I think this link posted above is the precise reason - there are already other ARM vendors in the server market with ballpark-similar performance, with better m

I think this link posted above is the precise reason - there are already other ARM vendors in the server market with ballpark-similar performance, with better market placement and better business relationships. Nobody trusts Apple not to dump server again after XServe and nobody thinks they're a super great partner to work with. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-graviton2-arm-against-intel-and-amd/5 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-grav... Why would Amazon choose to pay more for an Apple branded product when they could make a higher margin just doing it themselves? Hyperscalers are almost definitionally at the limit where scaling works and they have the volume to amortize some basic uarch work. And it'll be optimized for their exact PPA targets to make the lowest TCO/etc. Beyond hyperscalers, why would anyone else choose Apple over Ampere, given Apple's general lack of commitment to the server market/open ecosystem/etc? What does the cost look like on this now/in the future? Consider what might happen after the relationship ends, friendly or otherwise - can you keep your business operations going in terms of procurement vs committed instances etc? What if they won't send you any more spares or won't sign some key structure for you (drivers/firmware, UEFI keys, whatever, idk)? Surely anyone involved would want to be super duper sure about this. But Apple has gotten bored and left this market before, and they're always the hot one in the relationship. They can find someone else today if they need. I just don't think there's much of a market for this that wouldn't rather buy an Ampere or build their own clone like Graviton.