> The Journal report said that the U.S. government, which became Intel's largest shareholder last year under a deal with its CEO Lip-Bu Tan, played a major role in bringing Apple to the negotiating table.
Ah, so this wasn't a decision Apple freely made based on technical merits. Instead it sounds more like big government and a fancy stock manipulation scheme.
My guess, Apple drags their feet for a couple years and bails after Trump leaves office(or is significantly weakened after the midterms).
This is more my imagining a book plot than any real insight, but...
This wouldn't be Apple's first rodeo with Intel. They know how prior partnerships soured. Could a sufficiently powerful shareholder, like the US government, help mitigate Apple's concerns about the outcome of a new partnership? I.e. that Intel would be pressured to honor certain strategic obligations, even if the leadership at Intel isn't so keen?
There are many recent examples of market manipulation, but this isn't one of them. Digital sovereignty is being pushed in the EU too, and it's a good thing.
This comment should be more visible
>big government and a fancy stock manipulation scheme.
What's wrong with US gov caring about supply chain and manufacturing capability of the most needed technology right there - on American soil?
It is in US' interest to be able to produce such complex tech locally