The scale Apple operates at is sometimes hard for people to grasp. To present a small window into it: Apple did $73B in hardware revenue in the most recent quar

The scale Apple operates at is sometimes hard for people to grasp. To present a small window into it: Apple did $73B in hardware revenue in the most recent quarter; Nvidia did $57B in total revenue. Now, consider that most of nvidia’s revenue comes from selling $30,000+ GPUs to businesses, with only a small number of TSMC-fabricated chips; whereas Apple sells $1000 phones. The scale of Nvidia’s contracts with TSMC, while increasing, doesn’t even begin to approach Apple’s. That’s why when TSMC began to open shop in the US, they did it with Apple. It’s true that Nvidia has a more diverse set of end-customers than Apple’s silicon. But, the customers you’re describing were the ones they had in 2020 when their revenue was $3B, versus the $57B they do today. The vast, vast majority of that revenue growth has came from less-than ten customers; the usual suspects. Revenue growth is a proxy for their contracts with TSMC. If the hyperscaler revenue growth takes a hit, the scale of that hit would outpace their ability to just shuffle fulfillment around (though, I have no doubt they will try) You’re also misunderstanding my initial claim, which might explain why you are baffled. I did not claim that SBCs make better economic sense than modular computers. I claimed that DIY computers rarely make economic sense over non-DIY computers today. Modular computers can be non-DIY; a quarter of every Best Buy is full of them, and it’s what most businesses in the HPC, CAD, etc spaces would buy their employees: a pre-build from Dell. Dell’s/etc relationships with suppliers grant them the same power laws that I explain fuel the SBC segment’s growth; power laws that the middlemen in the DIY space, like Corsair/etc, aren’t benefited from as strongly, and easily overwhelm with their own markup for sports car cooling fins and RGB.