffs are calculated to cost ~$900k per job saved. It also makes all other industries in the US that use steel less competitive in the global market.
Steel is particularly sensitive in rich countries. Ask yourself: Why haven't all steel plants closed in rich countries and moved to poor countries? Military.
Sure, steel is important to keep in a country for many reasons. It doesn't mean tariffs are the most effective way to meet that goal.
If it had been done with coordinated investment/lending from the government to spur domestic production it’d be a very good move. The economy is stalling (outside of tech) because there is no money for increased production domestically.
For some recent data, see the diagram "Semiconductor foundry capacity 8" & 12" - by foundry location (in %)" at [1] for a rough idea of kWpm (thousand 300mm equivalent wafer starts per month) for key countries/regions for 2024, 2025 and prediction for 2031. China and ROK are predicted in this report to have the largest overall market share increases to 2031.
For some more detailed data (hard to find it publicly available), also see the OECD report at [2], particularly pages 18 and 20 (as numbered). This report provides a breakdown of ~2024-2025 per-country/per-region capacity by chip type (power, analog, speciality memory, commodity memory, advanced logic, mature logic) and a prediction for pre-country/per-region upcoming capacity increases by chip type.
There are markets within markets of course. China dominates in power electronics which makes senses when you consider even just their domestic demand for electric vehicles and renewable generators. Taiwan dominates in advanced logic and exports pretty much all of it. ROK dominates in commodity memory and also exports pretty much all of it. When you compare populations of China vs. USA, the USA are/will be punching above their weight for analog and advanced logic chips, which is also where the focus of their investment is.
In categories such as power electronics and mature logic which China dominates, labour cost is much more important than categories such as advanced logic where equipment is the overwhelming cost. For this reason you'll find China (and maybe even India if they bother to get into the market) dominate these categories due to lower costs of labour. Traditional competitors in these categories such as Onsemi and STMicroelectronics have been hurting.[3]
It's hard to predict which announced/planned investments will go ahead and be impactful, for various reasons such as utilisation rates of fabs once built. But it'll be particularly and increasingly difficult to predict the future of semiconductor fabrication due to what is happening in China. China has expanded their domestic chip making equipment industry enough to mandate Chinese fabs use at least 50% Chinese equipment.[4] Over 2024 and 2025 the investment from China into chip making equipment was estimated to be 37-42% of global spend, so we're talking about 20% (or maybe higher up to 40%) of global chip making equipment spending not being readily observable.[5]
[1] https://www.yolegroup.com/product/report/status-of-the-semic...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...
[3] https://www.trendforce.com/news/2025/02/26/news-power-chipma...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-mandates-50-domest...
[5] https://www.semi.org/en/SEMI-Reports-Global-Semiconductor-Eq...
> causing fewer dollars to leave the country
Might cause fewer dollars to enter the country too. Closed doors block both directions. Other countries are watching and responding in kind. Maybe not that much at first out of fear of retaliation but builds up momentum.
The tariffs have done nothing to improve the budget deficit (not even worth mentioning the debt) and consumer prices are higher than ever. We’ve seen no benefits.
Please provide sources for your feelings, as the facts all seem to indicate that the deficit is rising. As well as inflation. And the national debt.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
None of his promises ever come to fruition. Stop hoping.
It's just from articles like this and what I read on the DIY solar forums, so it's interesting to see the real numbers, thanks.
$30 billion for “hundreds of jobs.”
Theater to keep Mad King Trump off their back.
Apple is already purchasing these Broadcom analog components that is made in the US.
This isn't exactly new [1] ( Apple announces multibillion-dollar deal with Broadcom for components made in the USA ), and this was in 2023.
I am not exactly sure what is the timing of this for. Why now?
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/apple-announces-multi...
Probably to highlight us investment and get authorization for buying Chinese memory
When did we start using the wording "increase spend"?
Marketing departments everywhere have been letting internal corpspeak just leak out lately. OAI's announcement shutting down Sora was similar:
> To everyone who created with Sora, shared it, and built community around it: thank you
"built community"?
30B investment for "hundreds" of US jobs seems like a weird number to brag about
I mean its the same thing as the data center investments.
Think whatever you want about them, whether they're good or bad when it comes to environment, public health etc.
But one thing cannot be ignored - that they are not built to employ some large swath of people. They can be run with very lean teams, much leaner than the average person thinks for something so large. Any claim that they are employing some measurable amount of people is a sham they try to push onto the public.
Could this simply be to provide chips for the products that still haven’t transitioned yet over to Apples in-house C chip.
Like: Apple Watch, most models of iPads, Pro model of phones, etc.
Because without this deal, Apple would have had to transition all products by end-of-year.
Why is it "spend" and not "spending"?
> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/336478/is-it-rea...
I've mainly seen it used this way in business contexts
spend is a noun in this sentence. As a noun, spend refers to the amount of money spent for a particular purpose or over a specified length of time
Spending is also a noun. A gerund used to be the way you nounify a verb. “Ad spending” is perfectly grammatical, unlike “ad spend”.
This seems to be part of a broader trend, not just business. One group of pastor-students would talk about giving a “preach”. Drove me nuts.
What is with the phrase "increase spend"? It just seems gramatically .... off. Why not say "Apple partners with Broadcom to produce billions more US chips".
Because as it’s written it specifically indicates it’s a financial move: give Broadcom more money for more chips.
As you wrote it, it could be an IP partnership, Apple opening a fab, or something else.
"spend" as a noun is a linguistic differentiator to indicate what a badass MBA program you attended.
It's much more specific. "Spend" would increase Broadcom's revenue. "Partners with" might be anything: investment, R&D assistance, whatever.
Both are public companies so they might be required to reveal these details
This is specifically finance language for budgeting and one of the better ways to speak about this given the public disclosure of this information is substantial for their publicly traded stock.
It sounds off because “increase” can be a verb or a noun and “spend” can also be used as a verb or a noun (but is more often used as a verb) so you’re brain is trying to parse the sentence with dual meaning terms
It sounds better on the quarterly report than "Apple will pay more money"
Your proposed sentence contains less information.
The initial headline also conveys both that there is current spend with Broadcom, and that the future spend is higher than current levels.
I hear this frequently in the US business community, as an alternative to "spending".
Help pump AVGO by tipping sentiment and creating a visualization of billions getting dumped into Broadcom.
I think it just means they had been partnering in the past and now they're expanding it with more investment.
I think they were complaining about grammar. Shouldn't it have been 'spending' rather than 'spend'?
Using the infinitive rather than gerund form of a verb to reference a an instance is a common pattern. "I went for a walk," instead of "I was walking."
I think it is interesting to attempt understanding people's choices to shorten "spend" rather than "spending," or to use something longer like "methodology" rather than "method" when they describe the method not a study of methods.
yes, I was complaining about grammar
Spend used as a noun is a common finance term. I also hear “spend rate” used similarly.
It would be weird (but not necessarily wrong) to use that word as a noun outside of a business finance context.
[dead]