There is no doubt that Apple needs to diversify its processor supply chain, but Samsung and Intel are weak alternatives next to TSMC. Apple can try anyway.
Rumors came and went that Apple would buy Intel for its American foundries, but something about that idea stuck. More recent rumors suggested that Apple could begin relying on Intel for Apple Silicon production as early as 2027 or 2028.
According to a new report from BloombergApple has been considering Intel and Samsung building “core device chips” for some time. Although the recent chip and memory shortage has added some pressure, Apple would have taken these considerations into account long before the current situation.
Samsung is a logical option because it is the second chipmaker away from TSMC. It has the ability to meet Apple’s strict quality requirements, although its capacity would be significantly limited.
Intel has been repeatedly mentioned in numerous rumors for various reasons. There was a time when Intel seemed on the verge of dissolving, but the company was revived thanks to a controversial 10% stake purchased from the US government under Trump.
The company even approached Apple for a direct investment, although it appears that never came to fruition.
Even if the Intel-TSMC joint venture results in some production of Apple chips in the United States, it would be a paltry amount that would barely dent TSMC’s monopoly. However, this would surely score some points with the American administration.
The report suggests that no decisions have been made and that Apple may not move forward with new partners. TSMC continues to be the producer of Apple Silicon, more than 60% of which is made in Taiwan.
Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place, just like the rest of the world. TSMC is one of the few companies the world can rely on for advanced silicon, and if China decides to invade, it could devastate the global economy.
At this point, it appears Apple’s only options are to beef up rival Samsung or embrace struggling Intel. This situation could be one of the defining aspects of John Ternus’ tenure as CEO, although some are apparently more worried about executive retirements.