I'm not sure this is the correct framework.
THE fault line in tech is not between Apple and Google, or between TSMC and Samsung, it is between the engineering companies and the finance companies.
The engineering companies (Apple, Google, Facebook, SS, TSMC, AMD, AMZ, ...) care about changing the world, and believe a version of "it you build it they will come".
The finance companies (Intel, Qualcomm, pretty much all the telcos cable co's) care ONLY about the bottom line, and don't care about crippling or killing products the second they stop making money. They have zero understanding of a changing world (all their models are based on an assumption that the world stays pegged to exactly how it worked the day the model was created) and zero confidence that new products will create new markets.
(MS? As always a split personality, half the company stuck in the old model, half in the new...)
You may not LIKE the priorities of some of the engineering companies (Facebook...), others of them may sometimes be so incompetent that you have to wonder how long they can survive (SS), but THEY are the companies that change the world; the others only watch (and grab what they can...)
So look at Google in this context. On the mobile side they're stuck with QC and their utter lack of ambition (64-bit ARM, cancelling Falkor) and insistence now on pushing tech not based on quality but on their monopoly (everything about mm wave and the 5G chipsets). On the s86 side Intel is hardly an inspiring partner.
If you believe you can change the world, why not create your own chips? There is a lot of space of variation here. It doesn't have to mean your own core (A4, A5 were not Apple custom cores). Get a good core from ARM, a good GPU from somewhere else, max out the cache (unlike that cheapskate QC), add the largest NPU/TPU known to mankind (you know that's something Google cares about), add a HW AV1 encoder/decoder ...
And their own chip (again, not necessarily their own core) allows Google to grow beyond the blinkered limitations of their partners. They can try to create some halo Chromebooks that aren't just cheap junk? Maybe try for the tablet market again? Maybe downscale to an Android Wear device that doesn't feel like it belongs in 2013? There's even scope to use such chips (if well designed) in the data center for some of the more menial tasks.
The point is you don't understand Google (or Apple, or Facebook; though you do understand INTC or QC) by asking "what's the addressable market today, and how much revenue can we squeeze from it", but by asking "what totally new things would this allow us to do"?
[automerge]1586887552[/automerge]
Maybe so, but the competitor is not Apple, it is Chinese Android, it is MS, it is Facebook, it is Amazon...
