[mcphage]

> In 2017, when Apple announced it was moving away from using UK-based Imagination Technologies for graphics processors, the company lost two thirds of its value overnight.

I'm not sure what the author is suggesting here. They licensed technology from Imagine Technologies, so therefore they must continue licensing their technology?

Also: Imagine Technologies is a chip designer, not a chip fabricator. It's stuck in at the end of a paragraph about Apple's suppliers, but unless I'm mistaken—which I absolutely could be!—Imagine Technologies wasn't one. Also it's a UK company, so I'm not sure how Apple ending their contract with Imagine Technologies hurts the US's semiconductor problem.

[freedomben]

> I'm not sure what the author is suggesting here. They licensed technology from Imagine Technologies, so therefore they must continue licensing their technology?

I think you're overreading it. I don't think the author is arguing that Apple must stay a customer. Rather they are making a point about how much power Apple has a company. They clearly have the power to make or break other companies. That of course doesn't make the rest of the article correct, but the point about Apple being very powerful does make sense to me.

[mcphage]

> I think you're overreading it. I don't think the author is arguing that Apple must stay a customer. Rather they are making a point about how much power Apple has a company.

Maybe, but to me it reads more like "I'm writing a piece complaining about Apple, so I'll bring up every complaint about Apple I can think of, even if they're not really related to the article topic itself".