GeorgeBMac said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

Statements such as this remind me of my now deceased father who used to long for the days of when he could service his car himself. 
I sometimes wonder what he would say seeing today's Teslas or Priuses. 

Either way, all technology will move towards this way of doing things with ARM architecture taking up more space. Apple is just ahead of the curve on this. 

I don't see the logic behind equating an inability to service or upgrade something as synonymous with better products.

For many products, a lack of upgradability means a smaller, sealed product which is more reliable and easier to carry around. In my own business, we generally had about 32 Macs. We would replace about a third every year, moving them down a tier in production until the forth year, when we either sold them or gave them away to employees. So we replaced all of our Macs over a three year period. Every other production house I knew did pretty much the same thing. My wife worked at Citicorp for 28 years, and she got a new computer every three years too, and most corporations are on a three year replacement schedule.

we found that it cost more, and was a loss in productivity, to upgrade machines. For a short while that was a popular thing, as you could get excellent CPU upgrades for the Mac, significantly enhancing performance, something that never worked well with Windows machines. What we found best was to just get machines equipped the way we needed them in the first place. If you’re making real money with your machine, either as an individual, or as a corporation, you get to deduct many expenses, such as cost of equipment in several ways for tax purposes, making your purchases less expensive over the life of the machine. Discuss it with your accountant.

increasing RAM can help, but not by nearly as much as you think. The reason why some claim this as a big thing is because they bought the lowest config in the beginning, which was below their needs. So yes, increasing it made a noticeable difference. But if you buy what you need in the beginning, adding more leads to a minor difference. Same thing with drives. Don’t skimp on a startup drive. Smaller drives and storage is always slower. That’s true for hard drives, SSD’s and internal NAND storage. There are real reasons for that. Figure out what you really need, and double it. Be realistic about both. Remember these days that 512 NAND will be almost twice as fast as 256, and that 1TB doesn’t add much speed above that. But I always get 1TB startup because you really shouldn’t keep NAND more than about 60% full for good NAND long term health.

there are a bunch of common sense rules to follow if you understand your needs and how to satisfy them. Upgrading in mid stream rarely gets you much unless you starved your machine in the beginning.

I’m so tired of hearing about Air Tags. This isn’t going to be a big product, particularly if they’re $39 each as the new Samsung product is. I just don’t see that many being sold at that price. Even the third party products at $29 aren’t doing that well.

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

cloudguy said:

dk49 said:

If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence? 

See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.

The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.

A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.

Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. 

Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.

It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.

It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course. 

In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc. 

Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.

It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too. 

You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.

Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.

As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000. 

What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.

Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.

The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.

As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?

And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.

I think we should just wait and see on that one. 

Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.

Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.

I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.

Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.

Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured. 

Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.

A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing  that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.

But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.

Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc. 

The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others. 

This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you? 

https://e.huawei.com/en/products/cloud-computing-dc/atlas/atlas-900-ai?utm_medium=psm&utm_source=corp_facebook&utm_campaign=HC2019&source=psm_corp_facebook

As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.

The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.

If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.

Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else? 

Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything? 

Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?

How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?

https://www.gizchina.com/2020/11/11/midea-launches-its-first-batch-of-products-running-on-harmony-os/

Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do. 

Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it. 

"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.

Thanks for playing.

Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.

Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?

Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.

Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.

You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.

I'm not surprised.

And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.

As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.

And in the spirit of Jaws...

"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-) 

The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment. 

That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.

Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon. 

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.

It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/china-revs-up-grand-chip-ambitions-to-counter-u-s-blacklistings

Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.

Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack. 

The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.

And there you have it...

The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.

Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!

Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.

Wow! Is that news?

Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!

Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.

He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.

Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?

Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.

Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes! 

Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS. 

Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.

It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.

And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS? 

In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.

That stack is only going to get bigger. 

You've gone off the deep end.

Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not. 

That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?

"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan

FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.

Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!

Sneaky bounder! 

It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .

Where to begin....?

Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!

Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.

We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).

Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course). 

They are even present in the US.

As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.

More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace. 

Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?

And you are asking me to get real? 

Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.

Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share. 

Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.

It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!

The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.

Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.

Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.

It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.

I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.

R&D spending has been increased yet again. 

They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact. 

We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given. 

But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.

Take a look for yourself ...

https://www.brookings.edu/research/china-as-a-cyber-great-power-beijings-two-voices-in-telecommunications/

One tidbit...

"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]

No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.

I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.

All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.

That makes your point about China irrelevant.

Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY. 

Take a minute and let that sink in.

These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.

Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security! 

The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies. 

Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards. 

If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even. 

This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself? 

It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei. 

The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism. 

Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened! 

You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go. 

Remind me. What was this thread about? 

Are you talking about Chinese protectionism? Because there is lots of that. But we know about the extremely high levels of spying the Chinese do. We know how they force foreign companies to take on Chinese partners, who they then must share technology with. We know about the forced labor camps, and the software used to keep track of people. Oh, there’s plenty the government there does. It’s not anywhere near a free country. And Xi is making things much worse. Yes, everyone is worried about China. Even Russia sent tens of thousands of troops to the west around the time China said that they considered the entire western territory of Russia to belong to China.

the destruction of the HongKong treaties. They renewed threats against Taiwan. The taking over of islands in international waters, or that of waters claimed by others.

oh year, we should be worried.

jdb8167 said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

cloudguy said:

dk49 said:

If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence? 

See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.

The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.

A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.

Apple also has the ability to smoothly pivot to another architecture, such as Risk V, if it desires.

While I agree that Apple could pivot to Risc-V if they needed/wanted to, I can't envision any scenario in the next decade where that would be something they would do. I guess the rumors could be wrong and there may be more architecture limitations in their license than supposed but I've heard nothing like that. Apple could stay on Aarch64v8 forever and add their own extensions as needed to keep up with x86, Aarch64, and Risc-V. Since they have good development access to LLVM and other toolchain software, that won't be a limitation either.

I can’t see Apple going there. Right now, RISC-5 is so efficient because it’s a very simple core. As it becomes more complex, and competitive, the efficiency will come down. Even though it can be used as a simple general purpose processor, it’s really designed to be a controller of other cores, such as ISP’s, machine learning, etc.

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.