This is a well-written, well-researched piece, but some of the narratives are off the mark. For example:
> Phase 1 (Courtship, 2010-2014): TSMC needed Apple for legitimacy
TSMC was already the world's largest pure-play foundry long before Apple walked through the door, controlling more than 50% of market revenue. Although vertically-integrated microprocessor businesses had better-performing processes (Intel, AMD/IBM with PD-SOI), TSMC was head of the pack in the foundry world (competitors: UMC, Chartered, SMIC, etc).
> What if Apple chose Intel in 2014?
How would they have done that? Intel didn't even offer a foundry service at that time, and it would have taken years for Intel to adapt to a foundry model (one which publishes a "process design kit" for use by industry-standard EDA software to design and simulate circuits).
> Phase 1 (Courtship, 2010-2014): TSMC needed Apple for legitimacy
TSMC was already the world's largest pure-play foundry long before Apple walked through the door, controlling more than 50% of market revenue. Although vertically-integrated microprocessor businesses had better-performing processes (Intel, AMD/IBM with PD-SOI), TSMC was head of the pack in the foundry world (competitors: UMC, Chartered, SMIC, etc).
> What if Apple chose Intel in 2014?
How would they have done that? Intel didn't even offer a foundry service at that time, and it would have taken years for Intel to adapt to a foundry model (one which publishes a "process design kit" for use by industry-standard EDA software to design and simulate circuits).