If tsmc were run by Apple's board, we would all be paying 30% of our income for the privilege of using modern computers. A much better strategy, just look at Apple's balance (and Apple products aren't even as exclusive as tsmc's).
This was IBM. For fundamental, structural reasons, they were dethroned. TSMC doesn’t have the option of eating Apple’s cake without giving up the scale that makes it competitive. Again, it’s similar fresh-MBA thinking that tanked Intel. (TSMC wouldn’t exist hadn’t Intel given it the neutral market space.)
This was IBM. For fundamental, structural reasons, they were dethroned."
I think they did it to themselves, first by eschewing virtual memory in the System/360 and first models of the System/370, thus losing the higher education market and what people eventually moved to like UNIX, thus their big machines become a specialized niche of the whole computer market. Then in moving from a preference of leasing to sales which gave them a one time goosing of revenue which they didn't prepare to lose when the cycle of that ended.
They did do well in PCs for a while, but the unit that did that in Florida eventually got blue washed (there's lots more to the story of course).
"Again, it’s similar fresh-MBA thinking that tanked Intel."
Also very unsure of this, I don't see that resulting in the 10 nm now Intel 7 debacle. More like their decades long high level very bad engineering management eventually caught up with their crown jewel of fabrication. The not so fresh MBA I assume CFO who was made an interim CEO actually had a plan which might have succeeded.
I don't think the current CEO's plan has much if any chance at success, especially since I don't see him making the brutal moves necessary to change the company culture to work as a foundry. In particular, I note while he worked for Intel for a long time, he's a design instead of fabrication guy, the latter is what they needed and I wonder if they couldn't hire anyone good from that field.
Yup. They went from neutral generalists to niche specialists.
TSMC is, today, a neutral generalist with the scale of Apple, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and the others combined. You’re (EDIT: Nope!) advocating trading that for Apple’s profits. Short-term versus long-term greedy.
> McDonald's versus farmer joe who makes the best potatoes
Replying to a parent comment of yours (EDIT: Also wrong!). McDonald’s has scale. TSMC has scale. Farmer Joe competing with McD’s makes sense. Tyson competing with McD’s does not; it will lose, in the long run, McD’s as well as other restaurant chains as customers with that play, undermining its home-turf edge while it competes where it has none.
Look at who you're replying to, I'm not advocating that at all!
The Semiwiki guy credibly claims TSMC has reached this worldwide pinnacle of chipmaking in part by being trustworthy and creating an ecosystem based on trust. That of course includes being fair with your customers, which has allowed the latter to fund the creation of new fab lines and nodes knowing TSMC won't screw them over once that money is spent.
Also not the guy who made potato analogies.
In the long run Apple's strategy may work much better because if Intel and others catch up, TSMC will be a replaceable commodity.
They were dethroned because they opened up the market to clones, and allowed Microsoft to gain control over the software side.
See, this is about control. TSMC has less control over the market than their clients do. And if they don't act on it, it may become their demise, just like with IBM.