Apple wants a second source. Intel and Samsung want it to be them.


Bloomberg reports Apple is in early-stage discussions with Intel and Samsung about producing some of its M-series chips. The talks are exploratory; the signal is significant.

Apple’s silicon strategy has, for nearly a decade, run on a single foundry relationship. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that the company is now exploring early-stage discussions with Intel and Samsung Electronics about manufacturing some of its M-series processors, in a quiet move to diversify production away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. 9to5Mac confirmed the reporting on the same day, framing it as the most concrete signal yet that Apple is taking foundry concentration risk seriously enough to act on it.

Apple is not, on the available reporting, planning to walk away from TSMC. The discussions are at an early stage, no orders have been placed, and Apple has internal concerns about whether non-TSMC technology can match the yield, performance, and timing the company has come to depend on.

The most likely scenario, by AppleInsider’s analysis, is that Apple uses Intel or Samsung for its lower-end M-series parts, the chips that ship in MacBook Air, iPad Pro, and similar mid-volume products, while keeping its highest-performance silicon on TSMC nodes. Initial shipments of any non-TSMC part are not expected until the second or third quarter of 2027.

The strategic logic is two-track. The first track is geopolitical: TSMC’s continued concentration in Taiwan is a known supply-chain risk in any scenario involving a Chinese move on the island, and Apple has been quietly diversifying around that question for years. The second track is commercial.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Intel’s foundry services have been rebuilding under Lip-Bu Tan’s leadership, with Apple as one of the customer relationships Intel has reportedly pursued most aggressively. Samsung’s foundry, while a step behind TSMC on leading-edge nodes, has historical capability and excess capacity. Both companies want Apple business badly. Apple, by extension, has unusual leverage.

The challenge nobody has fully solved

The hard problem is yield. Industry analysts at Semiwiki have tracked the gap between TSMC’s leading-edge nodes and Intel’s and Samsung’s equivalents through 2026, and the consensus is that both alternative foundries are closer to TSMC’s quality than they have been in years, but neither has fully closed the gap. For Apple, which has historically shipped tens of millions of M-series units per year and demands consistent performance across that volume, even a small yield difference compounds into meaningful product-cost and customer-experience differences.

The supply context also matters. TNW reported last week that Apple raised the entry-level Mac mini’s starting price from $599 to $799 after AI-driven demand depleted inventory at higher configurations. That kind of demand pressure makes any foundry diversification more urgent, but also riskier: a yield problem at a new manufacturing partner would amplify, not relieve, the supply constraint Apple is currently dealing with.

Tuesday’s reporting is, in itself, unlikely to change Apple’s near-term product roadmap. The longer-term signal is more consequential. Apple has, for the first time in its modern silicon era, publicly hinted that the TSMC relationship is no longer treated as singular. Whether the eventual outcome is a partial second-source arrangement, a long-running negotiating posture, or no change at all, the fact that Apple is publicly signalling diversification interest changes the bargaining table for all three foundries.

The next signal will come not from Apple but from Intel and Samsung. If either announces a leading-edge process win that includes Apple as a customer over the next 12 to 24 months, the diversification thesis will have moved from exploration to commercial reality. If neither does, the discussions will be remembered as one of the smaller chess moves in Apple’s longer game with its most important supplier.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews



In short: Accel has raised $5 billion in new capital, comprising a $4 billion Leaders Fund V and a $650 million sidecar, targeting 20-25 late-stage AI investments at an average cheque size of $200 million. The raise follows standout returns from its Anthropic stake (invested at $183B, now valued near $800B) and Cursor (backed at $9.9B, now reportedly around $50B), and lands in a Q1 2026 venture market that deployed a record $297 billion.

Accel, the venture capital firm behind early bets on Facebook, Slack, and more recently Anthropic and Cursor, has raised $5 billion in new capital aimed squarely at AI. The raise, reported by Bloomberg, comprises $4 billion for its fifth Leaders Fund and a $650 million sidecar vehicle, positioning the firm to write average cheques of around $200 million into late-stage AI companies globally.

The fund lands in a venture capital market that has lost any pretence of restraint. Q1 2026 saw $297 billion flow into startups worldwide, 2.5 times the total from Q4 2025 and the most venture funding ever recorded in a three-month period. Andreessen Horowitz has raised $15 billion. Thrive Capital has closed more than $10 billion. Founders Fund is finishing a $6 billion raise. Accel’s $5 billion is substantial but not exceptional in a market where the biggest funds are measured in the tens of billions.

The portfolio that made the pitch

What distinguishes Accel’s fundraise is the portfolio it can point to. The firm invested in Anthropic during its Series G at a $183 billion valuation. Anthropic has since closed a round at $380 billion and is now attracting offers at roughly $800 billion, meaning Accel’s stake has more than quadrupled in value in a matter of months. Anthropic’s annualised revenue has hit $30 billion, a trajectory that no company in history has matched.

The firm’s bet on Cursor has been similarly well-timed. Accel backed the AI code editor in June 2025 at a $9.9 billion valuation. By November, Cursor had raised again at $29.3 billion. By March 2026, the company was reportedly in discussions at a valuation of around $50 billion. For a developer tool that barely existed two years ago, the appreciation is extraordinary.

Accel’s broader AI portfolio extends beyond these two headline positions. The firm has backed Vercel, the frontend deployment platform; n8n, an AI-powered automation tool; Recraft, a professional design platform; and Code Metal, which builds AI development tools for hardware and defence applications. In March 2026, Accel launched an Atoms AI programme in partnership with Google’s AI Futures Fund, selecting five early-stage companies from what it described as a global applicant pool focused on “white space” opportunities in enterprise AI.

The Leaders Fund model

Accel’s Leaders Fund series is designed for later-stage investments, the kind of large cheques that growth-stage AI companies now require. With an average investment size of $200 million and a target of 20 to 25 deals from the new $4 billion fund, the strategy is concentrated: a small number of high-conviction bets on companies that have already demonstrated product-market fit and are scaling revenue.

This is a different game from traditional venture capital. At $200 million per cheque, Accel is competing less with seed and Series A firms and more with the mega-funds, sovereign wealth funds, and corporate investors that have flooded into late-stage AI. The firm’s argument is that its early-stage relationships and technical evaluation capabilities give it an edge in identifying which companies deserve capital at scale, and in securing allocations in rounds that are massively oversubscribed.

Founded in 1983 by Arthur Patterson and Jim Swartz, Accel built its reputation on what the founders called the “prepared mind” approach, a philosophy of deep sector research before investments materialise. The firm’s most famous prepared-mind bet was its 2005 investment of $12.7 million for 10% of Facebook, a stake worth $6.6 billion at the company’s IPO seven years later. The question now is whether Accel’s AI bets will produce returns of comparable magnitude.

What the market is pricing

The sheer volume of capital flowing into AI venture funds reflects a market consensus that artificial intelligence will be the dominant technology platform of the next decade. The numbers are difficult to overstate. OpenAI raised $120 billion in 2026. Anthropic has raised more than $50 billion. xAI closed $20 billion. Waymo secured $16 billion. These are not venture-scale numbers; they are infrastructure-scale capital deployments that would have been unthinkable outside of telecommunications or energy a decade ago.

For limited partners, the investors who commit capital to venture funds, the logic is straightforward: the returns from AI’s winners will be so large that even paying premium valuations will generate exceptional multiples. Accel’s Anthropic position, where a single investment has appreciated several times over in months, is exactly the kind of outcome that makes LPs willing to commit $5 billion to a single firm’s next fund.

The risk is equally visible. Venture capital is a cyclical business, and the current fundraising boom has the characteristics of a cycle peak: record fund sizes, compressed deployment timelines, and a concentration of capital in a single sector. The last time venture capital raised this aggressively, during the 2021 ZIRP era, many of those investments were marked down significantly within two years. AI’s commercial traction is far stronger than the crypto and fintech bets that defined that earlier cycle, but the valuations being paid today leave little margin for error.

The concentration question

Accel’s fund also highlights a structural shift in venture capital. The industry is bifurcating into a small number of mega-firms that can write cheques of $100 million or more and a long tail of smaller funds that compete for earlier-stage deals. The middle ground, the traditional Series B and C investors, is being squeezed by mega-funds moving downstream and by AI companies that skip traditional funding stages entirely, going from seed round to billion-dollar valuations in 18 months.

For a firm like Accel, which operates across offices in Palo Alto, San Francisco, London, and India, the $5 billion raise is a bet that it can maintain its position in the top tier as fund sizes inflate and competition for the best deals intensifies. Its portfolio of 1,199 companies, 107 unicorns, and 46 IPOs provides a track record. But in a market where Anthropic alone could generate returns that justify an entire fund, the temptation to concentrate bets on a handful of AI winners is strong, and the consequences of getting those bets wrong are correspondingly severe.

The broader picture is that AI venture capital has entered a phase where the funds themselves are becoming as large as the companies they once backed. Accel’s $5 billion raise would have made it one of the most valuable startups in Europe just a few years ago. Now it is table stakes for a firm that wants to participate meaningfully in the rounds that matter. Whether this represents rational capital allocation or the peak of a cycle that will eventually correct is the question that every LP writing a cheque today is, implicitly or explicitly, answering in the affirmative.



Source link