If there is one thing modern Apple is famous for, it is to dislike any situation where they depend on one single external vendor for anything. Apple wants either a somewhat healthy competition (e.g. with batteries, screens or assembly where misbehaving suppliers can be replaced rapidly) or vertical integration - and their acquisition of Intel's mobile modem business shows they think in long terms anyway.

In any case, Apple investing into their own fab also makes sense from a geopolitical point. Apple is already beginning to diversify from China because of their shoddy covid policies causing delays all the time, and everyone can see the writing on the wall that says China is very high on the sanctions priority list of the West. Additionally, the threat of China invading Taiwan and TSMCs fabs getting blown up in a scorched-earth action or damaged by war is only growing bigger every day.

what he's trying to say is that the best companies in the world at chipmaking aren't keeping up with TSMC. Not because they don't have money to spend, but because the problem is really hard and there is a lot of room for 'not complete' failure.

You could be completely successful in making chips at small node sizes and have someone out-compete you, meaning your chips are less performant than the competition and you look worse, and it cost you tens of billions of dollars to get there. That's what samsung and intel have been experiencing for several years now.

One thing apple isn't famous for is manufacturing cpus. It's hard. They buy parts from other companies and pay yet another company to assemble them. There is no one to buy or fund to instantly catch up, and even if you did, next year you may be out again.

It's not an easy problem where throwing money means you win, and apple has the most money.

They struggle because Apple paid upfront for capacity that didn't exist. That allowed TSMC to buildup capacity and secure lithography machines from ASML.

Intel struggled because of piss-poor decisions by execs:

- Reduce stake in ASML

- Not use EUV for 10nm

- 14nm++++++++++

- That was fine (for some time) because Intel had no competition from AMD

- Thinking that 4 cores 8 thread is what consumer needs (if it weren't for AMD we'd still top of the line i7, or how they call it today i9, would still have 4 cores and 8 threads)

- Not seeing that new node is getting more and more expensive in terms of R&D and that pure-play fabs have gigantic advantage

When AMD Zen happened, Intel got caught with its pants down.

Samsung "struggling" because they couldn't outbid TSMC for EUV machinery (wonder where TSMC got money from...)

Capacity for cutting-edge nodes is limited purely on how fast EUV machinery can be delivered. Currently, it's limited by ASML production capacity.