I don't understand what part of the sentence you've quoted makes you think that TSMC hasn't put a lot of thought into their price points already. Regardless of

I don't understand what part of the sentence you've quoted makes you think that TSMC hasn't put a lot of thought into their price points already. Regardless of how true quoted sentence is, it's also obviously true that if they changed prices to $1billon for every single chip sold then they would sell close to zero chips (ignoring that such a crazy move would probably see an attempt to replace leadership, or a takeover attempt, or whatever). And equally, if they lowered their prices to give each sale only 1% of their current profit margins, they would sell more chips. Every time they set a price, they'll be thinking about where the line is to get that balance right. And they already know they're the industry leader, and of course they know it in a lot more detail than that simple statement, so they're taking that into account (along with things like demand, how close the competitor products are, etc.) Of course that's not to say that they've necessarily made the ideal choice every time, and maybe if they raised prices they would make more money overall. But how does the fact that them literally disappearing would set back the industry make this more or less likely to be the case?