FileMakerFeller

Oh, man. I remember when these came out - but IIRC they were US-only and us poor schlubs in Australia missed out.

I still have my Apple-branded polo shirts that I got as prizes at a late 1990s conference, but those have seen heavy use. Plus some inherited desk accessories and an Apple-branded wristwatch with the six-colour logo.

Anybody interested in an original AppleVision 17" CRT? 

nubus said:

For Apple and Amazon to state that companies should be blocked due to size - not skills or customer experience, and that killing small companies is good for innovation or competition... oh boy!

Not sure why Apple keep reenacting their miserable corporate version of "Team America: World Police". A lot of US companies are great global actors. What is the benefit to Apple?

The benefit to Apple is that it's easier for them to control how their products are presented in the marketplace. Logically, the only way to ensure that something happens the way you want it to is to exert very tight control over the entire process, and that's easier to do if you have a few large "partners" who stand to lose a significant amount of your business if you're displeased than with a large number of smaller vendors who may not be as dependent on you.

Apple have the right to attempt this, but I don't see how it's compatible with the wider legal landscape that places more value on stimulating competition to get a better customer experience than on recognising a single company's efforts to do so.

This really sounds like a marketing exercise rather than a valuable endeavour. I hope I'm proven wrong, but my expectation is that the industry will ensure zero legal liability for themselves no matter what the labels say.

ihatescreennames said:

I’ve read they do a lot of research into THC at CMU.

Ah, you beat me to it! Wish I could upvote this more than once.

So, demand is reverting to baseline because of economic conditions but accumulated inventory is a problem? That makes it sound like TSMC's management has really bad forecasting skills and the problems with actually delivering products to customers remain unresolved.

I find that combination less likely than the possibility that Fubon Investment's analysts are talking out of their hats.

Demand for the output from the 3nm process is off the charts, so the reduction in demand is for the older process nodes which... sounds obvious? It's conceivable that excess inventory from those older nodes built up while "the supply chain" was unable to ship things in a timely fashion, but management at TSMC would have accounted for this and picked an appropriate time to re-tool or re-purpose the older nodes - it's surely all hands on deck to increase production on the latest nodes. The only way this inventory is not going to result in delayed profits is if customers cancel their orders, which also seems unlikely in the majority of cases.

I guess we'll find out more details after the earnings call.