> "One thing is for sure, it's not a silicon fab."
Why do you say that? Yes, the EPA report seems to be redacted to obscure what they're actually doing there. But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab.
For sampling new nodes and producing the bulk of their chips, sure. But anything that's not tied to ASML doesn't inherently need to take place in Taiwan. TSMC is in a hugely advantaged position with IP and scalability, but I think it's feasible that Apple could test new lithography techniques or large-scale dies in any sort of environment they choose. Nobody is necessarily implying that they're prototyping low-yield iPhone hardware there.
Apple uses lots of other chips in the products besides the M-class mega processors being built at TSMC. Think of peripherals and MFI authentication chips.
It seems obvious to me that not every prototype needs to be done in TSMC's factories, and there are things that you can validate with cheaper processes.
This makes sense. A lot of the chemicals listed in the reports are those used in chip fabrication, but I'd imagine the same ones are also used in microLED fabrication.
Why do you say that? Yes, the EPA report seems to be redacted to obscure what they're actually doing there. But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab.