Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The only things I’d be objecting to (if anything at all) would be claims that Trump should get credit for a plant that’s been planned since 2022, or that this in any way currently affects present economic conditions in the country (beyond construction). Being somewhat familiar with the current administration’s penchant for pretentious big wins (like Bondi’s idiotic claim today that Trump has saved 258 million lives in the USA so far this year), I’d like to see his fans be a tad more realistic, that’s all. 😉
Meh, that's just how American politics and media coverage works. Biden was widely credited—and ironically, blamed—for the COVID-19 vaccines whose development was funded under the first Trump administration; Trump claimed credit for some U.S. manufacturing regrowth deals signed under Obama; and every modern president gets credit or blame for the economic conditions during their term, even if no one knows how much they're really influenced by executive policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuruZac
Not sure about cost, but there’s a point to diversifying. Apple has been wanting to diversify production/suppliers for years. Not for political theatre, but hedging for political(and other) turmoil.

diversify is just a PR word, what it really means is that seeking for cheapest labor.
 
I have no idea why people in the comments are objecting to American jobs coming back to America. Thank you Apple and TSMC. Whatever work you are doing in America is giving people jobs.
How many exactly, after its buit, and the construction workers leave and the place is populated by 100 workers and 10000 machines doing the work.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: jaymc
Maybe we should stop defending them then. We just gave them 8 billion dollars recently for defense and now they want to give us an inferior product.
They don't want to give the US an inferior product. The restriction is on where the product is made, not on where it is sold. They just want to manufacture their best product in their own country.
 
Meh, that's just how American politics and media coverage works. Biden was widely credited—and ironically, blamed—for the COVID-19 vaccines whose development was funded under the first Trump administration; Trump claimed credit for some U.S. manufacturing regrowth deals signed under Obama; and every modern president gets credit or blame for the economic conditions during their term, even if no one knows how much they're really influenced by executive policy.
Well, don’t be making apolitical factual statements now…

I think any bit of manufacturing job that comes back to America is only a good thing. Whether Biden, Trump, whoever, I really don’t care (nor thin-skinned enough to care) which president is involved in the decision making. If it helps the U.S. economy, it’s a win in my eyes.
 
The whole idea is when China takes Taiwan. There will be no chips/semiconductor plants there. They’ll be safe within the US where the CCP won’t dare come to sniff for them
 
It’s not permanently restricted to 4nm. It’s restricted to being one generation behind the latest nm process in Taiwan, which changes over time.

It will simply stay a step or two behind the leading tech coming out of Taiwan.

By 2028 they’ll be producing 2 nm chips in Tawain, so they’ll be able to produce 3 nm chips at the plant opening in 2028 in Arizona.
How do we know this? It is the Taiwanese government that will decide on export controls, not TSMC and if they want to keep the latest 2-3 node technology in their country for the national interest/security, they can.
 
Let me get this straight. The chips will be made here and then shipped back to China for assembly. And that’s more cost effective?

Or is this all political theatre?
The shipping cost difference between chips made in Taiwan and those made in Arizona is probably not as much as most people would believe. The glass on an iPhone for instance (not the multitouch display) has been made in the US for years.

As I'm sure everyone here knows, the amount of work to figure the least expensive route of making everything for an iPhone (or other product) is intense. Even if the cost is a touch higher, good public relations (political theater as you, and not incorrectly, put it) also has good value.
 
Also the raw materials will probably be shipped to the US to make them in the first place.

It doesn't sound very carbon neutral...

"carbon neutral" is just a bunch of marketing talk. it's like saying electric vehicles are cleaner and better for the environment than ice vehicles, while completely ignoring the process involved in making them. majority of the "green" stuff is just marketing aimed mostly at the naive who think they're helping if they're contributing to the cause, which is really intended at lining someone else's pockets.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jaymc and I7guy
"carbon neutral" is just a bunch of marketing talk. it's like saying electric vehicles are cleaner and better for the environment than ice vehicles, while completely ignoring the process involved in making them. majority of the "green" stuff is just marketing aimed mostly at the naive who think they're helping if they're contributing to the cause, which is really intended at lining someone else's pockets.

They are though, even if you include making them - by a long long way.
 
Here’s these Chip Act plants survive the ongoing tariffs. This is what building American manufacturing should look like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaymc
How do we know this? It is the Taiwanese government that will decide on export controls, not TSMC and if they want to keep the latest 2-3 node technology in their country for the national interest/security, they can.
Right. Article 22 of Taiwan’s Industrial Innovation Act.

That’s how we know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiranmk2
Arizona seems to be the place for new foundries.

However, I read the headline and chuckled as when I read “Apple chips” I thought of “potato chips”. Way too much MR.
 
This is like the old story about the glass factory in the old USSR. They were paid based on the square meters of glass produced, so that made the cheapest and thinnest glass they could. When you have silly rules, people will read them carefully to find silly ways to maximize profit.
Unfortunately USSR were run by Trotskists like Khrushchev and others from 1953 to 1991 and Trotsky was all about making a State weaker so "silly rules" have a deep profound meaning. You probably did not even noticed yourself that you used a term "to maximize profit" with regards to a communist/socialist country(!!!). This is exactly how Trotskism works: changing the major vector of development in opposite direction in a way that is managing to bypass peoples defense mechanisms.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jaymc
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.