Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

Alan Baker wrote:


Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
blocks purchased on the open market".

Even big companies do this now.

In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
from a third party.

All it takes is money.

The only people IP blocks don't work out for, are
small developers.

Paul

On 2020-07-09 10:27 p.m., Paul wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:


Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from
IP blocks purchased on the open market".

Even big companies do this now.

In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
from a third party.

All it takes is money.

The only people IP blocks don't work out for, are
small developers.

But we're actually discussing the ARM-architecture-based CORES, Paul

On 2020-07-10 05:04:45 +0000, Paul said:
For a friend wrote:
On 2020-07-09 9:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:44:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:

transistion over to Apple Silico

*Why do you call it Apple silicon when it has _always_ been ARM silicon?*

It has never been ARM silicon, Liar; well, not since the A6.

Apple designs its own chips, Liar.

To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".

Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
fabricated it.

It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".
snip

It's an Apple designed chip, so they can call it whatever they want.
Who fabricates the chip is irrelevant. There only a few chip
manufacturers which are used by all the big names for their chips. Same
goes for a lot of what is inside electronics. Some companies even
simply re-badge a product without doing anything themselves.

Similar happens in other industries. For example, Toyota and Subaru
have a joint venture sportscar project which created two cars: the
Toyota 86 (aka originally named the Scion FR-S in North America) and
the Subaru BRZ. Both are almost identical cars, both have a Subaru
engine, and both are manufactured in Toyota's factories.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:04:45 -0400, Paul wrote:

To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".

Hi Paul,

I converse with you differently than I do with the cultist Appleseeds.

Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple is all MARKETING and the lowest R&D in the high tech industry.

REFERENCE:
o *Can anyone find a high tech outfit with a _lower_ R&D spend than Apple?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk

As for what we _can_ more accurately call it, that's an object of debate
where we would have the goal of accurately characterizing what it is; but
you have to realize I'm reacting to the fact that Apple is frantic for us
to NOT characterize it for what it is, but what they want their customer to
_think_ it is.

REFERENCE:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bull****
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
(using licensed ARM technology)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/1GSxfEdrL6k

We can never forget how powerful Apple propaganda is on its users' minds:
o Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.

Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
fabricated it.

It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".

Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple has no intention, ever, of accurately characterizing what it sells.

They didn't use the word ARM even once in their entire ARM Mac rollout!
o Appleseeds are ruled by this (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING playbook.

Remember, it's been called ARM Silicon for Apple since, oh, since forever.
o Only now, is the word ARM banished from Apple MARKETING ARM Mac spiels!

o *Ten years of Apple technology shifts made the ARM Mac possible*
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/12/ten-years-of-apple-technology-shifts-made-the-arm-mac-possible
(Count the number of times they use "ARM Mac" or "ARM Silicon".
(Then count the number of times they use "Apple Silicon").

*Suddenly, ARM Silicon is now, instantly, magically, Apple Silicon!*

Why?
o Of course, any reasonable competent adult instantly knows why.

Apple is frantic we NOT think of the ARM-based Mac as what it really is!
o Remember: Apple is all MARKETING & the lowest R&D in all of high tech.


If the SOC is constructed from IP blocks purchased on the
open market, that doesn't say much, except that you had
buckets of money.

Apple is all MARKETING (which, as a result, their profits are insane).

Rest assured I am fully aware why Apple MARKETING is frantic that we do not
realize what it sells, and only think the way MARKETING wants us to think.

Bear in mind, Apple not only has buckets of money, the _reason_ they have
all that money, is they spend almost nothing on R&D (nobody can find even a
single high-tech company of any import that has a lower R&D spend, and if
you don't believe that shocking result, just look here for the facts):

An engineer at work was given such buckets
of money once, to prepare a chip that was almost engineering-free.

Let's remember, the ARM Mac CPU is expected to be _cheaper_ than what Apple
is using today for the Intel-based Mac CPUs.

The part is fabricated by TSMC.

Yup. It's ARM technology, fabricated by TSMC.
o I reported that to the (incredibly ignorant) AppleSeeds long ago.

o *Apple Plans to Announce ARM, TSMC, 5nm, A14 Macs*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/iN5nqHcaZmM

And guess what?
o The incredibly ignorant Alan Baker Appleseed _disputed_ that fact!

Can you believe it?
o He's likely claiming, at this moment, it's Apple Silicon.

And yet, just before he figured out I told the facts...
o He was disputing that Apple was announcing what they eventually did.

They dispute _any_ fact they simply don't like.
o Yet, the fact they hate facts doesn't change the fact they're facts!

But because that companies CPU doesn't have "the Apple smell",
of course Apple couldn't use it. But it would allow a
relatively painless ship date.

Well, to that sensible point, Paul, I speak with you as an adult,
differently than to the apologists, whom I drop down to their level.

The fact that Apple is moving the Mac CPU to ARM technology is really,
based on the reports I read to date, a move that helps Apple's bottom line.

They didn't do it to make a more powerful Mac, based on what those reports
said (see previous cites); they did it to save money.

Of course, they will MARKET the hell out of it, as Apple is all MARKETING
and the lowest R&D spend in the entire high tech industry, bar none.

And, of course, they'd be fools to ship it without _some_ performance
gains, which, let's consider, they would have had to do anyway, given each
system over the years needs to be more powerful anyway (usually).

Given they'd have a more powerful Intel-based Mac, all they need to do is
switch the "all new... more powerful" spiel from Intel-based Mac marketing
glossy literature, to the ARM-based Mac.... ooooops....

I mean to the Apple Silicon based Macs.
--
Apple is all MARKETING (with the absolute lowest R&D in all of high tech!).

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:27:20 -0400, Paul wrote:

Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
blocks purchased on the open market".

Even big companies do this now.

In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
from a third party.

All it takes is money.

We long ago showed Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever!
o And no, a CPU that must be throttled isn't best in class by any test.
o And no, a CPU with huge unpatchable holes isn't best in class either.

They failed on modems (along with Intel), and they failed on GPUS.
o These are facts Apple MARKETING doesn't want us to even think about.

QUESTION:

If Apple has _never_ in its history made a best-in-class chip design...
o What makes the AppleSeeds think Apple can, now, finally, pull it off?

HINT: "M A R K E T I N G" rules their minds, e.g., "*APPLE SILICON!!!!!*"

BTW, for the AppleSeeds to ponder (adults already know the answer)...
o Whom does Apple get their critical high-tech 5G modem technology from?
--
There's a reason for ungodly Apple profits - MARKETING is powerful indeed.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:47:14 +1200, Your Name wrote:

It's an Apple designed chip, so they can call it whatever they want.

To the _adults_ on this newsgroup,
o On THIS newsgroup, we should speak facts (not MARKETING bull****).

YourName doesn't get the adult point, which isn't what Apple _calls_ it.
o The adult point is what it really and truly _is_ on this newsgroup.

Not what (brilliant) Apple MARKETING propaganda wants you to _think_ it is.

Remember, Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D (this is a fact).
o Nobody has yet found _any_ high tech company with lower R&D % spend.

Marketing is POWERFUL on gullible people like Your Name clearly is.
o MARKETING literally _rules_ the minds of AppleSeeds like Alan Baker.

But this is Usenet - we don't have to speak in bull**** MARKETING terms.
o We can discuss, as adults, what it really "is"

Not what Apple MARKETING wants us to "think" it is.

It's clear, AppleSeeds like Alan Baker & YourName are bamboozled.
o They can only parrot exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds them.

To their gullible (and feeble) brains, it _is_ whatever Apple calls it.
--
Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D so consider MARKETING powerful.

On 2020-07-10 7:20 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:27:20 -0400, Paul wrote:

Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
blocks purchased on the open market".

Even big companies do this now.

In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
from a third party.

All it takes is money.

We long ago showed Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever!

No. You never showed that.

o And no, a CPU that must be throttled isn't best in class by any test.

Nope. That's not true.

o And no, a CPU with huge unpatchable holes isn't best in class either.

You never showed that.


They failed on modems (along with Intel), and they failed on GPUS.

Nope. You never showed that either.

o These are facts Apple MARKETING doesn't want us to even think about.

QUESTION:

If Apple has _never_ in its history made a best-in-class chip design...
o What makes the AppleSeeds think Apple can, now, finally, pull it off?

Straw man.


Even if they're not "best-in-class"... ...that doesn't prove Apple
doesn't design them.


HINT: "M A R K E T I N G" rules their minds, e.g., "*APPLE SILICON!!!!!*"

BTW, for the AppleSeeds to ponder (adults already know the answer)...
o Whom does Apple get their critical high-tech 5G modem technology from?

You think patents don't come into that, Liar?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:09:59 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2020-07-10 7:20 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:27:20 -0400, Paul wrote:

Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
blocks purchased on the open market".

Even big companies do this now.

In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
from a third party.

All it takes is money.

We long ago showed Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever!

No. You never showed that.

o And no, a CPU that must be throttled isn't best in class by any test.

Nope. That's not true.

o And no, a CPU with huge unpatchable holes isn't best in class either.

You never showed that.


They failed on modems (along with Intel), and they failed on GPUS.

Nope. You never showed that either.

o These are facts Apple MARKETING doesn't want us to even think about.

QUESTION:

If Apple has _never_ in its history made a best-in-class chip design...
o What makes the AppleSeeds think Apple can, now, finally, pull it off?

Straw man.


Even if they're not "best-in-class"... ...that doesn't prove Apple
doesn't design them.


HINT: "M A R K E T I N G" rules their minds, e.g., "*APPLE SILICON!!!!!*"

BTW, for the AppleSeeds to ponder (adults already know the answer)...
o Whom does Apple get their critical high-tech 5G modem technology from?

You think patents don't come into that, Liar?

Apple doesn't like other people's patents. Especially if they have to
pay for them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 20:38:24 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2020-07-09 7:56 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:52:13 -0400, nospam wrote:

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

nope. apple silicon does not implement x86, therefore there is no
reason to license it or pay royalties.

Hi nospam,
I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point, which, I think, Steve
was trying to make (even as Steve, himself, is a Type II apologist).

NOTE: Type II apologists aren't malicious like Type III apologists are, and
they don't always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra like Type I apologists do.

It would do Apple no good if Intel summarily dropped them (assuming they
could legally do so, and that it was in Intel's interest) simply because
Apple is substituting Intel Macs, over time, to ARM Macs.

Whether or not that's what Steve meant, I would assume that Apple isn't
stupid, so they don't wish to **** off Intel (look how well it turned out
for Apple with Qualcomm, i.e., perhaps the biggest abject surrender in
Apple's history to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars).

Hmmm...

Qualcomm net income for 2019: $4.386 billion

Apple net income for 2019: $55.256 billion.

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 23:35:31 -0400, nospam wrote:

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

FACTS:

Every item below has entire threads filled with facts, devoted to it...
o Facts which the Type III apologists are utterly immune to in all cases.

1. Apple is great MARKETING with the absolute lowest R&D in all high tech.
(these are facts which Type III apologists can't possibly understand)

2. Apple tried to do modems without Qualcomm which was an abject failure.
(many people do not blame Apple, per se, though, as they blame Intel)

3. This was brought up when we proved Apple failed miserably at GPUs.
(we discussed Apple GPU failures which only Type III apologists deny)

4. And, that Apple CPUs are so badly designed the holes are utterly huge!
(only Type III apologists are unaware of these *unpatchable* flaws!)

5. Worse, almost all need to be throttled with more throttled every year.
(your choice is unacceptable speed or unacceptable performance)
(you have no other choice - and - you MUST pick one of those two)
(or feed Apple by prematurely replacing your battery about every year)

These are all well known examples of horrible designs coming out of Apple.

With that as the background, what makes apologists think Apple can, for the
first time in its history, make any best-in-class SOC with upcoming ARM
technology fabricated at TSMC foundries.

HINT: Nothing but pure MARKETING bull**** (e.g., "Apple Silicon").
--
Apple MARKETING is so good and yet, Apple R&D is the lowest in high tech.

Apple apologists _hate_ what Apple is, which facts always show.
o That's why they hate facts about Apple products.

They only want to believe in what Apple MARKETING told them it would be.
o Like a child told by his mommy the monster can't get out of the closet.

They _hate_ that they fell for the imaginary functionality that Apple
MARKETING so cleverly sold them, and, as such, they even hate themselves.

I may understand these strange apologists better than they know themselves.
o So I know, before they do, they'll _deny_ outright all facts about Apple.

Just as with all cultists, and much like flat earthers react to facts...

Any fact about Apple they don't like, they claim is a "lie by liars".
o And yet, they're _still_ facts whether or not Apologists like them.

What's interesting is that Type III apologists like Alan Baker hate those
facts about Apple products that show what Apple products truly are.

Type III apologists like Alan Baker deny those facts even exist!
o These Type III apologists call all facts they don't like, "lies".

What's _really_ going on is VERY INTERESTING indeed.
o Do these Apologists realize why they _hate_ facts about Apple?

I (think I) do.

HINT: They despise Apple products aren't what they were told by MARKETING.
o *They _hate_ that MARKETING bamboozled them about these Apple products*

They're desperate to believe in an imaginary world where Apple isn't what
it really is.

They _hate_ what Apple is, so much, that they literally deny it.
o Also they _blame_ Google or Microsoft, for flaws in Apple products.

They react to facts with childish responses - just look at _anything_ Alan
Baker writes, all of which is trying to defend the _imaginary_ Apple that
he believes exists.

And yet, facts prove that it is all an illusion.
o Crafted by Apple MARKETING (cleverly so).

In summary, I believe the reason these apologists hate facts, and worse,
they childishly hate anyone who brings facts to the table, is that they
literally _hate_ what Apple is.
--
They only want to believe in what Apple MARKETING told them it would be.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:24:21 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

Qualcomm net income for 2019: $4.386 billion

Apple net income for 2019: $55.256 billion.

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

I've studied these strange Apple Apologists like Alan Baker, for years.
o Apple apologists _hate_ that Apple isn't what MARKETING told them it was.

To answer Eric Steven's question posed, apparently, to Alan Baker...

*Apple would be dead, in about two years, without Qualcomm technology.*
o That's why they were _desperate_ and surrendered to Qualcomm last year.

o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk

See also:
o *Apple gives up and surrenders billions of dollars to Qualcomm*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU

o *Why can't anyone find a high-tech company with _lower_ R&D than Apple?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk

o *Apple failed (again) in chip design, this time with its graphics chips*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU

And to nospam's point:

o *Apple will spend BILLIONS acquiring Intel's failed modem business*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WgA3zCvEnSY

o *Apple lost the 5G battle, spending billions to try to get back in*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qsP6-zHCnn8

Notice the only place Apple excels in, is MARKETING.
o The Type III apologists _only_ believe in that marketing.

They're immune to all facts that prove what Apple really is.
o Which is why they _hate_ not only facts - but the bearer of facts.

In reality, they hate themselves because they hate that they fell for it.
o They hate that Apple isn't even close to what Apple told them it was.
--
Apple apologists _hate_ that Apple isn't what MARKETING told them it was.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:18:35 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

Apple doesn't like other people's patents. Especially if they have to
pay for them.

I have Alan Baker plonked, so I don't see what he posts, where he is the
only person, other than Snit, I've had to plonk in two decades of Usenet.

Below are threads, jam packed with facts, that Alan Baker is immune to.
o Why does Alan Baker call all facts lies, and all bearers of fact liars?

I think Alan _hates_ that Apple is what facts show it to be.
o He even may hate himself, as facts show he was bamboozled by MARKETING.

These threads (and scores more like them) are replete with those facts.

*Apple would be dead, in about two years, without Qualcomm technology.*
o That's why they were _desperate_ and surrendered to Qualcomm last year.

o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk

o *Apple gives up and surrenders billions of dollars to Qualcomm*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU

o *Why can't anyone find a high-tech company with _lower_ R&D than Apple?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk

o *Apple failed (again) in chip design, this time with its graphics chips*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU

o *Apple will spend BILLIONS acquiring Intel's failed modem business*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WgA3zCvEnSY

o *Apple lost the 5G battle, spending billions to try to get back in*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qsP6-zHCnn8
--
Apple apologists _hate_ that Apple isn't what MARKETING told them it was.

On 11/07/2020 05:51, Arlen Holder wrote:

*Apple would be dead, in about two years, without Qualcomm technology.*

Can we start crowdfunding to save Apple. We can't let Apple die just because they made a bad decision. Do you agree?