> there aren't that many, that's the point.
There’s at least Qualcomm, AMD, and nVidia. All of these are huge. And then there are the smaller niche actors (who tend not to use the cutting edge, but help with RoI by forming the long tail). Demand is clearly there.
> Apple is responsible for most of its suppliers revenue as the article points out, otherwise it wouldn't have price setting power to begin with.
Apple has price setting power because they helped funding the fabs and the process. I agree that the result is not great for the industry overall, but they did not show up one day and kick the other customers out. Again, the main issue is the limited bandwidth because everyone depends on effectively a single supplier.
> we've bin in a supply glut.
Not on the leading nodes, though, right? The ones over which AMD, Apple, and nVidia are fighting. Or I missed that, in which case I would love to have more information (I mean solid, with numbers). That said, if that’s the case it does not help the story’s argument. Oversupply leads to lower margins, but one customer taking a large chunk of production restricts supply, which has the opposite effect.
> AI chips aren't the only chips in the world, DRAM makers like Micron, an American manufacturer are the kinds of companies that are effectively at the mercy of Apple because of how outsized of a portion of the market they are.
DRAM and CPUs tend not to use the same processes, so the only way they are in direct competition is because investment is limited but that point is undermined by Apple financing the fabs. So what is the actual problem here? IIRC Micron is investing quite a lot in new fabs in the US, with the help of the government, which is exactly what needs to happen.
The more I think about it, the less convincing the whole thing is. The story is a collection of rants because the author does not like Apple, but it is full of contradictions and non sequitur. There are some good points beneath, but they are well hidden and not directly relevant.