Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

On 2020-07-10 8:18 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


I have no idea what you're driving at...

....and I'd bet money that neither do you.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 01:30:00 -0400, John Michael wrote:

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

Bottom line, Apple new they wouldn't ever sell a high end phone without 5G.

I don't know you, so I don't know if you're a child who just wants to play
on Usenet, or if you're actually a sensible, reasonable, normal adult.

My post below assumes you're not an appleseed, brainwashed like a cultist,
where my post below presumes you have the capacity for adult cognitive
reason.

Assume you own adult cognition, your point, I presume, is apparently Apple
is one of the richest companies in the world, which is true.

It's clear _why_ Apple is so rich (their profits are enormous, in fact).
o You just don't make that kind of ungodly profit off of smart customers.

Apple has, it appears, the most gullible user base you can imagine.
o But this thread is going to Windows users who are NOT similarly gullible.

The point Eric Stevens was making, if I understood him correctly, was that,
without Qualcomm, Apple wouldn't have _any_ competitive 5G technology for
years.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Think about what it would mean to a company that knows itself, which is
that it knows it's all MARKETING and almost no R&D, where it has to MARKET
itself to its (admittedly loyal) customer base as a "technology leader".

How do you market yourself as a technology leader...
o When you have the lowest R&D spend in all of high technology?

It's _easy_ when you can bull****, right?
o But you can't bull**** 5G modems.

What Apple _knew_ would happen is that everyone else but Apple would have
had competitive 5G modems when it counts most.

Bear in mind I understand Apple, I think, better than its customers do (in
many cases, IMHO), where you can fool them that their primitive app
launcher is "modern", but it's mired in teh stone age of a decade ago.

You can fool their customers by a _lot_ of brilliant MARKETING bull****
o But you can't fool them when there is no competitive 5G modem.

Apple _knew_ this.
o That's why their abject surrender to Qualcomm was so costly
(Apple's surrender was greater than the entire GDP of some countries!)
--
Bottom line, Apple new they wouldn't ever sell a high end phone without 5G.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 05:55:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 01:30:00 -0400, John Michael wrote:

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

Bottom line, Apple new they wouldn't ever sell a high end phone without 5G.

Typo!

*Apple _knew_ they could never sell a high-priced iPhone sans competitive 5G!*

Apple isn't stupid like the majority of its customers appear to be.
o Apple _knew_ their entire high-end iPhone business was on the line.

Apple was so desperate for 5G technology, they _surrendered_ to Qualcomm.
o It was one of the biggest abject surrenders in corporate history.
--
You don't & you can't make those ungody profits off intelligent customers.

On 2020-07-10 9:24 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
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)

Nope. That's a lie.


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)

That's certainly not been proven to be a fact.


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

That's a flat out lie.


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)

More bull****.


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").

So you're simultaneously claiming that Apple doesn't design its own chips...

....and that they're to blame for the design "flaws" you claim exist?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:34:54 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2020-07-10 8:18 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


I have no idea what you're driving at...

Qualcomm

...and I'd bet money that neither do you.

Qualcomm
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

I know they are trying.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 01:30:00 -0400, John Michael
wrote:


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?

There is no point in crowd funding. The problem is Apple's reluctance
to pay what they regard as excessive license fees for the only
technology which enables their product to survive. They tried dealing
with the lack of alternative technology by using Qualcomm's technology
without a license while at the same time litigating Qualcomm for
charging excessive license fees. But, as Nixon once said, if you have
them by the balls ... etc. Hence the $4.5B :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:55:19 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

I know they are trying.

What's interesting is the apologists, Alan Baker, can't stand that Apple
surrendered to Qualcomm... so he simply denies all facts he can't handle.

Like flat earthers do...
o *Alan Baker _hates_ what Apple did so much he denies it even happened.*
--
It wasn't what Apple led him to believe Apple "should" do (in Alan's mind).

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is no point in crowd funding. The problem is Apple's reluctance
to pay what they regard as excessive license fees for the only
technology which enables their product to survive.

apple is not reluctant to pay *fair* licensing fees.

what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

in other words, the *very* same qualcomm modem chip in a top of the
line phone (any make, not just apple) will incur a higher licensing fee
than if it's in an entry level model, for the *exact* *same* *part*
solely because it has a larger display, more memory or some other
unrelated feature.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

I know they are trying.

and succeeding.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:36:22 -0400, nospam wrote:

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

I know they are trying.

and succeeding.

Hi nospam,

I realize you're a Type I apologist...
o Which means you don't even believe half of what you claim.

All you do is promote Apple, as if you're paid by them to do so.
o That's the easiest way to predict _everything_ you'll ever say.

Nonetheless, Apple MARKETING isn't gonna ever tell you the facts.
a. They failed miserably in GPUs, which only an apologist would deny.
b. They (along with Intel) failed miserably in modems, clearly.
c. Hence, they surrendered to Qualcomm in desperation for 5G technology.

Those are facts.
o You don't like those facts, and MARKETING won't advertise those facts.

But they're still facts.

Given Apple is spending billions of dollars for modem technology, you'd
"think" Apple could/would/should someday maybe kind of sort of catch up to
Qualcomm.

And maybe they will - as you're so very confident of.
o But I think you're not anywhere near as confident as what you say.

Because Type I apologists _know_ the facts.
o You're not a moron of a 40 or 50 IQ like Alan Baker is, for example.

Your IQ is probably just about or below normal, nospam.
o So you _know_ the facts.

Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever made even close to a
best-in-class chip design (and don't claim that a CPU that requires
throttling or it become unstable is a good design for Christ sake).

And don't claim a CPU with unpatchable holes so big you can drive a Mack
truck through as a 'best in class' design - because it's just not.

Only MARKETING would ignore those flaws that are tremendously huge, nospam.
o Yes, I know, you parrot MARKETING.

But the good news is your IQ is normal or slightly below normal.
o So you know the facts - and you can comprehend them.

In summary, Apple is spending billions on it's map and modem technology.
o And yet, they're likely doomed to failure

Apple has never made a best-in-class app or a best in class CPU.
o What Apple is best in class in is.... MARKETING.
--
Apple doesn't need R&D since all they have to do is claim they did it.

In message Alan Baker wrote:
Apple doesn't like other people's patents. Especially if they have to
pay for them.

I have no idea what you're driving at...

He's a typical fact-deprived troll.

--
A FIRE DRILL DOES NOT DEMAND A FIRE Bart chalkboard Ep. 4F16

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 04:22:56 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

I have no idea what you're driving at...

He's a typical fact-deprived troll.

Type III apologist like Lewis actually believe the strange things they say.

I love it when Lewis posts because these Type III apologists actually
_believe_ what they write, so we get an insight into their strange mind.

Notice Eric Stevens was clearly aware of the situation between Apple &
Qualcomm, and even nospam is (since nospam isn't stupid).

Yet the Type III apologists, collectively, including Lewis, Jolly Roger,
BK, Joerg Lorenz, and, of course, the Type III prima donna, Alan Baker
clearly have no clue what Apple is up against with Qualcomm technology.

Apple is spending _billions_ of dollars, to compete withy Qualcomm...
o And, never forget, Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever.

Apple can't even make a GPU or CPU without huge flaws, for example.
o They throttle almost every iPhone CPU because it's highly unstable.

That's why Apple was desperate to get a hold of Qualcomm technology...
o Which is why their surrender was one of the biggest in corporate history.

All these facts are completely lost on Type III apologists like Lewis.
o Notwithstanding the fact Qualcomm isn't sitting still...

In fact, with all that money Apple his daily heaping into Qualcomm's
coiffure's, we can rest assured Qualcomm will remain years (yes, years!)
ahead of Apple on modem technology.
--
Type III apologist like Lewis actually believe the strange things they say.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 04:17:12 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:36:22 -0400, nospam wrote:

What would Apple's income be without Qualcomm?

we'll soon find out.

I know they are trying.

and succeeding.

Hi nospam,

I realize you're a Type I apologist...
o Which means you don't even believe half of what you claim.

All you do is promote Apple, as if you're paid by them to do so.
o That's the easiest way to predict _everything_ you'll ever say.

Nonetheless, Apple MARKETING isn't gonna ever tell you the facts.
a. They failed miserably in GPUs, which only an apologist would deny.
b. They (along with Intel) failed miserably in modems, clearly.
c. Hence, they surrendered to Qualcomm in desperation for 5G technology.

Those are facts.
o You don't like those facts, and MARKETING won't advertise those facts.

But they're still facts.

Given Apple is spending billions of dollars for modem technology, you'd
"think" Apple could/would/should someday maybe kind of sort of catch up to
Qualcomm.

The billions of dollars is partly for past sins. Apple got to the end
of their license period and demanded that Qualcomm accept a much lower
license fee. In the meantime Apple kept using Qualcomm technology.
Then they started litigating Qualcomm in front of the Federal Trade
Commission for overcharging and at the same time announced they hated
Qualcomm so much that they were not going to use Qualcomm technology
under any circumstances. But then, Intel gave up on their current
modems and Apple was left with nowhere to go. :-(

And maybe they will - as you're so very confident of.
o But I think you're not anywhere near as confident as what you say.

Because Type I apologists _know_ the facts.
o You're not a moron of a 40 or 50 IQ like Alan Baker is, for example.

Your IQ is probably just about or below normal, nospam.
o So you _know_ the facts.

Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever made even close to a
best-in-class chip design (and don't claim that a CPU that requires
throttling or it become unstable is a good design for Christ sake).

And don't claim a CPU with unpatchable holes so big you can drive a Mack
truck through as a 'best in class' design - because it's just not.

Only MARKETING would ignore those flaws that are tremendously huge, nospam.
o Yes, I know, you parrot MARKETING.

But the good news is your IQ is normal or slightly below normal.
o So you know the facts - and you can comprehend them.

In summary, Apple is spending billions on it's map and modem technology.
o And yet, they're likely doomed to failure

Apple has never made a best-in-class app or a best in class CPU.
o What Apple is best in class in is.... MARKETING.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 22:36:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is no point in crowd funding. The problem is Apple's reluctance
to pay what they regard as excessive license fees for the only
technology which enables their product to survive.

apple is not reluctant to pay *fair* licensing fees.

:-)

what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled. In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

in other words, the *very* same qualcomm modem chip in a top of the
line phone (any make, not just apple) will incur a higher licensing fee
than if it's in an entry level model, for the *exact* *same* *part*
solely because it has a larger display, more memory or some other
unrelated feature.

And A higher price and a higher profit margin and couldn't be m ade
without Qualcomm technology.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens