danox

k2kw said:

get serious said:

Let's see. Invest in training for workers to develop cutting edge production and supply chain technologies. Invest in transitioning suppliers to renewable and cleaner energy sources. Sounds like something the U.S. should be interested in but Apple's not in the Military/Oil/Coal/Pharma industries so U.S. Gov doesn't care.

Sounds like treason to me

Mondain said:

darkvader said:

GeorgeBMac said:

This is consistent.

China encourages and supports capitalistic ventures -- as long as they benefit China and its people -- and especially if they do not threaten the stability and growth of the country.

It's a win-win strategy.

in this case:

Apple wins, China wins, and the Chinese people win -- and we win because we get great iPhones at prices we can afford.

Actually, the whole world loses.  China is a fascist country, complete with concentration camps. Don't let them fool you, China is no more communist than Nazi Germany was socialist.  Crony capitalism like this is very typical of fascist governments, particularly when it helps their ethnic cleansing goals and land grabs.

It's a lose-lose strategy.

In this case:

Apple loses (because long term the fascist government will capture everything Apple took there).  The Chinese people lose (because things like this help prop up the fascist government and build the surveillance state) -- and we lose because jobs for free people have instead been sent to a fascist country and we get iPhones that are still expensive while losing manufacturing capability.

Both these positions are too extreme. This is a win for sure from a capitalist view, but terrible from a human rights perspective. However, comparing China to Nazi Germany is excessive. Most countries score poorly in having economic and social systems that reward merit. China is simply more obvious in how poorly it treats citizens. In America it is more subtle, as seen by the slowly disappearing American middle class.

Maybe through these mega-deals Apple can help push China to embrace a more progressive system. 

crowley said:

Worth $275bn to who?

verne arase said:

Picture you're TSMC.

Apple has been using TSMC to produce their Apple Silicon chips for the better part of a decade. They help finance development of new cutting edge nodes, and have been a critical partner in TSMC's advancement and evolution into the world's best (and possibly largest) fab.

At first, TSMC was reluctant to take on Apple's business because they didn't want to put so many of their eggs into such a large basket, but eventually the two got together and have been working with each other ever since. Apple likes doing business with TSMC because they not a competitor, and their IP won't accidentally leak into some other subdivision's competing products.

Now, along comes this new Johnny-Come-Lately with a fist full of dollars and wants you to produce their CPUs while they're upgrading their own fab to more modern standards.

Do you go with with Intel for the fast cash grab, of stick with the partner who's been working with you all this time?

Of course, when Intel gets their own fabs up to snuff, you know you'll suffer the double whammy of losing not only the business of fabricating Intel CPUs, but Intel will then try to take as many of your other customers as they can.

What's a body to do ... ?

swineone said:

"A Mac with Apple Silicon inside isn't just noticeably faster than their Intel counterparts; it's capable of a few other exclusive features too. Here is what an Apple Silicon-based Mac can do that the Intel Macs can't."

"but as Apple can control every facet of these chips, there is currently a subset of Mac features exclusive only to Apple's chipsets."

Let's not kid ourselves. All features listed (even running iOS/iPadOS apps) are well within the realms of the computing power available on Intel-based Macs. Hell, Dragon NaturallySpeaking did on-device dictation what, over 20 years ago? Surely not as well as Siri today, but then again, you can't compare a few-hundred-MHz Pentium Pro or Pentium II to current chips (and even older ones).

It's not a technical issue, but merely a marketing strategy of differentiation to move new product. And Apple is (or at least should be, you never know with governments these days) well within their rights to do so. But don't pretend there's some magical Apple Silicon fairy dust that enables this. It's just good old marketing.