[windexh8er]

It's not just TSMC chips. Apple forces other chip manufacturers into exclusive deals to lock out the ability for 3rd party repair to be done cost effectively and reliably. Apple shouldn't be able to control the chip markets as they do. As indicated in the article they create slave labor conditions in a lot of these manufacturers because they're wholly dependent on Apple's whims. This also creates an e-waste problem globally as Apple inhibits the ability to more easily repair their hardware. Louis Rossman has some great examples [0] of Apple continuing to put defective hardware into devices that Apple knows will, and has, failed and there is no easy way to replace these components because Apple has locked up the supply chain via purchasing all available inventory and having exclusive rights to non-proprietary chips. This means you can't repair a device you own at a fiscally fair price. Instead you're forced into buying an entire assembly so Apple can charge a much higher multiple on a part that has higher margins which may just force you to buy an entirely new product because of the price point differential.

[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DF-MOkotA&feature=shared

[JumpCrisscross]

> Apple forces other chip manufacturers into exclusive deals to lock out the ability for 3rd party repair to be done cost effectively and reliably

How is this relevant to the chips TSMC manufactures? You can't exactly hand solder a 24nm feature.

[Kirby64]

There’s no “forcing” chip manufacturers into exclusivity deals. Chip vendors want the business, and Apple wants stuff customized for them. Plenty of IP that can be used in general market parts, too. Also, I can guarantee you that there’s a good amount of vendors that would rather not be forced to offer their chips that they provide to Apple on the general market.

[windexh8er]

> There’s no “forcing” chip manufacturers into exclusivity deals.

I'm not sure there's a fundamental understanding of how large businesses are changing their approach to supply chain in the name of competition with this statement.

The choice of these manufacturers is either take the volume order from Apple at lower margins and with stipulations or deal with market volatility. It's the stipulations aspect of what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive and generally horrible for consumers. Do you happen to work for Apple? Seems to be a very Apple-apologetic post for no good reason.

> Also, I can guarantee you that there’s a good amount of vendors that would rather not be forced to offer their chips that they provide to Apple on the general market.

OK. I'll take you up on that guarantee. Feel free to reply with reputable sources on the matter.

[Kirby64]

> The choice of these manufacturers is either take the volume order from Apple at lower margins and with stipulations or deal with market volatility. It's the stipulations aspect of what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive and generally horrible for consumers. Do you happen to work for Apple? Seems to be a very Apple-apologetic post for no good reason.

I don't, I just work in the industry. These aren't an either-or decision on Apple or not Apple products. IP from developments on Apple-exclusive stuff is used elsewhere. Look at TI's USB-C port controllers as an example used in Macbooks. They have a custom one for Apple, but you can buy their general market parts online just fine. It's not like Apple is preventing TI from selling USB-C controllers.

> OK. I'll take you up on that guarantee. Feel free to reply with reputable sources on the matter.

You won't find 'published sources' on this. You'd need to have a fundamental understanding of semiconductor industry. Support for general market customers is HARD. They tend to be particularly needy, especially compared to the return on investment. If your organization is designed around helping large customers (not just Apple, but any large customer) then you just do not have the appropriate business structure in terms of sales, distribution, etc, to manage that. Companies like TI/NXP/ST have that infrastructure, but there's plenty of smaller companies that just do not really support small customers.

I get that repair shops 'just want to buy the chip', but that's really not what making parts available on the market means. It means fielding questions, publishing datasheets, having FAE/sales support, having distribution channels, etc, which all adds to cost for very little ROI. Repair shops are basically a rounding error in terms of buying power compared to a Samsung, Apple, etc.

[windexh8er]

> I get that repair shops 'just want to buy the chip', but that's really not what making parts available on the market means.

This is where your argument breaks down at the fundamental level because this is flat out incorrect. Organizations like Digikey, and many others, do exactly this. They've been around a long time and they cater to low volume buyers at reasonable margins.

Unfortunately your argument seems rooted in missing fundamentals and conveniently are ignoring entire market segments to bolster your argument that Apple isn't in the wrong here. They are. And what they're doing is anti-competitive.

[Kirby64]

Did you overlook the rest of my comment? Digikey et al can handle distribution, yes, and in some cases can offer minor applications assistance, but they are not the manufacturer and therefore do not have the domain expertise required to adequately support the product. Especially complicated products. I can tell you I've worked with distribution FAEs directly, and they're more-often-than-not just messengers used to shuttle information from the customer to the actual manufacturer FAE or direct applications engineer.

They also don't produce any documentation, nor produce any application boards, collateral, drivers, etc.

Market segments that a company (a semiconductor company) wants to service all have different needs. General market/distribution is a very different business from custom/large customer business. Just like it's very different from industrial. Or automotive.

[rbanffy]

> Apple inhibits the ability to more easily repair their hardware.

This is why we need right-to-repair legislation with teeth.