There is no doubt that Apple needs to diversify its processor supply chain, but Samsung and Intel are weak alternatives next to TSMC. Apple may try anyway.

Rumors have come and gone about Apple buying Intel for its US foundries, but something about that idea stuck. More recent rumors suggested Apple could start relying on Intel for Apple Silicon production as soon as 2027 or 2028.

According to a new report from Bloomberg, Apple has been considering Intel and Samsung to build “main device chips” for some time. While the recent chip and memory shortage has added some pressure, Apple had allegedly been making these considerations well before the current situation.

Samsung makes sense as an option because it is the distant number two chip fabricator to TSMC. It has the capabilities of meeting Apple’s strict quality demands, though it would be vastly limited on capacity.

Intel has been repeatedly mentioned in many rumors for various reasons. There was a time when it seemed Intel would dissolve, but it was revived thanks to a controversial 10% stake purchased from the US government under Trump.

The company even approached Apple for a direct investment, though it appears that nothing ever came from that.

Even if the Intel and TSMC’s joint venture results in some Apple chip production in the United States, it would be a paltry amount that barely put a dent in TSMC’s monopoly. However, it would surely score some brownie points with the US administration.

The report suggests that no decision has been made and Apple may not move forward with any new partners. TSMC continues to be the producer of Apple Silicon with over 60% of that made in Taiwan.

Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as is the rest of the world. TSMC has been one of the few companies the world can rely on for advanced silicon, and if China decides to invade, it could devastate the global economy.

At this point, it seems Apple’s only options are strengthening its rival Samsung or embracing the flailing Intel. This situation could be among the defining aspects of John Ternus’ tenure as CEO, though some are apparently more worried about retiring executives.