undefined

points

[-]

Given the current issue is with fab capacity, what would Apple gain by being the architect/engineer of RAM? They hand off the 'blueprints' to someone who is already at capacity?

And it's not about motivation, but capacity: everything is currently at 100%. To get more capacity means building more fabs, and given the historically cyclical nature of semiconductors not may people want to necessarily take that risk (potentially end up with over capacity). And it wouldn't help now, as it takes >2 years to build a fab.

Unless the suggestion is for Apple to design M- and A-series CPUs with the memory circuitry in-die instead of on-package? (Using up some 'transistor budget' for RAM.)

by Danox25 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Once again, Apple is already given the bums rush to five other companies when they got in the way of what they wanted to build Apple isn’t going to sit around, based upon their recent history in the last 20 years and do nothing.

I don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand and I certainly don’t think Apple will hesitate with a new technocrat CEO coming in September 2026, if Apple had a “slug” MBA person coming in September, I might buy the argument that they may not do anything but they have shown that they are capable of playing the long game when necessary.

I wish I could’ve been a fly on the wall 5-6 years ago to see what the conversation was like on Hacker News when rumors of Apple replacing Intel came up. I bet it was much of the same. Oh no, don’t do anything.