3 ms·

if one were to make the argument of exclusivity, TSMC is the right example, not apple. As much as i dislike apple's practices, they are paying what they can aff

if one were to make the argument of exclusivity, TSMC is the right example, not apple. As much as i dislike apple's practices, they are paying what they can afford. If other fabs were available, apple's ability to pay up would not be leading to accusations of anti-competitive behaviour.

ohgodplsno 4y ago
>If other fabs were available, apple's ability to pay up would not be leading to accusations of anti-competitive behaviour. If I ignore reality and make up non-existent fabs, the extremely monopolistic, anti-competitive behaviour is not a problem! >they are paying what they can afford. The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. It's both paying what they can afford, and paying so that others can't afford it.
- 988747 4y ago
  >> it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing Is there any proof that this is actually true? TSMC is currently building few new factories, I suppose they will produce 3nm chip in them.
- hnaccount_rng 4y ago
  Do they forbid adding capacity? I thought they basically finance the capacity in trade for the right to do first bid on any capacity for a certain timeframe. And they have the margins to just pay more than any competitor. AND they are also supply constraint. Ie it’s not that they buy stuff and then _not_ use it (on the contrary they are well known for carrying nearly no inventory) If some other company is willing (or really: able) to make a competing offer, I’m not aware of TSMC not being interested in that. It just happens that the number of companies with the margins to spend what probably amounts to the GDP of a small nation is approximately zero (or one if you count Apple)
- locutous 4y ago
  > The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. It's both paying what they can afford, and paying so that others can't afford it. Except they didn't have exclusive access? Huawei also bought 5nm. Intel contracted 3nm along with apple before backing out.
- ksec 4y ago
  >The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. I am sorry but that is simply not true. Sigh.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

>If other fabs were available, apple's ability to pay up would not be leading to accusations of anti-competitive behaviour. If I ignore reality and make up non-existent fabs, the extremely monopolistic, anti-competitive behaviour is not a problem! >they are paying what they can afford. The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. It's both paying what they can afford, and paying so that others can't afford it.

988747 4y ago
>> it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing Is there any proof that this is actually true? TSMC is currently building few new factories, I suppose they will produce 3nm chip in them.
hnaccount_rng 4y ago
Do they forbid adding capacity? I thought they basically finance the capacity in trade for the right to do first bid on any capacity for a certain timeframe. And they have the margins to just pay more than any competitor. AND they are also supply constraint. Ie it’s not that they buy stuff and then _not_ use it (on the contrary they are well known for carrying nearly no inventory) If some other company is willing (or really: able) to make a competing offer, I’m not aware of TSMC not being interested in that. It just happens that the number of companies with the margins to spend what probably amounts to the GDP of a small nation is approximately zero (or one if you count Apple)
locutous 4y ago
> The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. It's both paying what they can afford, and paying so that others can't afford it. Except they didn't have exclusive access? Huawei also bought 5nm. Intel contracted 3nm along with apple before backing out.
ksec 4y ago
>The problem is not paying what they can afford, it's paying that in addition to forbidding TSMC from increasing their capacity on that node while the contract is ongoing. I am sorry but that is simply not true. Sigh.