31 ms·
1. It isn't for sale. 2. TSMC is much larger than Apple's manufacturing requirements. To keep it running, they would have to commit to doing a lot of contract
by duskwuff 6y ago
1. It isn't for sale.
2. TSMC is much larger than Apple's manufacturing requirements. To keep it running, they would have to commit to doing a lot of contract work for other companies, which really isn't Apple's style. Moreover, many of TSMC's current clients (like AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and Qualcomm) might be uncomfortable with Apple controlling the company, as that would introduce conflicts of interest.
3. Owning TSMC would put Apple in charge of the company's technology development, and would expose them to significant financial risk if TSMC suffered a failure, much like Intel has been harmed by their failures to develop a 7nm process. Contracting out their semiconductor manufacturing allows Apple to switch foundries if needed.
- colinmhayes 6y agoLooks like TSMC is public, so hostile takeover is on the table if apple is willing to part with 400+ billion dollars.
- duskwuff 6y agoThat's assuming that TSMC (and the Taiwanese state standing behind it) would put up with that. I suspect they wouldn't.
- colinmhayes 6y agoWell the point of a hostile takeover is that the current controller doesn't want to sell. They lose control because enough stockholders who previously supported them are willing to sell. It looks like the founder only controls 7%, so I don't think it would be impossible to find enough stock that is willing to be sold.
- klohto 6y agoThis isn’t about stock but geopolitics.