Yeah, exactly. TSMC has the premier process right now and is at capacity making chips for Apple, Qualcomm and other high margin (i.e. well-paying) customers. Cutting off the oddball folks for PR reasons costs them nothing at the moment.
Not as a TSMC fab customer it isn't, not remotely. The overwhelming bulk of Huawei's revenue remains in device manufacturing. They're a very recent entrant into the SoC market, and not moving a lot of product there.
Is it true or not that Huawei wanted to use HiSilicon for all of their phones? That is obviously true.
The consequence is that Huawei needs more chips than Apple, that would have been sourced from TSMC. Therefore, they had the intention to be a customer of at least equal size as Apple to TSMC.
How is any of this a lie? I fail to see how much money Huawei makes from this or that changes that Huawei needs more processors than Apple.
> Is it true or not that Huawei wanted to use HiSilicon for all of their phones? That is obviously true.
"Wanted to" is not the same as "does". If TSMC wanted to preserve a potential growth market for their fab, they'd prioritize Huawei/HiSilicon. But they don't, because they're at capacity making chips for western designers already. So they can kill off the Huawei business without worry, because it's not costing them anything. Free PR.
So what you are saying is that A who buys less from them is a bigger customer than B who buys more? Huawei buys more SoCs than apple hence they are a bigger customer. So that would make Apple small fry in your world. Not very likely.
Total phone sales, in number of units, which is what matters when figuring out how many chips to make, as well as market share as a proportion of units.
