I remember the huge controversy around the iPhone 6S which had a processor that was either a 14nm Samsung or 16nm TSMC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A9). Apple had used Samsung for the iPhone 4 through iPhone 5S. The iPhone 6 was TSMC and the 6S was dual-sourced (20015/2016, 5 years ago).
I'd guess that some of TSMC's rise to prominence was partly driven by Apple not wanting to help Samsung. Apple was really pissed about Samsung copying the iPhone - not just by shipping an Android phone, but by copying icons to make their phones seem as similar as possible.
You can definitely look back at MacRumors articles from 2014 and see that there's a bunch of Samsung/GlobalFoundries/TSMC "who will be able to make it happen" talk.
In fact, re-reading through these articles, it seems that people thought that Samsung and its alliance with GlobalFoundries would be the winner of the iPhone 6S generation, but it's possible that Apple saw better yields from TSMC and saw the potential there. When you're as big as Apple, you're going to be really deep with your suppliers and you're going to have a lot of expertise to judge suppliers and their future potential. Maybe it was a combination of seeing TSMC over the iPhone 6/6S generation that gave Apple the confidence to move away from Samsung. Back in 2015, analysts were still expecting Samsung to be getting future business from Apple like the A10X processor.
Given that Apple is a buyer that can move mountains, how much of TSMC's ascendency is potentially Apple committing to a lucrative multi-year deal allowing TSMC to invest a lot of money knowing they had guaranteed orders? One of the hard things in business is knowing what to spend your time on - what do customers really want. Google, for example, has spent plenty of time on things that weren't good investments whether that's Wave or AppEngine or Google+. If you know "doing X will definitely make me a lot of money" it makes it easier to invest heavily in an area - basically, you kinda get the benefit of hindsight ahead of time with a long-term deal.
I hope Intel and Samsung continue to do well (or get back into the race as Intel's position might be) since more competition means lower-cost processors over the long-run. But I think it's definitely important that you point out that only a few years ago TSMC wasn't the powerhouse it is today. While I believe TSMC is going to continue to invest and improve, Samsung is producing Qualcomm's Snapdragon 888 on its 5nm process and if you're right about Samsung's 3nm process, that should provide a lot of orders there too - especially if Intel is willing to outsource manufacturing.
I'd guess that some of TSMC's rise to prominence was partly driven by Apple not wanting to help Samsung. Apple was really pissed about Samsung copying the iPhone - not just by shipping an Android phone, but by copying icons to make their phones seem as similar as possible.
You can definitely look back at MacRumors articles from 2014 and see that there's a bunch of Samsung/GlobalFoundries/TSMC "who will be able to make it happen" talk.
In fact, re-reading through these articles, it seems that people thought that Samsung and its alliance with GlobalFoundries would be the winner of the iPhone 6S generation, but it's possible that Apple saw better yields from TSMC and saw the potential there. When you're as big as Apple, you're going to be really deep with your suppliers and you're going to have a lot of expertise to judge suppliers and their future potential. Maybe it was a combination of seeing TSMC over the iPhone 6/6S generation that gave Apple the confidence to move away from Samsung. Back in 2015, analysts were still expecting Samsung to be getting future business from Apple like the A10X processor.
Given that Apple is a buyer that can move mountains, how much of TSMC's ascendency is potentially Apple committing to a lucrative multi-year deal allowing TSMC to invest a lot of money knowing they had guaranteed orders? One of the hard things in business is knowing what to spend your time on - what do customers really want. Google, for example, has spent plenty of time on things that weren't good investments whether that's Wave or AppEngine or Google+. If you know "doing X will definitely make me a lot of money" it makes it easier to invest heavily in an area - basically, you kinda get the benefit of hindsight ahead of time with a long-term deal.
I hope Intel and Samsung continue to do well (or get back into the race as Intel's position might be) since more competition means lower-cost processors over the long-run. But I think it's definitely important that you point out that only a few years ago TSMC wasn't the powerhouse it is today. While I believe TSMC is going to continue to invest and improve, Samsung is producing Qualcomm's Snapdragon 888 on its 5nm process and if you're right about Samsung's 3nm process, that should provide a lot of orders there too - especially if Intel is willing to outsource manufacturing.
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/05/a8-chip-underway-tsmc/
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/10/tsmc-apple/
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/25/tsmc-16nm-a9/
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/04/samsung-tsmc-still-comp...
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/17/samsung-apple-processor...
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/30/tsmc-chip-production-yi...
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/01/14/apple-diversifies-arm-c...