It is insane that major US companies are making trillion-dollar bets that a single-source provider will remain operational.
You are aware TSMC has built two chip fabs in Arizona and building a third one, right? You are also aware that Samsung built a chip fab in Texas over 20 years ago and is building a second one, right?
Except that they would have to presumably reengineer the old silicon for Intel's process, which kind of defeats the purpose of reusing old designs to save money, I would think.
Or more likely, Intel will have to adapt their processes to Apple designs and for other companies if Intel wants to do business as a chip foundry.
Apple also uses CPUs in things like the Apple Watch
Off the top of my head, here are the other processors Apple uses: Apple Watch, Homepod (S series), AirPods (H series), modems (C series). There are millions to tens of millions of these processors that Apple will need each year.
Not at all. Apple used Intel CPUs for 15 years. The great "PC vs Mac" debate is about the user experience, not the hardware architecture of the CPU behind it, and certainly not what foundry a CPU comes from.
The main reason Apple left Intel was all on Intel for not making progress for years on chips. This was the same reason Apple left IBM. Apple thought that by using Intel they would not be in the same situation again. Little did anyone know how Intel would struggle at 10nm for years. It is unlikely that Apple will ever go back to using x86 for their main processors though.
Intel these days is more open to being a chip foundry like TSMC than before. Apple using Intel to fabricate their chips as a secondary supplier makes business sense for everyone.
How great is it that Trump requires Apple to do business with Intel, the spin will be delightful.
And why is this "great"? The main reason Apple stopped sourcing chips from Intel had nothing to do with politics. It was due to Intel's stagnation in making chips. Intel was stuck for years while AMD passed them by. Apple finally had enough. Some would call that just business.
Please, please, please let it be Apple's main processors. A hysterical black eye to Intel and a kick in the balls to Apple fanboys. Win win!
Again the issue was entirely Intel's incompetence at making progress for years. Apple would probably keep buying chips from Intel if they were good chips. After all Apple bought Intel's entire modem business from them. More than likely Intel will make other chips for Apple first. For example every AirPod requires a chip. Every Apple Watch requires a chip. Apple modem chip C1 could be fabricated by Intel.
Er, I meant if they have enough control to dump RAM. Thinko because what I was thinking is that if they can dump RAM they can dump your password database, too (unless user authentication is in the loop and that authentication relies on secrets not in the device).
By default, authentication is required. So dumping the password database dumps encrypted passwords as authentication is a separate process. Also Chrome requires authentication each time for each password; only Edge requires authentication once to load the entire database. Only Edge has the very flawed design you are assuming happens for all browsers. And that does not factor into additional hardware protections. For some Android phones and iPhones/Macs, the password database does not exist on any hard drive. The password database is stored in a separate security chip. So dumping the password database would be extremely difficult as access to the chip is not direct.
If Chrome has access to them without user authentication, then so does any attacker who can dump Chrome's RAM.
Please describe how this is possible because this is not how Chrome works. This is only how Edge works.
the IT admin assisting (accessing) your computer absolutely has the ability the compromise your passwords.
Please describe how.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A cucumber is not a vegetable but a fruit.