> the last two generations of Mac Pro systems have been built in their own plants
As far as we know, Apple doesn’t own any of its manufacturing directly. The Mac Pro plant in Texas is operated by either Quanta or Flex[1], depending on who you ask.
You could argue that it’s largely a semantic difference, though, because those facilities are dedicated entirely to Apple and they’re usually the ones funding their construction.
Sorry for my naivety, but how does a company keep memory of the processes and oral knowledge if they don’t own the factory? Is everything specified enough in requirement documents and process sheets that “factory providers” have a clear guide to implement their factory?
And does that really save on CapEx given that Apple funds the construction anyway and secrecy is absolute as well?
This situation let's the contract between Apple and the fabricators be results based and Apple can focus on Apple things and the manufacturer has the burden of spending the factory budget and getting results.
This helps keep crisp lines of delineation between design and production.
That is my understanding.
The processes that Apple is outsourcing are considered disposable as the technology changes. The oral traditions and cultural knowledge are in the software/hardward/design ideals.
As far as we know, Apple doesn’t own any of its manufacturing directly. The Mac Pro plant in Texas is operated by either Quanta or Flex[1], depending on who you ask.
You could argue that it’s largely a semantic difference, though, because those facilities are dedicated entirely to Apple and they’re usually the ones funding their construction.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/apple-will-make-the-mac-pro-...