Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

then stop commenting on it.

Indeed, I am refusing to comment on the negotiations. Can't you read.

you aren't refusing at all. you keep babbling about it.

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

That may be your opinion but even if nothing else, the commercial
implications are considerable.

not in the least. apple has zero need or desire for anything rambus has
done.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


My understanding is that the patents at the heart of the argument were
not subject to anything but a performance standard. But I would rather
keep out of the argument at this point because I haven't been
following it in detail.

yet you keep sticking your head directly into it.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

Don't be silly. Patents *are* a legal monopoly.


monopolies are legal.

abusing a monopoly is not.

the patents are also frand, which makes it even worse for qualcomm.

You are a fool.

insults means you have no argument, not that anyone thought you did.

qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

That's OK if there were alternative suppliers of technology but in
this case Qualcomm is the only supplier. Without Qualcomm there is no
product for Apple to sell.

false.

You had better explain that to Apple. It might save them $4.5B.

*whoosh*.

the first several iphones used infineon baseband modems and recent ones
used intel modems (who bought infineon) for some models.

only cellphones that support cdma (from any manufacturer, not just from
apple) have no alternative than qualcomm, which is why they were raked
over the coals.

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

Under the circumstances, Qualcomm's royalties were "fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory." Of course, Apple didn't think so.

the federal trade commission didn't think so:


https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...rges-qualcomm-
monopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used
The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in federal district
court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to
maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device
used in cell phones and other consumer products.
...
¤ Maintains a 3no license, no chips2 policy under which it will supply
its baseband processors only on the condition that cell phone
manufacturers agree to Qualcomm1s preferred license terms. The
FTC alleges that this tactic forces cell phone manufacturers to pay
elevated royalties to Qualcomm on products that use a competitor1s
baseband processors. According to the Commission1s complaint, this is
an anticompetitive tax on the use of rivals1 processors. 3No license,
no chips2 is a condition that other suppliers of semiconductor
devices do not impose. The risk of losing access to Qualcomm baseband
processors is too great for a cell phone manufacturer to bear because
it would preclude the manufacturer from selling phones for use on
important cellular networks.

¤ Refuses to license standard-essential patents to competitors.
Despite its commitment to license standard-essential patents on FRAND
terms, Qualcomm has consistently refused to license those patents to
competing suppliers of baseband processors.

¤ Extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent
royalties. Qualcomm precluded Apple from sourcing baseband processors
from Qualcomm1s competitors from 2011 to 2016. Qualcomm recognized
that any competitor that won Apple1s business would become stronger,
and used exclusivity to prevent Apple from working with and improving
the effectiveness of Qualcomm1s competitors.

This kind of thing is common where big-money patent litigation is
involved. You should read the part which says:

"NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has ³reason to
believe² that the law has been or is being violated and it appears
to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The
case will be decided by the court."

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

i will also add what you said in another post:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

that's one thing you did get correct. you definitely have no real idea.

Thhat was in answer to a specific question about current events.

it's your admission that you are talking about things you know nothing
about, as you normally do.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

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.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Thereby displaying your ignorance.

then explain what relevance being a shareholder in rambus has to do
with qualcomm and it's anti-competitive and illegal behaviour.

You ought to know that in its early days Rambus was engaged in a major
war with virtually all the chip makers and this was fought through
numerous courts and the FTC. It went on for several years and was a
good course in the tactics of heavy-weight patent litigation. I'm
surprised you didn't know that.

what rambus did has nothing to do with qualcomm's actions.

they're not even remotely similar.

Apart from that, Qualcomm's use of current Rambus technology caused me
to have a passing interest in the Qualcomm-Apple fight. But I've
already explained that.

you need more than 'a passing interest' to be able to get the details
even somewhat correct.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:27:44 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

then stop commenting on it.

Indeed, I am refusing to comment on the negotiations. Can't you read.

you aren't refusing at all. you keep babbling about it.

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

That may be your opinion but even if nothing else, the commercial
implications are considerable.

not in the least. apple has zero need or desire for anything rambus has
done.

Says he in a fit of pique.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:27:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

That may be your opinion but even if nothing else, the commercial
implications are considerable.

not in the least. apple has zero need or desire for anything rambus has
done.

Says he in a fit of pique.

not at all.

as usual, you have *nothing* to back up your claim.

you have failed to articulate *any* reason why apple would be
interested in rambus, because there is none.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.

so you agree the ftc had solid reasons for their filing. progress.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:27:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.

It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).

It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
continues to argue both these fallacies.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:


ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.

It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).

the facts clearly show that qualcomm is in the wrong in this case.

and it's not the first time they've been accused of wrongdoing:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...eu-commission-
fines-qualcomm-for-second-time-over-market-abuse-idUSKCN1UD173
EU Commission fines Qualcomm for second time over market abuse

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Qualcomm (QCOM.O), the world¹s no.1 chipmaker,
was fined 242 million euros ($272 million) by the European Commission
on Thursday for blocking a rival from the market about a decade ago,
its second EU antitrust penalty.
The European Commission, the EU¹s competition regulator, accused
Qualcomm of predatory pricing between 2009 and 2011 aimed at
forcing out British phone software maker Icera, now part of Nvidia
Corp (NVDA.O).


It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
continues to argue both these fallacies.

i haven't misread a thing.

On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).

It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
continues to argue both these fallacies.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.

Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have

While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.

For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.

For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.

And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.

The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.

Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.

By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.

The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).

One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are viscous hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.

One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.

It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.

In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.

But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.

Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.

In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs

Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.

IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.

Happened just this week, for example, fully documented he
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups - is simply that apologists exist*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mQsBECSbICw
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

On 15 Jul 2020 14:54:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

It's so funny - in a rather pathetic way - that 'nospam' will argue
the exact opposite (of what he does in this case), when the shoe is on
the other foot (i.e. Apple is the accused party).

It's also amazing to see that 'nospam' continues to misread/
misinterpret what is written and 'reads' what's not written and
continues to argue both these fallacies.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

We know each other well where's no love lost between us, where I just want
to let you (& others) know I've _studied_ these unprepossessing apologists.

Their strange (but consistently repetitive) actions piqued my interest:
a. They _always_ take the case of Apple (as you see nospam doing now)
b. They brazenly deny what Apple does (or blame M$ for what Apple does)
c. They fabricate functionality they _wish_ Apple products have

While there are three major types of apologists, what's consistent about
their arguments is that they are so used to being among their own cultists,
that they have absolutely no adult strategies to deal with actual facts.

For example, nospam will literally change your words in his quote of what
you said, and then he'll respond to _those_ changed words. He's done this
so many hundreds of times that I have an entire thread of when he's done
that - simply because he has no skill for handling actual facts.

For another example, all the apologists, will simply deny facts outright,
where they do it differently depending on the type. For example, Type I
apologists (nospam being the canonical member) will claim "he's told you
already", or just "nope" without calling all facts "lies by liars" which
the Type III apologists do. He'll deny any fact he simply doesn't like.

And yet, unlike the other types of apologists, nospam actually _knows_ the
facts, which is why his credibility is rather high for an apologists at
about the same result as a dumb random coin toss outcome.

The three types are clearly distinct, even as they're all strange people:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) will always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
o Type II (e.g., sms) are normal people who simply aren't factual minded.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are well into Quadrant 1 of Dunning-Kruger.

Notice what sets apart nospam from the other two despicable types is that
he doesn't believe a word he, himself, says, whereas the other two types
literally believe what they say (where the Type II are simply ignorant
people who aren't used to facts, e.g., Steve Scharf _still_ thinks the
Qualcomm royalties went down per iPhone!)... but it's the Type III (e.g.,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Alan Baker, BK, Joerg Lorenz, et al.) who are the most
petrifying since they truly believe the strange things they claim.

By way of contrast with nospam, the Type III apologist are clearly of very
low IQ, whereas nospam has only a slightly below normal IQ (AFAICT), where
the fact he _understands_ the facts puts him in the normal range but the
fact he has no methods to deal with facts shows he's below normal in IQ.

The Type II apologists, as far as I can tell, have a normal range of IQ
(e.g., Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, Savageduck, Steve Scharf, et al.),
where their flaws are simply that facts aren't something they're used to
dealing with (it's likely zero of them were science or engineering majors,
for example, but more likely they couldn't handle any factually rigorous
field of endeavor, e.g., Steve is the mayor of Cupertino, which doesn't
require factual skills - but which requires political acumen instead).

One thing that distinguishes apologists is their purpose on denying facts:
o Type I simply defend Apple and blame Microsoft/Google for Apple faults.
o Type II simply believe the MARKETING but otherwise are normal people.
o Type III are vicious hate-filled horribly unprepossessing bullies.

One trait both Type I and Type III apologists share is that they're easily
shown to be sadistic, which has been proven many times, where they
sadistically send innocent users on wild-goose chases simply because they
incessantly claim functionality that simply never existed.

It's shocking, actually, how horribly sadistic nospam is when he does that.
o He's a completely unprepossessing human being - devoid of purposefully
helpful advice - as he NEVER has any other goal but to push Apple's
marketing message on Usenet. He's NEVER purposefully helpful. Ever.

In short, nospam is, IMHO, a truly despicable human being, devoid of
purposefully helpful intent, honor, credibility, or compassion.

But he's not stupid! He's of only slightly below normal intelligence.
o He is the way he is because he _chooses_ to be despicable.

Unlike Type III and Type II apologists, who don't know any better.
o This nospam actually _knows_ he's despicable; he simply doesn't care.

In summary, all of the apologists deny what normal people know to be facts.
o Type I know the facts, but they'll support Apple at all costs

Hence, most Usenet threads they participate in are _filled_ with their
garbage, such that some threads are 99% them simply denying what nobody
normal would ever deny.

IMHO, these despicable people like nospam are what ruins Usenet.
o They don't have a single purposefully helpful bone in their bodies.

Happened just this week, for example, fully documented he
o *Clear evidence that the real factual problem on Apple Usenet newsgroups
- is simply that apologists exist*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mQsBECSbICw
--
Apple apologists always prove they have no adult tools to deal with facts.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 22:54:27 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

That may be your opinion but even if nothing else, the commercial
implications are considerable.

not in the least. apple has zero need or desire for anything rambus has
done.

Says he in a fit of pique.

not at all.

as usual, you have *nothing* to back up your claim.

you have failed to articulate *any* reason why apple would be
interested in rambus, because there is none.

Browse https://www.rambus.com/security/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 22:54:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.

so you agree the ftc had solid reasons for their filing. progress.

Twister
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 22:54:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

An accusation is not not a conviction.

accusations are not made up. there's a solid basis for the ftc filing.

ultimately, apple and qualcomm settled, so we'll never know what a
court would have decided, however, the evidence is overwhelming
*against* qualcomm.

It always is when presented by an accuser to its supporters. However
the FTC has some very good and honest judges.

so you agree the ftc had solid reasons for their filing. progress.

Twister

Exactly!

Ask him - for example - about the settlement Apple made with the
French DGCCRF (about Apple's intentional, but undocumented, slowing down
of iPhones, especially those with aging batteries) [1].

Those "accusations were not made up" and "there was a solid basis for
the filing". Bummer for these zealots that their arguments bite them
in the posterior, when the shoe is on the other foot!

In that case, the Apple zealots jumped up and down, saying there was
no admission of guilt and no court ruled it was Apple's fault. And
indeed there wasn't (and it wasn't a court), but if there was no fire,
why did Apple settle? (rethorical)

But the same people comdemn Qualcomm for settling. Hypocritical much!?

[1] My post which contains the (French) text of the notification which
Apple had to put on its (French) website:
Message-ID:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


you have failed to articulate *any* reason why apple would be
interested in rambus, because there is none.

Browse https://www.rambus.com/security/

you are deliberately not answering the question. no surprise there.

you are also further demonstrating just how little you know about apple
and their products.