If Apple cares about their Softbank investment, the best possible outcome is that Intel copies their IP wholesale. Arm's white whale is Intel buying an architectural license, which they have zero incentive to do unless someone gives them an off-the-shelf core design that doesn't suck.
The modern Cortex and Infiniverse designs are so pathetic that RISC-V might mature by the time ARM is the industry standard. And the smaller ARM IP hasn't been profitable since China mass-produced the clones. Courting Intel into buying an architectural license with a free IP bonus is a legitimately smart move for ARM's longevity, from Apple's POV.
They are always balls deep, if it takes them 2 years to get a TSMC yield, with as much as demand it exists for high-end fabs, they could already easily get financing to already build even more capacity.
Now they have literally the US government as an investor.
One would be naive to believe that they wouldn't get at least a few hundred billion dollars to scale it up given the so many risks involved in most of US tech sector being dependent on Taiwan.
>If tech sector is so anti-competitive, the government should just seize it and nationalize it.
Trump is using his DOJ to probe Jerome Powell with a bogus lawsuit because the Fed won't lower rates on demand.
An independent Fed is the most important body for the USA. Lowering rates should be based on facts, not dictated by some bankrupt casino CEO. And now you want our government to nationalize the tech sector?
I don't support nationalizing the tech sector, but I believe the reason we have Trump in the first place is because our government refused to nationalize health care.
>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
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.
Anyone making a claim that trust will be 0% based on a single thing is obviously oversimplifying the situation. Trust is built on behavior, reputation, time, repeatability, etc.
Trust is subjective and relative.
If Alice doesn’t trust Eve, that doesn’t automatically mean that Bob doesn’t trust Eve. That usually requires both Alice and Bob to similar experiences or Bob must have a trust relationship with Alice.
Trust also changes over time. One CEO change and a company can change overnight thus causing all trust to evaporate. Normally CEOs are aware of this and don't change things and so trust transfers, but one mistake and you lose trust. It takes a lot to build back trust, but a few years of proving worthy of trust and it starts to come back. If your competitors violates trust in the mean time customers are more likely to risk you, and if you prove trustworthy the customers are likely to stay.
There are other factors than trust as well - the US government really wants intel fabs to take off and they may be applying pressure that we are not aware of. It could well be that Apple is willing to risk Intel because the US government will buy a lot of macs/iphones but only if they CPU is made in the US. (this would be a smart thing for the US todo for geopolitical reasons)
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)?
> Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon
yes
> What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP
The iPhone's core IP is iOS.
Collaboration on display and camera development leak major future milestones. Far more consumers care about cameras and displays than the CPU. Just like the camera and display the CPU IP is also protected by patents.
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)?
>Open Source was never the commercial product. It's the conduit to something else.
this is correct. If you open source your software, then why are you mad when companies like AWS, OpenAI, etc. make tons of money?
Open Source software is always a bridge that leads to something else to commercialize on. If you want to sell software, then pick Microsoft's model and sell your software as closed source. If you get mad and cry about making money to sustain your open source project, then pick the right license for your business.
That's one of the issues with AI, though; strongly copylefted software suddenly finds itself unable to enforce its license because "AI" gets a free pass on copyright for some reason.
Dual-licensing open source with business-unfriendly licensing used to be a pretty good way to sell software, but thanks to the absurd legal position AI models have managed to squeeze themselves into, that stopped in an instant.
Open source software helped to dramatically reduce the cost of paid software, because there is a now a minimum bar of functionality you have to produce in order to sell software.
And, in many cases, you had to produce that value yourself. GPL licensing lawsuits ensured this.
AI extracting value from software in such a way that the creators no longer can take the small scraps they were willing to live on seems likely to change this dynamic.
I expect no-source-available software (including shareware) to proliferate again, to the detriment of open source.
Perhaps, but training AIs relies on the existence of libraries like Tailwind, sites like Stack Overflow, Wikipedia, etc. If people stop using all those businesses and services and projects and they eventually disappear, we're stuck relying on asking LLMs whose knowledge is based on a dated snapshot of an internet that no longer exists.
Farming, livestock, arms, school/nursery, medicine, construction, real estate, finance. Basically anything rooted in the physical world and elemental services.
I'd agree with medicine, school/nursery, real estate, and finance but mostly because in those industries the ability to connect with clients at a human level is often more valuable than sheer talent.
With farming/livestock, pretty much all of that can become automated. And even in the previous human-centric sectors, there are definitely roles that will be replaced by AI, even if the sector as a whole continues to employ a lot of people.
Take law, for instance. Due to the prevalence of bar associations (which will likely prevent AI from doing lawyers' jobs), AI will never be a lawyer. However, many lawyers have and continue to replace paralegals with AI.
Hmm, for real estate and car dealers we may see a market segmentation effect.
Past a certain price point, both for real estate and cars, a buyer is paying almost as much for the "feeling"/experience of buying the house/car as they're paying for the actual thing itself. Humans are generally better at conveying these things than machines.
According to Peter Thiel, taking care of children. Gotta make sure the housewife is happy in the AI uprising after all.
Very myopic thinking. Fallout New Vegas had its plutocrat of interest make sure to scan the brains of his biggest fancies before the Great War. A true visionary.
Maybe we need regulation on tech which requires anyone who wants to use a piece of tech to be at least 18 years old and have been examined by a doctor to be mentally stable. /s
i remeber video game was blamed for school shooting tragic
Stack Overflow set out to be a better Q&A site but has turned into a user-unfriendly, gatekeeping platform where questions are often marked as duplicates because a similar question was answered 15 years ago. Everything and every question is banned, gatekeep, or marked as a duplicate.
"I left Meta because I made a bet that models were going to commoditized and the value would be in products on top of models, but MetaMate and GenAI were highly politicized sucking up all oxygen in the room."
reply