Well, there's more transfer than nothing, but the hard parts of digital (sophisticated logic, absurd per-gate reliability, low feature sizes) just don't overlap

Well, there's more transfer than nothing, but the hard parts of digital (sophisticated logic, absurd per-gate reliability, low feature sizes) just don't overlap much with the hard parts of analog, which is all about device physics and materials. Sure, the people who design logic transistors would probably adapt quickly to designing power transistors, but they are a very small part of a very large machine. For example: a digital organization may have learned through harsh and repeated lessons 100 subtle ways to be more conservative about device changes. FinFETs took 15 years to go from R&D to prod, for example. While this level of risk aversion might be critical for shipping billion-transistor devices, it may be maladaptive for shipping single transistors, where a 15 year deployment leaves you 10 years behind your competition. Likewise, the processes (patterning, etching, implantation, etc) are largely similar, but the digital side has made colossal investments optimizing for things that just don't matter as much for analog design. The famed EUV machines? What does a power transistor gain from tiny features? I'd be surprised if they were useful, let alone useful enough to justify the cost, let alone useful enough to justify the cost and the risk of repurposing a machine for process innovation. Like using a F1 car to commute to work -- even if cost were no object, extreme optimization for one purpose makes it worse at others.