Intel’s Bold Gamble: Wooing Apple to Rescue Its Chip Foundry Comeback

• Intel courts Apple as an investor: Intel has reportedly approached Apple about a strategic investment in Intel Foundry Services (IFS), its chip manufacturing division, as part of Intel’s comeback bid ^[1]. Early-stage talks are underway on deeper cooperation, though no agreement is guaranteed at this point ^[2].
• Massive stakes to fund Intel’s turnaround: In recent weeks Intel secured a $5 billion investment from Nvidia(~4% stake) ^[3] and a $10 billion U.S. government stake (~10% ownership via CHIPS Act funding) ^[4]. Japan’s SoftBank also pledged $2 billion for ~2% ^[5]. Apple’s involvement would mark another high-profile vote of confidence in Intel’s revival.
• Apple’s chip strategy at a crossroads: Apple ditched Intel’s chips in 2020 in favor of its in-house Apple Silicon(A-series & M-series processors) fabricated by TSMC ^[6]. Any Intel partnership would likely focus on using Intel’s foundries to manufacture Apple-designed chips – giving Apple a secondary, U.S.-based supplieralongside TSMC ^[7] without abandoning its custom ARM-based designs ^[8].
• Intel Foundry Services: cornerstone of a turnaround: Intel’s foundry push (IFS) is central to its strategy to catch up with TSMC and Samsung after years of process delays and market share loss ^[9]. The company is racing to deploy advanced nodes (Intel 20A, 18A, 14A) over 2024–2025, but needs major customers like Apple to fill its new fabs ^[10]. Industry observers say without big adopters, Intel’s costly pursuit of cutting-edge manufacturing may falter ^[11].
• High stakes for Apple and the industry: A deal could benefit Apple by diversifying its chip supply amid geopolitical risks in Asia ^[12] and bolstering Apple’s U.S. manufacturing profile. Analysts note it would improve Apple’s standing with Washington as the company commits $600 billion to U.S. investments over four years ^{[13] [14]}. Apple CEO Tim Cook has even welcomed Intel’s foundry ambitions, saying “Competition is very good for the foundry business… I’d love to see Intel come back.” ^[15] Such a partnership could shake up the semiconductor landscape, challenging TSMC’s dominance and impacting rivals like AMD and Nvidia.

<br>

Intel Foundry Services (IFS) and the Turnaround Plan

Intel Corporation – long synonymous with cutting-edge chips – has faced a harsh reality check in recent years. After falling behind in the race for smaller, faster processors and losing ground to fabless rivals, Intel launched a bold turnaround plan centered on Intel Foundry Services (IFS). Announced in 2021 under then-CEO Pat Gelsinger’s “IDM 2.0” strategy, IFS opened Intel’s manufacturing to outside customers for the first time ^[16]. The goal: leverage Intel’s factory network and process R&D to become a global contract chipmaker on par with TSMC and Samsung.

Why a foundry focus? Making chips for others would generate new revenue streams and scale, helping fund the enormous costs of leading-edge fabrication. It’s also a response to Intel’s own missteps – the company ceded its decades-long process technology lead to TSMC, which now produces the world’s most advanced chips for companies like Apple, AMD, and Nvidia. Intel’s manufacturing delays left it “struggling to compete… falling behind peers such as Nvidia and AMD” amid the AI and mobile boom ^[17]. By attracting external customers, Intel aims to fill its fabs and regain economies of scale, which are crucial to closing the gap with its Asian foundry rivals.

Key pillars of Intel’s turnaround:

• Aggressive process roadmap: Intel is executing on an accelerated node cadence, aiming to deliver five process nodes in four years. After launching Intel 7 (10nm-class) and Intel 4 (7nm-class) for its own chips, it plans to introduce Intel 20A and 18A (~2nm class) by 2024–25, and Intel 14A (~1.4nm) thereafter ^{[18] [19]}. These nodes (some using next-gen GAA transistor architectures and advanced EUV lithography) are being offered to foundry clients in parallel with internal use. For instance, Amazon Web Services (AWS) has already signed on to have a custom AI accelerator chip produced on Intel’s 18A process in coming years ^[20]. Intel claims its 18A/14A technology will rival TSMC’s best, but securing high-volume orders is critical to prove and fund these nodes ^[21].
• Structural changes and openness to external capital: To support IFS, Intel has begun separating its foundry unit’s financials and operations from its chip design business ^[22]. In 2024, the company set up IFS as an independent subsidiary with its own board, giving it greater autonomy and the ability to seek outside investment ^[23]. This is a significant cultural shift – historically, Intel’s manufacturing served only internal needs. But leadership recognized that being a successful foundry means being customer-centric and even taking on partners. (TSMC’s founder Morris Chang once noted that “Intel just does not know how to be a foundry” – a criticism from 2011 when Apple first considered Intel for chip production ^[24]. Intel is now intent on proving it can be a foundry, remaking its business model in the process.)
• Cost cutting and focus: Alongside the foundry pivot, Intel has been slashing costs and refocusing on core businesses. The company announced 15% workforce layoffs and paused or canceled planned factories in Europe to rein in spending ^{[25] [26]}. For example, a massive fab project in Germany was put on a two-year hold amid cost overruns and subsidy negotiations ^[27]. Intel is instead concentrating on expanding capacity in the U.S. (e.g. new fabs in Ohio and Arizona) where government incentives are strong ^[28]. These tough measures underscore that Intel’s comeback is an uphill battle – it must execute flawlessly on technology and economics to reclaim leadership.
• Leveraging government support: Recognizing Intel’s strategic importance, the U.S. government has stepped in as a major backer. In an unprecedented move, the White House helped engineer a deal for the federal government to take a ~10% stake in Intel ^[29]. About $10 billion in CHIPS Act funds will flow to Intel to accelerate its U.S. fab projects (such as the new Ohio plant) in exchange for that equity stake ^[30]. A White House spokesperson emphasized that “the taxpayer has an equity stake in Intel succeeding” and that the administration supports moves to “cement American tech dominance.” ^[31] Intel, once the undisputed “silicon” of Silicon Valley, is being propped up as a national champion to ensure the U.S. retains advanced semiconductor manufacturing onshore.

All these efforts make it clear: Intel’s foundry gambit is the linchpin of its turnaround plan. By 2025, IFS must demonstrate it can attract top-tier customers and deliver cutting-edge chips on schedule. Intel’s stock, which languished during its struggles, has started to rebound on optimism that the strategy is gaining traction – fueled by big-name partners and investors signing on. And that is where Apple enters the picture.

Intel’s New Allies: Nvidia, SoftBank, and a Bid to Attract Apple

In recent months, Intel has orchestrated a series of headline-grabbing deals to shore up confidence and funding for its revival. These deals not only inject capital but often come with strategic collaboration that could boost Intel’s technology or customer pipeline. The table below highlights the major investments and partnerships Intel has secured as part of its comeback strategy:

Sources: Bloomberg/Reuters ^{[48] [49] [50] [51]}, Business Korea ^[52], TrendForce ^[53].

As shown above, Intel has been actively courting industry heavyweights to either invest in or partner with the company:

• Nvidia’s partnership stands out as a blockbuster alliance between one-time rivals. In mid-September 2025, Nvidia agreed to pour $5 billion into Intel for a ~4% stake ^[54]. In return, the two will co-develop new chips that integrate Intel’s x86 CPUs with Nvidia’s GPU IP ^{[55] [56]} – effectively combining Intel’s processor expertise with Nvidia’s graphics and AI acceleration in single products. This is a bold move to counter AMD (which has its own CPUs and GPUs) and to push Intel-based PCs and data center systems with top-tier graphics. Crucially, Nvidia’s deal pointedly does not use Intel’s foundry to make Nvidia’s standalone GPU chips ^[57]; Nvidia continues to rely on TSMC for those. However, the partnership itself is a strong endorsement of Intel’s technology roadmap. It suggested to the market that if Nvidia is willing to collaborate (and invest) at this level, Intel must have something compelling. Intel’s stock popped ~6% on the news ^[58], reflecting renewed investor optimism.
• SoftBank’s investment came around the same time, with $2 billion for roughly 2% of Intel ^[59]. SoftBank (owner of Arm) is aligning with Intel as part of a broader “Stargate” project involving OpenAI and Oracle ^[60] – likely aimed at advancing AI hardware ecosystem in which Intel’s fabs could play a role. While details are sparse, SoftBank’s backing (with its ties to cutting-edge startups and the Japanese tech sphere) adds more credibility to Intel’s foundry business. It also underscores the geopolitical angle: Japan and the U.S. strengthening cooperation on semiconductors, partially as a counterweight to China’s ambitions.
• The U.S. government’s 10% stake is perhaps the clearest sign that Intel’s turnaround is considered a matter of national importance. The federal investment, facilitated in August 2025 via CHIPS Act funding, ensures Intel has billions to accelerate factory build-outs on U.S. soil ^[61]. Politically, it aligns with U.S. goals of on-shoring semiconductor production to avoid overdependence on Asian foundries. “The taxpayer has an equity stake in Intel succeeding,” noted a White House spokesperson, emphasizing that Intel’s success is tied to American tech leadership ^[62]. In practical terms, this money helps Intel expand capacity and catch up technologically, which in turn makes Intel a more viable manufacturing partner for companies like Apple.

With these alliances in hand, Intel has gained momentum. Its share price climbed over 40% from mid-August to late September 2025 ^[63], reflecting growing confidence. But one partnership remained elusive – perhaps the most symbolic and potentially impactful of all: Apple.

In late September 2025, news broke (via Bloomberg) that Intel had reached out to Apple about investing in the company and “working more closely together.” ^[64] People familiar with the talks described them as very preliminary and uncertain ^[65]. Still, the mere revelation sent Intel’s stock up another ~6% ^[66] – investors clearly thrilled by the prospect. Intel declined to comment on the rumors, and Apple likewise stayed mum ^[67].

For Intel, Apple’s participation would be a coup: not just for the cash investment, but for the vote of confidence from the world’s most valuable tech company and one of the most demanding chip buyers. “An agreement with Apple…would represent another endorsement of Intel’s turnaround push,” noted one industry report ^[68]. After all, Apple was a longtime Intel customer for Mac processors until 2020 ^[69]. Winning Apple back in any capacity would be a powerful validation that Intel’s manufacturing can meet cutting-edge standards again.

Intel is reportedly not stopping with Apple – it has approached several other companies for investments or partnerships as well ^[70]. In effect, Intel is casting a wide net to bring in as many allies as possible to support (and benefit from) its foundry resurgence. Each partner adds something unique: money, technology, or guaranteed business. Apple, however, would bring all three. The next sections explore why Intel wants Apple on board so badly, and why Apple might be interested in return.

Why Intel is Wooing Apple: The Motivation and Significance

From Intel’s perspective, getting Apple to invest in or become a major customer of IFS would be a game-changer. Here are the key reasons Intel is highly motivated to bring Apple into its camp:

• A marquee customer to prove IFS at scale: Apple is one of the world’s largest chip consumers by volume and by technological demand. Every year it produces hundreds of millions of system-on-chip (SoC) processors (for iPhones, iPads, and Macs) on TSMC’s leading-edge nodes, not to mention various ancillary chips. Securing even a slice of that production for Intel’s foundry would instantly fill Intel’s fabs with high-volume, high-profile work. This is exactly what Intel needs to demonstrate its new processes (like Intel 18A) are viable. As one tech site noted, “Intel has been looking for external customer volume, particularly for the 14A node. The only way it could succeed is if Team Blue manages to see adoption; otherwise, Intel is ready to abandon its race for cutting-edge chips.” ^[71] That may be hyperbole, but the sentiment is that without big customers, Intel’s advanced fabs risk operating underutilized – an unsustainable scenario. Apple’s business could single-handedly justify Intel’s multi-billion-dollar fab investments.
• Financial boost and shared risk: An equity investment from Apple, presumably in the range of several billion dollars, would bolster Intel’s balance sheet and help fund costly R&D and fab construction. Intel is currently pouring capital into new facilities in Arizona, Ohio, Ireland, and Israel. Having Apple essentially pre-pay (via investment) for future capacity would alleviate some financial strain. It also shares the risk – Apple’s money on the line signals to other investors that Intel’s biggest prospective customer believes in its roadmap. Moreover, Apple’s involvement could unlock better financing terms or government support, since it adds commercial credibility to Intel’s projects (beyond government mandates).
• Validation of Intel’s technology: Apple is known to be an extremely demanding partner when it comes to semiconductors. The company has access to the best silicon from TSMC and pushes for aggressive improvements each generation. If Apple were to commit any of its chip production to Intel, it implies a belief that Intel’s process technology can meet Apple’s stringent requirements for performance, power efficiency, and yield. In essence, Apple would be giving Intel a seal of approval that could sway others. It’s hard to overstate the symbolic reversal this would represent: Apple famously rejected Intel as a foundry in 2011, with Tim Cook reportedly saying “Intel just does not know how to be a foundry” at the time ^[72]. Intel’s inability to win Apple’s chip business back then helped TSMC rise to dominance. Now, in 2025, if Apple even entertains Intel as a supplier, it suggests Intel’s foundry is finally becoming competitive. This could prompt other fabless companies to give Intel a serious look, breaking TSMC’s near-monopoly on leading-edge contracts.
• Strategic alignment and potential IP synergy: While Apple would not use Intel’s x86 CPU designs (more on that below), there could be other technology sharing that benefits Intel. For instance, Apple is a leader in chip packaging and integration (e.g. its multi-chip module designs, advanced mobile DRAM packaging, etc.). Intel too has invested heavily in advanced packaging (Foveros 3D stacking, EMIB interconnects). A partnership might involve collaborative work on packaging or process IP that strengthens Intel’s offerings for all customers. Additionally, Apple’s expertise in low-power design could theoretically inform Intel’s approach to certain process optimizations for mobile chips. In a less direct way, having Apple as a stakeholder might also discipline Intel to focus on customer needs and on-time delivery – something Intel historically struggled with. Knowing that it must deliver for Apple could transform Intel’s internal culture to be more TSMC-like in responsiveness and reliability.
• Competitive blow to TSMC (and Samsung): If Intel lures away even part of Apple’s workload, it deals a strategic blow to TSMC (currently Apple’s exclusive foundry for SoCs). Apple accounts for an estimated 25% or more of TSMC’s revenue, and even higher share of its cutting-edge capacity usage ^[73]. Any shift of Apple orders to Intel would free up TSMC capacity (which competitors like AMD or Nvidia might snap up), but it could also erode TSMC’s economies of scale and learning advantage at the very tip of the spear. Moreover, the endorsement of Intel would break the perception that only TSMC (and to a lesser extent Samsung) can handle the most advanced chips. Intel wants to position itself as an equal alternative, and Apple’s business would instantly provide that credibility. It’s worth noting Samsung is also vying for big clients (it recently secured Tesla’s auto-chip order and some Apple component orders as discussed later), so Intel likely feels urgency to win a major deal before Samsung can snatch one. In the long run, Intel likely sees an opportunity to split Apple’s supply chain with TSMC, much as Apple dual-sourced some components in the past (e.g., sourcing iPhone displays from both Samsung and LG, or memory chips from multiple suppliers). Being one of Apple’s two foundry partners would be a huge strategic victory for Intel’s foundry business.
• Rekindling a historic relationship: On a more sentimental note, Apple was an important Intel customer for nearly 15 years – all Mac computers ran on Intel CPUs from 2006 through 2020. That relationship ended when Apple’s own silicon outpaced Intel’s roadmap, but there’s institutional familiarity between the companies. By bringing Apple back into the fold in a new way, Intel could salvage that relationship for the future. It’s not about Apple using Intel’s processors again (that ship has sailed), but about forging a new partnership for the next era. Such a deal could also help erase the narrative of Apple “dumping” Intel, which was a PR blow to Intel’s image. Now the storyline could become, “Apple and Intel are teaming up to strengthen U.S. chipmaking” – a much more positive look for Intel.

In short, Apple’s involvement would tick every box for Intel: money, manufacturing volume, prestige, and a strategic win against competitors. Little wonder Intel’s CEO (now Lip-Bu Tan, as of 2025 ^[74]) has been “trying to bring in partners” of Apple’s caliber as part of the turnaround ^[75]. It’s a moonshot move, but if it lands, it could dramatically accelerate Intel’s comeback.

What’s in It for Apple? Apple’s Motivation and Concerns

At first blush, the idea of Apple investing in Intel – or using Intel’s foundries – might seem odd. After all, Apple spent years breaking free of Intel’s chips so it could control its own silicon destiny. The flagship Macs now run on Apple’s M-series ARM-based chips, which have wowed with their efficiency and performance, leaving Intel’s offerings in the dust. Apple designs its mobile chips in-house and has them built at TSMC, whose manufacturing prowess is unmatched. Why would Apple look back to a struggling Intel?

The answer lies in Apple’s strategic needs going forward, which include supply chain security, diversification, and political considerations. Here’s why Apple might be interested in a partnership:

• Supply chain diversification – reducing risk: Apple’s entire semiconductor production for core products currently depends on one company: TSMC (located primarily in Taiwan). This is a concentration risk. Geopolitical tensions have raised alarms about over-reliance on Taiwan’s chip industry. If, say, a conflict or blockade were to disrupt TSMC, Apple’s ability to produce iPhones and Macs could be crippled. Even aside from worst-case scenarios, having a single-source supplier means Apple is exposed to any issues at TSMC – whether yield problems, capacity constraints, or price hikes. Indeed, chip designers have grown dissatisfied with TSMC’s capacity limits and steep price increases as its dominance has grown ^[76]. By cultivating Intel as a second source, Apple could mitigate these risks. Even if Intel only makes a portion of Apple’s chips (or certain less critical components), it provides a fallback and bargaining leverage. For example, Apple might dual-source future wireless modem chips between TSMC and Intel or have Intel produce chips for newer product lines like AR/VR devices or automotive systems, while keeping iPhone SoC production with TSMC until Intel fully proves itself. This kind of split manufacturing is complex but not unheard of for Apple – in the past it dual-sourced some iPhone chips from Samsung and TSMC. Apple would of course demand stringent consistency and quality, but having two foundries working in parallel could be an ideal hedge.
• Onshoring and political goodwill: Apple has been under pressure from U.S. authorities to localize more of its manufacturing. The Trump administration (as of 2025, President Donald Trump is in office again) has pushed tariffs and policies to encourage domestic production ^[77]. Apple, for its part, announced in 2025 that it is increasing its U.S. investment commitment to $600 billion over 4 years (up from a prior $500 billion pledge) ^{[78] [79]}. Yet most of Apple’s products are still built in Asia, and nearly all its chips are made in Taiwan. Partnering with Intel offers Apple a high-profile way to boost U.S.-based chipmakingin its supply chain. If Apple were to say, “We will build X% of our chips at Intel’s Arizona and Ohio fabs by 2026,” it would score points with U.S. lawmakers and the administration. Indeed, analysts have suggested that supporting Intel aligns with Apple’s efforts to curry favor in Washington ^[80]. It’s essentially Apple putting some of its huge cash reserves to work in America’s tech infrastructure, which could help its image and reduce political risk. One report noted that Apple could “substitute the ‘domestic investment’ demanded by the Trump administration with acquiring a stake in Intel.” ^[81] In other words, rather than Apple building its own fab (which it has no experience in), investing in Intel achieves a similar political end. There’s also a patriotic angle: Apple benefits if a strong U.S.-based foundry exists, ensuring it’s not completely beholden to offshore providers for key components.
• Maintaining control over chip design: Crucially, nothing about an Intel tie-up would require Apple to abandon its in-house chip design leadership. Apple would not be going back to buying standard Intel x86 CPUs – that chapter is over. Instead, Apple would still design its custom ARM-based chips (the A-series for iPhone/iPad, M-series for Mac, etc.), and simply have the option to fabricate some of them at Intel. Apple has world-class silicon design teams (many of which came from PA Semi, Intrinsity, and even Intel’s acquired modem team). Those teams give Apple a competitive edge over other device makers. That edge remains intact. From Apple’s perspective, using Intel’s foundry is akin to using TSMC’s – a pure manufacturing service, not Intel’s silicon IP. As Business Korea observed, “It seems unlikely that Apple will abandon its own chip designs and return to using Intel CPUs. The ‘cards’ Intel can offer are its long-developed technology IP and foundry cooperation.” ^[82] In fact, Apple has additional chip projects where Intel’s IP might be useful: for example, Apple has long wanted to produce its own 5G modem chips to replace Qualcomm’s. Apple even bought Intel’s mobile modem division in 2019 to jump-start that effort ^[83]. While Apple’s in-house modem has reportedly faced delays, if and when it’s ready, Apple could conceivably tap Intel’s RF expertise or even manufacture the modem at an Intel fab (since Intel had experience building modem chips, albeit not very successfully). Similarly, Apple might look to Intel for specialized chip needs – say, certain packaging technologies or even outsourcing production of less sensitive silicon (power management chips, legacy node components, etc.). All this would allow Apple to focus its internal design on the core application processors while leveraging Intel’s capacity for other pieces.
• Leveraging competition for better terms: Even if Apple ultimately sticks mostly with TSMC, having Intel as a viable alternative can give Apple negotiating power. TSMC is ramping its prices and has a queue of customers; Apple’s priority status is assured now, but over time Apple wants to avoid being dependent on any single supplier’s whims. By playing Intel and TSMC off each other for future chip orders, Apple could secure better pricing or priority. This is a playbook Apple has used in other areas – e.g., diversifying display suppliers (Samsung and LG) to get favorable deals, or dual-sourcing memory chips to avoid shortages. In the semiconductor realm, even the possibility that Apple might allocate, say, 20% of its A-series production to Intel could push TSMC to be more accommodating on capacity guarantees or technology sharing (TSMC might offer earlier access to a new node, etc., to keep Apple exclusive). In essence, Apple stands to gain leverage and resilience at relatively low cost (since it would only shift production if Intel meets the required quality).
• Access to cutting-edge U.S. capacity: There is also a timing aspect. TSMC’s first U.S. fab in Arizona has faced delays – its 4nm line likely won’t meaningfully contribute until 2025 or 2026, and even then at limited scale. Samsung is building a new fab in Texas (Taylor) for 2025+ with 3nm capacity, which Apple thus far hasn’t tapped for main chips. Intel, meanwhile, is expanding multiple U.S. sites. Should there be any disruption in Asia or if Apple simply wants more cutting-edge chips than TSMC can supply, Intel’s fabs could become an essential supplement. By investing now, Apple can reserve a seat at the table – potentially securing priority access to Intel’s future 18A/14A lines. This is somewhat speculative, but Apple’s own growth (with new device categories like AR glasses, cars, etc. rumored) means its chip demand could increase dramatically. It will need every available advanced fab to meet its needs. Getting Intel up to speed expands the total industry capacity at the leading edge, which ultimately benefits Apple by ensuring supply. Tim Cook alluded to this, saying “competition will help the foundry industry” ^[84] – Apple wants multiple healthy foundry suppliers in the long run.
• Recent hints of Apple’s multi-foundry approach: In fact, Apple is already taking steps to diversify chip production beyond TSMC in limited ways. In August 2025, Apple announced a new partnership with Samsung’s Austin, Texas fab to supply certain chips for Apple devices ^[85]. According to Reuters, “This facility will supply chips that optimize power and performance of Apple products, including iPhone devices,” Apple said in a statement ^[86]. Analysts revealed that Samsung will be making image sensor chips for future iPhones, taking over some volume that Apple previously bought from Sony ^[87]. Since Sony manufactures image sensors only in Japan, Apple’s move to Samsung’s U.S. fab shows a clear intent to localize production in the U.S. and reduce reliance on a single vendor ^[88]. As one analyst noted, “Apple appears to be diversifying its suppliers and localizing production in the United States.” ^[89] This is precisely in line with Apple’s $100 billion expansion of its U.S. investment commitment ^[90]. If Apple is willing to have Samsung produce critical iPhone components in America, it’s a strong indicator that Apple would likewise consider Intel’s American foundries for other chip needs. The Samsung deal (likely involving relatively mature 28nm or 65nm processes for image sensors) is a stepping stone; the Intel deal would target cutting-edge logic chips on ~2nm processes. But the philosophy is the same – multi-source manufacturing for resilience and political favor.

All these factors suggest that Apple’s interest in Intel is not born out of charity or nostalgia, but out of sound strategic calculus. Apple wouldn’t be investing to prop up Intel per se; it would be investing to prop up its own future supply chain stability.

Of course, there are significant concerns and hurdles from Apple’s side too:

• Can Intel deliver? Apple will need convincing proof that Intel’s technology and capacity can meet Apple’s requirements. Intel’s 18A process is unproven in high-volume production as of 2025. Any sign of delay or inferior performance/yield, and Apple will shy away – Apple cannot afford missteps in its iPhone launch cycles. Intel’s recent manufacturing track record (struggles with 10nm, etc.) still looms in memory. As MacRumors put it bluntly, “There is no chance that Apple would switch back to Intel chips for its products” given Intel’s past shortcomings ^[91]. Thus, any partnership would likely start small or in a limited domain. Apple may “trial” Intel by having it fabricate a less mission-critical chip first (for example, an upcoming Apple Watch or AirPods processor, or the aforementioned modem or sensor chips). Only after Intel proves itself would Apple consider moving a flagship A-series or M-series SoC to Intel’s fabs. In essence, trust must be re-earned.
• Switching costs and complexity: Using a second foundry for advanced chips is not trivial. Apple would have to design its chips with dual fabrication in mind – ensuring the design can be manufactured on both TSMC’s process and Intel’s (which have different characteristics, libraries, and IP). This is a non-trivial engineering effort, potentially requiring larger design teams or some compromises in optimization. Apple typically pushes the envelope of TSMC’s process with custom tweaks; doing that simultaneously for Intel’s process would be challenging. However, Apple’s vast resources and top talent could overcome this if the strategic benefit is high. They may also initially utilize Intel for chips that are more self-contained or modular, where process porting is easier (e.g., an AI co-processor chiplet, or a previous-gen chip re-spun for a secondary device).
• Intel as a competitor in AI? Another angle: Apple and Intel, while not direct competitors in consumer devices anymore, do compete in certain areas like high-performance computing and potentially AI. Intel is trying to build AI accelerators (like its Gaudi chips) and regain data center dominance from companies using GPUs (Nvidia) or custom silicon (like Google TPUs). Apple’s interest is primarily in consumer device chips, so there may not be much conflict. But Apple might be cautious about how much intel (no pun intended) it shares with Intel – for instance, if Apple is far ahead in some packaging tech, it might not want to fully share that with Intel, even as a partner. Any deal would have to include clear safeguards for IP and competitive boundaries. Given Apple’s famously secretive culture, working closely with Intel will require establishing trust and firewalls.

Overall though, the benefits to Apple of a robust Intel foundry option are significant. It aligns with Apple’s long-term trend of gaining more control over its components (the difference here is Apple isn’t building the fab itself, but ensuring one is available to serve it). As long as Apple can participate on favorable terms – perhaps a board seat at Intel, or preferential fab capacity – the partnership could be very attractive.

Tim Cook’s public comments give a clue: when asked in 2025 about Intel’s foundry moves, he said, “We’d love to see Intel come back.” ^[92] That is a diplomatic way of saying Apple wants Intel to succeed, because it could use Intel’s success to its own advantage.

Next, we’ll look at how this potential Intel-Apple alliance fits into the broader foundry industry context, and how it compares to what competitors are doing.

Foundry Face-Off: Intel vs. TSMC vs. Samsung (and Where Apple Silicon Fits)

The competition to manufacture the world’s most advanced chips has largely been a two-horse race: TSMC and Samsung Foundry. Intel’s foray into contract manufacturing makes it a third entrant – one with a lot of ground to make up. Apple’s decision will hinge on how Intel’s capabilities stack up against these incumbents. Let’s compare the players:

• TSMC – The Titan of Silicon: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. is the undisputed leader in chip fabrication. As a pure-play foundry (no chips of its own), TSMC focuses on one thing: making other companies’ designs with the best process technology. It commands an estimated 60%+ of the global foundry market, dwarfing competitors. TSMC is years ahead in high-volume production of cutting-edge nodes – it was first to 5nm and 3nm production, and is on track to pilot 2nm in 2025 and recently even discussed aiming for 1.4nm by ~2027–2028 ^[93]. Apple is TSMC’s biggest customer, using exclusively TSMC for iPhone, iPad, and Mac chips since 2014. TSMC has earned Apple’s trust with industry-leading yields and a steady cadence of improvements. However, TSMC’s fabs are primarily in Taiwan (with smaller ones in China) and only now expanding to the U.S. and Japan (at higher cost). TSMC’s scale gives it huge economies and the ability to invest tens of billions annually in R&D and new facilities – an advantage Intel is now trying to match with government help.
• Samsung – The Challenger (and Collaborator): Samsung is unique in that it is both a chip designer (it makes Exynos processors, memory chips, etc.) and a foundry for others. It has about ~15-20% foundry market share, making it #2. Samsung’s process tech has been competitive, but often a step behind TSMC in yield or timing. For instance, Samsung jumped to 3nm GAA (gate-all-around) transistors in 2022 before TSMC, but struggled with yields and has had limited client uptake for that node. Samsung has, however, landed some big clients historically – it fabricated some Qualcomm Snapdragon chips and even some Apple A-series in the early 2010s. Recently, Samsung scored a major win with Tesla, which signed an $16.5 billion deal for Samsung to make Tesla’s next-gen self-driving “AI Chip” on 2nm at the new Texas fab ^{[94] [95]}. Samsung also, as noted, will produce image sensors for future iPhones in Texas ^[96]. These indicate Samsung is aggressively seeking high-profile orders to close the gap with TSMC. Samsung’s strength is its deep pockets (the backing of the Samsung conglomerate and South Korean government) and its willingness to take on complex custom projects. However, Samsung is also a competitor to Apple (in smartphones), which can complicate relationships. Apple likely prefers not to rely on Samsung for its brain chips due to that competitive tension (and IP security concerns), whereas Intel – which no longer supplies chips to Apple’s device rivals – might be seen as a more neutral partner.
• Intel – The Wild Card Newcomer (in Foundry): Intel’s entry flips its traditional role. Intel is used to only competing in end-product performance (CPUs) – now it must compete on manufacturing excellence and customer service. Technology-wise, Intel claims its upcoming Intel 18A node (1.8nm class) in 2025 will be equal to or better than TSMC’s 2nm. It’s implementing advanced transistor designs (RibbonFET, PowerVia) and has ordered cutting-edge lithography tools like ASML High-NA EUV machines to leapfrog to its 14A node (~1.4nm) by 2026 ^[97]. If those plans hold, Intel could theoretically be on par with TSMC by late this decade. But it’s one thing to develop a node, another to ramp it for mass production at high yield – something TSMC is masterful at. Intel is still proving it can do that for external customers. Culturally too, Intel is adapting to be more customer-focused. An anecdote from TSMC’s Chang highlights that in the past “Intel always acted like they were the only guy… [TSMC] learned to respond to every request, even crazy ones, courteously. Intel has never done that.” ^[98] Intel will have to provide the kind of service and collaboration fabless clients expect. The foundry business model is different: it involves working closely with customers on design rules, IP libraries, customization, and often involves co-investment (e.g., customers may invest in tools or capacity at the fab). Intel has set up the independent IFS unit to handle this, even separating P&Ls and allowing external capital ^[99]. It’s a work in progress. As of late 2024, Intel finally announced some marquee foundry customers: AWS (for an AI chip on 18A) ^[100], and reportedly media reports of a potential custom chip for Microsoft on 18A as well. These are encouraging signs, but AWS and Microsoft are mostly doing internal-use chips. Apple would be the first huge commercial-volume customer. If Intel can win Apple’s business, it sends a signal that Intel’s foundry is truly competitive with TSMC’s – a seismic shift in the industry dynamics.

It’s also instructive to consider Apple’s position among these giants. Apple is the largest consumer of leading-edge node capacity in the world (thanks to iPhones’ enormous volume). For the last decade, Apple has essentially funded TSMC’s rise – by committing to buy massive volumes of chips each year, Apple gave TSMC confidence to invest in each new node early. Apple often gets first access to TSMC’s newest processes (for instance, the A17 Pro chip in the 2025 iPhone is made on TSMC’s 3nm, which Apple had essentially monopolized initially). If Apple now spreads its orders, it could similarly end up funding Intel’s advancement. That’s a potential loss for TSMC (less Apple money means TSMC might scale back some expansion plans) and a win for Intel (Apple money means full steam ahead on new tech).

How about other fabless players like AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm? They will be watching closely:

• AMD, which years ago spun off its own factories to go fabless, has enjoyed a renaissance by leveraging TSMC’s nodes for its Ryzen CPUs and Radeon GPUs. AMD is now a major customer of TSMC at 7nm and 5nm, competing head-on with Intel’s products. If Intel’s foundry becomes viable, AMD could theoretically become a customer of its arch-rival – something that was unthinkable before. Intel’s CEO has even said the foundry is open to making other companies’ x86 chips under license ^[101]. We’re not there yet, but if Intel’s 18A is great and TSMC is constrained, AMD might one day consider dual-sourcing some chips from Intel. However, AMD would be cautious, as giving money to a competitor (Intel) that also makes its own CPUs is delicate. Much depends on how “separate” Intel keeps the IFS business – e.g., ensuring AMD’s chip designs would be firewalled from Intel’s CPU design teams. In any event, AMD benefits in the short term from Intel’s struggles, but it also would benefit from more foundry competition lowering wafer prices. So AMD is likely quietly supportive of Intel’s foundry push, as long as it doesn’t disadvantage AMD’s access to capacity.
• Nvidia, as we discussed, decided to partner with Intel on specific product development, but not (yet) entrust Intel to fabricate its main GPUs. Nvidia relies mostly on TSMC (for high-performance GPUs on 5nm/4nm) and sometimes Samsung (it used Samsung 8nm for a recent generation to secure more capacity). Nvidia’s $5B bet on Intel indicates Nvidia does want a stronger domestic chip ecosystem (and possibly wants to keep TSMC on its toes). In a few years, if Intel’s processes prove out, Nvidia might have the option to fabricate some chips – perhaps certain AI accelerators or mid-range GPUs – at Intel to supplement TSMC output. CEO Jensen Huang has historically been open to multi-sourcing (as long as product consistency can be maintained). Nvidia will surely leverage the threat of Intel as a way to negotiate with TSMC, similar to Apple. In summary, Nvidia stands to gain if Intel can offer additional capacity (it alleviates the supply crunch for AI chips), but Nvidia will want to see real results from Intel’s fabs before making any big shift.
• Qualcomm and others: Qualcomm has dual-sourced between TSMC and Samsung for years (e.g., its Snapdragon 8 Gen chips have hopped between Samsung and TSMC nodes depending on yield and timing). Qualcomm could be another candidate to use Intel’s foundry in the future, especially for its lower-power or older chips, if Intel’s pricing is attractive. MediaTek, another mobile chip firm, actually inked a deal in 2022 to trial some production on Intel’s 16nm node (a relatively mature tech) – a low-risk way to start cooperation. So Intel has been cultivating other fabless companies in parallel. None have moved high-volume, high-end products to Intel yet. Apple would be the trend-setter if it does.

In the big picture, the foundry landscape is at an inflection point. For years, TSMC had a near-monopoly on bleeding-edge logic fabrication (with Samsung a distant second). Now, geopolitical forces and massive investments (via Intel + CHIPS Act, Samsung’s expansion, etc.) are attempting to regionalize and diversify chip manufacturing. Apple’s potential partnership with Intel can be seen as part of this broader shift: ensuring that the West (especially the U.S.) has at least two viable advanced foundry options (Intel and TSMC’s Arizona fab, plus Samsung Texas) so that companies like Apple are not solely dependent on East Asian supply lines.

Intel’s ambition is not just to match TSMC, but to create a multi-source ecosystem where maybe Apple splits orders: e.g., 70% TSMC, 30% Intel for a given chip, or alternately uses one for first-generation, the other for second sourcing. Even a single-digit percentage of Apple’s business would be a huge win for Intel, while Apple would benefit from more competition. As Tim Cook remarked, competition is healthy in this arena – it drives innovation and could potentially lower costs or improve service for customers like Apple.

Implications and Industry Impact

If an Intel-Apple investment deal and foundry partnership comes to fruition, the ripple effects would extend across the tech industry. Here we consider the implications for each major stakeholder and the broader market:

• For Intel: Successfully bringing Apple on board would mark a crowning achievement in Intel’s turnaround journey. It would likely come with a significant capital infusion (potentially on the order of $5–10 billion from Apple, though figures are speculative) and a long-term supply agreement. Intel would get a stable, huge customer to plan its fab loading around, improving its factory utilization and economies of scale. Financially, beyond the investment, Intel would secure future revenue streams from producing Apple chips – diversifying its income beyond just Intel’s own CPU sales. Strategically, it cements Intel’s role as “America’s semiconductor company,”jointly owned by government, big tech (Apple, Nvidia), and investors. In fact, with Apple in the mix, one could argue Intel becomes a sort of consortium-backed entity where multiple stakeholders have an interest in its success (as Business Korea quipped, Intel’s transformation into “America’s semiconductor public corporation” ^[102]). This could further boost Intel’s stock and enable more fundraising if needed (since confidence would be high). However, Intel would also face pressure – Apple’s standards are exacting, and any slip in delivering for Apple could be costly. Intel might have to prioritize Apple’s needs even sometimes over its own product lines. For instance, if Apple wants a certain capacity at Intel’s best fab, Intel might need to ensure there’s no resource contention with its in-house CPU production. Balancing being a foundry and a product company is tricky; this was one of the reasons Intel historically didn’t fab for others. Now it must ensure strict internal firewalls and fairness so that Apple (as a customer) feels it gets first-class treatment, and that Intel’s product teams don’t feel shortchanged either. It’s a new way of doing business for Intel.
• For Apple: A partnership would give Apple more control over its supply chain resilience and align with its commitment to U.S. manufacturing. In the near term, Apple might not shift its marquee chip production (like the latest A-series for iPhone) to Intel until it’s confident. But Apple could start with one of the following scenarios: having Intel manufacture a slightly older chip (for example, an older generation SoC that Apple uses in lower-end devices), or a smaller chip like a coprocessor, or even just leveraging Intel for advanced chip packaging services(Intel has advanced 3D packaging that Apple might use for stacking memory or integrating chiplets). Any of these would give Apple familiarity with Intel’s process. Over a longer horizon, Apple stands to benefit from potentially better pricing leverage. TSMC’s leading-edge wafer prices have been climbing (reports suggest 3nm wafers cost thousands of dollars each). If Intel offers a competitive process at a lower introductory price (perhaps subsidized by all the government/partner money), Apple could save on manufacturing costs. Additionally, Apple investing in Intel could yield financial returns if Intel’s share price rises with success – essentially Apple could profit from Intel’s comeback as a shareholder. Apple has nearly $200 billion in cash; putting a few billion into securing chip supply is a wise strategic investment akin to how it invests in suppliers’ factories (like funding display production lines, etc.). A possible side-benefit: Apple’s investment might give it some say in Intel’s technology direction; for instance, Apple could push Intel to prioritize certain process features that benefit Apple’s chips (like optimizing for low power or high density) as part of the partnership. This influence could help tailor Intel’s offerings more to mobile SoC needs, which historically Intel’s processes were not optimized for (Intel optimized for high-frequency PC chips). On the caution side, Apple will have to manage dual-source production carefully to ensure consistent quality. It will also need to maintain its relationship with TSMC – likely by continuing to award TSMC the lion’s share of cutting-edge work until/unless Intel proves truly equal. TSMC will surely fight to keep Apple’s business (perhaps by accelerating its own roadmap or offering capacity guarantees). Apple will be in the enviable position of having two tech giants vying to build its chips – a good problem to have, but one that requires delicate navigation.
• For TSMC: An Intel-Apple deal would be an unwelcome development for TSMC, though not an immediate catastrophe. In the short term, Apple is still tied to TSMC for current products (e.g., the A17/M3 chips on 3nm). But if Apple signals plans to eventually move some volume to Intel 18A or 14A, TSMC would lose future business. TSMC might respond by improving its services or pricing for Apple to dissuade any shift. For example, TSMC could offer Apple first access to its 2nm production in Taiwan (expected ~2025-2026) and perhaps ensure the Arizona fab (which will make 4nm/3nm) is dedicated to Apple as planned once it’s ready. Also, TSMC has incredibly deep ties with Apple – they have teams co-located, and Apple is reportedly TSMC’s partner in developing new packaging tech like InFO and CoWoS. Those collaborative relations won’t disappear overnight. However, in the long run, if Intel establishes itself, TSMC could see a more competitive landscape that might end its ability to charge premium prices. It’s worth noting that TSMC’s other big customers (AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm) would also potentially divert some orders if Intel becomes viable. So TSMC’s dominance in the fab market could erode from ~60% share down to something lower, affecting its growth. Geopolitically, TSMC has been somewhat caught in the middle – the U.S. is grateful for its investment in Arizona, but ultimately the U.S. would prefer an American company (Intel) to lead. TSMC’s founder Morris Chang recently commented that globalization is dead and that localization (like the U.S. building its own fabs) is a new reality. TSMC will remain a powerhouse, but an Intel-Apple alliance would signal that the era of single-sourced mega-fabs might be giving way to a diversified model.
• For Samsung: Interestingly, Samsung might see both positives and negatives. On one hand, if Apple goes with Intel instead of considering Samsung for main chip production, Samsung loses an opportunity. Samsung would have loved to grab a chunk of Apple’s A-series orders (even though Apple is a competitor, business is business – Samsung did build Apple’s A-series chips until 2013 and again a portion in 2015). If Apple firmly allies with Intel, Samsung is effectively locked out of that huge volume of business. On the other hand, if Intel and Apple together challenge TSMC, it could loosen TSMC’s grip on customers like Qualcomm or Nvidia, who might then consider splitting orders between TSMC and Samsung to hedge as well. Samsung has been improving its foundry processes and recently reported a revival in its foundry profits thanks to new orders ^[103]. It won Apple’s image sensor chip order and possibly (as per some reports) even some portion of Apple’s in-house modem if that materializes ^[104]. So Samsung will continue to position itself as an alternative. In fact, an Intel-Apple deal could spur Samsung to invest even more in its foundry tech to not fall behind Intel. All three – TSMC, Samsung, Intel – will then be in a technology arms race. This could benefit customers (like Apple) in the end, with faster innovation.
• For other tech companies (AMD, Nvidia, etc.): As discussed, AMD and Nvidia stand to benefit from an expanded foundry ecosystem. In the medium term, neither is likely to jump to Intel’s foundry until it’s well proven – they have too much at stake and currently enjoy excellent execution at TSMC. But if Intel’s effort is buoyed by Apple’s involvement, it might reach maturity faster. That could mean by late 2020s, AMD or Nvidia have the option to fabricate some chips at Intel. At the very least, the leverage dynamic shifts: AMD and Nvidia can point to Intel’s rising foundry and say to TSMC, “we have alternatives if needed,” potentially securing better allocation or slightly lower prices. There is also the scenario that Intel’s own products (CPUs, GPUs) will improve from the influx of funds and tech partnerships – which means stiffer competition for AMD in CPUs and for both AMD/Nvidia in GPUs. For example, if Intel and Nvidia co-developed a fantastic CPU+GPU chip, that could take market share from AMD’s APUs or from combinations of Intel CPU + Nvidia GPU currently sold separately. In sum, AMD/Nvidia will have to continue innovating, but they likely welcome more manufacturing capacity because both have faced supply constraints (especially Nvidia with GPUs for AI).
• For the semiconductor market and innovation: The entry of Intel (reinforced by Apple’s patronage) into contract manufacturing could catalyze innovation. TSMC and Samsung will be pushed to advance even faster to stay ahead of Intel’s roadmap. We might see faster deployment of new technologies like High-NA EUV lithography, new transistor architectures (ribbonFET, nanosheets, CFETs), and advanced packaging solutions as they all compete. This intense competition could also benefit smaller fabless companies – when there’s more supply of top-tier manufacturing, even smaller players (startup chip designers, etc.) might get access where previously TSMC would prioritize only the largest customers. Costs could come down or at least stabilize; in recent years, wafer prices were rising due to limited competition. With Intel in the mix, there may be more pricing pressure. From a supply chain resilience perspective, having multiple foundry options globally reduces the risk of single point failures – a positive for the tech industry’s stability.
• Challenges ahead: It must be said, the scenario of Apple investing in Intel is not without precedent, but it is unusual. We haven’t often seen a big consumer-facing tech company take an equity stake in a supplier of this size. It signals how critical chips have become – they’re now viewed as strategic assets worth co-investing in. If this succeeds, it could set a model for other collaborations. If it fails (e.g., talks fall apart or Intel can’t meet expectations), it will reinforce the current order (with TSMC remaining dominant). Intel still has to execute nearly flawlessly on its upcoming nodes to win Apple over. Any delay or stumble (like if Intel 18A slips timing or yields disappoint) could cause Apple to back off and stick with TSMC, leaving Intel’s foundry dreams in jeopardy. As one industry watcher quipped, Intel’s overtures to Apple are almost “begging for money” after five years of being left out in the cold ^[105]. Intel must show that the trust (and money) wouldn’t be misplaced.

In conclusion, the Intel-Apple investment talks reflect a convergence of needs: Intel needs a savior customer to validate and fund its comeback, and Apple needs a secure, diversified source for the chips that are the lifeblood of its products. The partnership, if realized, would signify a dramatic realignment in the semiconductor ecosystem – one where old rivals find common cause to navigate new technological and geopolitical challenges.

Industry experts are watching keenly. As market research firm TrendForce noted, such an agreement would be “another endorsement” of Intel’s strategy, and is seen as focusing on Intel’s foundry capabilities as the key attraction for Apple ^{[106] [107]}. Both companies stand to gain: Intel from Apple’s extensive chipset orders and investment, and Apple from a stronger, U.S.-based chip supply chain.

Only time will tell if this Silicon Alliance materializes. If it does, the next few years could usher in a golden age of chip innovation driven by an unlikely tag-team – Intel’s manufacturing might and Apple’s design prowess – all in the service of creating the next generation of world-changing devices.

Sources:

• Reuters – “Intel seeks investment from Apple, Bloomberg News reports” (Sept 2025) ^{[108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]}
• MacRumors – “Five Years After Apple Broke Up With Intel, Intel is Begging for Money” (Sept 2025) ^{[114] [115] [116]}
• Business Korea – “Intel Seeks Apple Investment Amid Strategy Shift” (Sept 2025) ^{[117] [118] [119] [120]}
• TrendForce News – “Intel Explores Investment Talks With Apple, Foundry Seen as Key” ^{[121] [122]}
• Reuters – “Intel foundry business to make custom chip for Amazon…” (Sept 2024) ^{[123] [124]}
• Reuters – “Apple says Samsung will supply chips from Texas factory” (Aug 2025) ^{[125] [126]}
• WCCFtech – “After NVIDIA, Intel reportedly looking to partner with Apple…” ^[127] (analysis/speculation)
• AppleInsider – Tim Cook interview at iPhone 17 launch (Sept 2025) ^[128] (Cook quote on foundry competition)
• MacRumors – TSMC Founder on why Apple chose TSMC over Intel (Jan 2025) ^{[129] [130]} (historical anecdote)

References

1. www.reuters.com, 2. www.reuters.com, 3. www.reuters.com, 4. www.reuters.com, 5. www.reuters.com, 6. www.macrumors.com, 7. www.reuters.com, 8. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 9. www.reuters.com, 10. wccftech.com, 11. wccftech.com, 12. www.reuters.com, 13. www.trendforce.com, 14. www.trendforce.com, 15. appleinsider.com, 16. www.reuters.com, 17. www.reuters.com, 18. wccftech.com, 19. wccftech.com, 20. www.reuters.com, 21. wccftech.com, 22. www.reuters.com, 23. www.reuters.com, 24. forums.macrumors.com, 25. www.macrumors.com, 26. www.reuters.com, 27. www.reuters.com, 28. www.reuters.com, 29. www.reuters.com, 30. www.reuters.com, 31. www.reuters.com, 32. www.macrumors.com, 33. www.reuters.com, 34. www.reuters.com, 35. www.reuters.com, 36. www.reuters.com, 37. www.reuters.com, 38. wccftech.com, 39. wccftech.com, 40. www.reuters.com, 41. www.reuters.com, 42. www.reuters.com, 43. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 44. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 45. www.reuters.com, 46. www.reuters.com, 47. www.trendforce.com, 48. www.reuters.com, 49. www.reuters.com, 50. www.reuters.com, 51. www.reuters.com, 52. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 53. www.trendforce.com, 54. www.reuters.com, 55. wccftech.com, 56. wccftech.com, 57. www.reuters.com, 58. www.reuters.com, 59. www.reuters.com, 60. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 61. www.reuters.com, 62. www.reuters.com, 63. www.reuters.com, 64. www.reuters.com, 65. www.reuters.com, 66. www.reuters.com, 67. www.reuters.com, 68. www.trendforce.com, 69. www.macrumors.com, 70. www.macrumors.com, 71. wccftech.com, 72. forums.macrumors.com, 73. semiwiki.com, 74. www.reuters.com, 75. www.reuters.com, 76. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 77. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 78. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 79. www.trendforce.com, 80. www.trendforce.com, 81. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 82. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 83. www.macrumors.com, 84. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 85. www.reuters.com, 86. www.reuters.com, 87. www.reuters.com, 88. www.reuters.com, 89. www.reuters.com, 90. www.reuters.com, 91. www.macrumors.com, 92. appleinsider.com, 93. www.reddit.com, 94. www.reuters.com, 95. www.reuters.com, 96. www.reuters.com, 97. wccftech.com, 98. forums.macrumors.com, 99. www.reuters.com, 100. www.reuters.com, 101. www.reuters.com, 102. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 103. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 104. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 105. www.macrumors.com, 106. www.trendforce.com, 107. www.trendforce.com, 108. www.reuters.com, 109. www.reuters.com, 110. www.reuters.com, 111. www.reuters.com, 112. www.reuters.com, 113. www.reuters.com, 114. www.macrumors.com, 115. www.macrumors.com, 116. www.macrumors.com, 117. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 118. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 119. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 120. www.businesskorea.co.kr, 121. www.trendforce.com, 122. www.trendforce.com, 123. www.reuters.com, 124. www.reuters.com, 125. www.reuters.com, 126. www.reuters.com, 127. wccftech.com, 128. appleinsider.com, 129. forums.macrumors.com, 130. forums.macrumors.com