Did Apple (yet again) fail in chip design (just like they did with modems) this time with graphics chips?

[Arlen Holder]

Dateline today...
o *Apparently Apple failed .... yet again ... and buys its way out.*

Adults do two things apologists can't seem to ever do:
a. Adults comprehend basic facts, and then,
b. Adults form logical tenable assessments of those basic facts.

To wit...

Yet again, Apple appears to fail to deliver on their chip-design plans.
o Is this a veritable repeat of what happened with Apple's modem failures?

o *Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat*
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

o *Former iPhone GPU supplier Imagination signs a new license agreement with Apple
<https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-technologies-agreement/>
"The very fact that Apple and Imagination have now cut a new deal
signals Imagination was likely right in its claims"

o *Apple restores Imagination GPU chip agreement*
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/01/apple-imagination-agreement/>
"Could this mean Apple will rely on Imagination GPUs once again
or opt for the licensed chips in other categories beyond iPhone
like the long-rumored augmented reality headset?"

o *Imagination Technologies Announces New Licensing Agreement With Apple*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/01/02/imagination-new-licensing-agreement-apple/>
"The development marks a dramatic shift in relations between the two
companies following three years of discord, beginning in April 2017
when Apple told the chipmaker that it planned to stop using its graphics
technology in iOS devices within two years."

o *APPLE REUNITES WITH IPHONE GRAPHICS CHIP PARTNER TO LICENSE TECHNOLOGY*
<https://izodnews.com/2020/01/02/apple-reunites-with-iphone-graphics-chip-partner-to-license-technology/>
"Apple's attitude toward its graphics processors is part of a broader
effort to reduce its reliance on other chip designers and manufacturers"

Adult assessment of the basic facts:
o Yet again Apple failed (& had to again buy its way out of the failure).

Your money at work!
--
HINT: Imagination was bought by the Chinese-funded private equity firm
Canyon Bridge in November 2017.

[Alan Baker]

Why should I care who makes the components that go into Apple's products?

I care how the whole package works.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:44:14 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Why should I care who makes the components that go into Apple's products?
>
> I care how the whole package works.

You bring up a logical point, Alan Baker.
o Your point is that you don't care where Apple gets its parts.

My point is completely different in that my point is an adult point about
Apple; not about Apple parts.
o *Apple highly touts imaginary design capabilities that simple don't exist.*

My observation is an assessment of Apple's marketing of imaginary design.
o My point is that Apple does NOT build "best in class" chips. Period.

In fact...

*Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*
o Like Maps
o Like Modems
o Like GPUs

My point is simply the assessment of those basic obvious & known facts.
o Your point is different - which is that you don't care (which is fine).

*My point is the adult assessment of Apple's marketing bullshit.*

Apple _highly_ advertises they're "better than others" in design.
o And yet, the facts prove ... Apple is not (and not even close, in fact).

If Apple did not highly tout this "better than thou" imaginary strenght
o Then I wouldn't be bothering to point out that Apple isn't.

--
Apple highly touts imaginary design capabilities that simple don't exist.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-02 1:49 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:44:14 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Why should I care who makes the components that go into Apple's products?
>>
>> I care how the whole package works.
>
> You bring up a logical point, Alan Baker.
> o Your point is that you don't care where Apple gets its parts.

Yes.

>
> My point is completely different in that my point is an adult point about
> Apple; not about Apple parts.
> o *Apple highly touts imaginary design capabilities that simple don't exist.*

Where is an example of this alleged "touting"?

>
> My observation is an assessment of Apple's marketing of imaginary design.
> o My point is that Apple does NOT build "best in class" chips. Period.

And again:

Even if that's true...

...why would I care?

>
> In fact...
>
> *Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*
> o Like Maps

Apple Maps works great.

> o Like Modems

The modem in my phone works great.

> o Like GPUs

The GPU in my phone works great.

>
> My point is simply the assessment of those basic obvious & known facts.
> o Your point is different - which is that you don't care (which is fine).
>
> *My point is the adult assessment of Apple's marketing bullshit.*

Except you've failed to show that they market themselves in this area.

>
> Apple _highly_ advertises they're "better than others" in design.
> o And yet, the facts prove ... Apple is not (and not even close, in fact).

Give an example of such an advertisement.

>
> If Apple did not highly tout this "better than thou" imaginary strenght
> o Then I wouldn't be bothering to point out that Apple isn't.
>

You've failed to point out that this "better than thou" actually exists.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 13:57:56 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple Maps works great.

> The modem in my phone works great.

> The GPU in my phone works great.

Hehhehheh... do you realize that this proves you're an Apple apologist?
HINT: The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker.

*The truth is that Apple _sucks_ at chip design (e.g., modems & GPUs).*

Sure, it works; but it sucks in terms of speed.
Which, after all, is a key performance metric of a modem for God's sake.

> Except you've failed to show that they market themselves in this area.

Did you even _read_ the cited articles, Alan Baker?
They all clearly state Apple said they could do it on their own.
And yet, they can't.

Since I already provided those cites, here are more for you, Alan Baker:
o Apple makes up with Imagination
<https://www.techspot.com/news/83377-apple-makes-up-imagination-signs-new-license-agreement.html>
"Back in April 2017, *Apple announced that it would stop using*
*Imagination's graphics technology inside its iPhones and iPads*
within the next '15 to 24 months.' With the iPhone maker building
its own GPUs, it no longer required chips from Imagination."

Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
o Apple failed (yet again) simply because Apple sucks at chip design.

o Apple revives relationship with Imagination Technologies, the UK chip designer it ditched in 2017
<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/apple-agrees-new-licensing-deal-with-imagination-technologies.html>
"Apple decided to end its relationship with the firm in 2017
*to design GPUs, or graphics chips, in-house.*"

Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
o Apple failed (yet again) clearly because Apple can't design a better GPU.

o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
*"Apple announced it would be building its own GPU and*
*would no longer need Imagination's chips.*"

Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
o Apple failed (yet again) obviously because the Imagination GPU is better.

>> Apple _highly_ advertises they're "better than others" in design.
>> o And yet, the facts prove ... Apple is not (and not even close, in fact).
>
> Give an example of such an advertisement.

Apple claimed they didn't need Imagination's technology to build a GPU.
o Obviously Apple failed (any adult can instantly see that, Alan Baker).

Anyway, given you don't care that Apple fails at chip design, I'm not sure
what _your_ argument is, since you don't care that Apple sucks at chip
design.

I only care because my main goal is to bring truth to this Apple newsgroup
o One fact at a time.

The truth is that *Apple _sucks_ at chip design (e.g., modems & GPUs)*.

[nospam]

In article <qultlc$8rb$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> I only care because my main goal is to bring truth to this Apple newsgroup

you are failing miserably at that task.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-02 3:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 13:57:56 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Apple Maps works great.
>> The modem in my phone works great.
>> The GPU in my phone works great.
>
> Hehhehheh... do you realize that this proves you're an Apple apologist?

Nope. It proves nothing of the kind.

> HINT: The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker.

Proof? Thought not.

>
> *The truth is that Apple _sucks_ at chip design (e.g., modems & GPUs).*

Even if true... ...so what?

>
> Sure, it works; but it sucks in terms of speed.
> Which, after all, is a key performance metric of a modem for God's sake.

Again, you've provided no proof.

>
>> Except you've failed to show that they market themselves in this area.
>
> Did you even _read_ the cited articles, Alan Baker?
> They all clearly state Apple said they could do it on their own.
> And yet, they can't.

I read this post, but what I haven't read is where you've shown that
Apple markets itself for innovation in this area.

>
> Since I already provided those cites, here are more for you, Alan Baker:
> o Apple makes up with Imagination
> <https://www.techspot.com/news/83377-apple-makes-up-imagination-signs-new-license-agreement.html>
> "Back in April 2017, *Apple announced that it would stop using*
> *Imagination's graphics technology inside its iPhones and iPads*
> within the next '15 to 24 months.' With the iPhone maker building
> its own GPUs, it no longer required chips from Imagination."
>
> Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
> o Apple failed (yet again) simply because Apple sucks at chip design.

No. Clearly Apple wanted to do it.

Where did the they actually SAY this is something they excel at?

>
> o Apple revives relationship with Imagination Technologies, the UK chip designer it ditched in 2017
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/apple-agrees-new-licensing-deal-with-imagination-technologies.html>
> "Apple decided to end its relationship with the firm in 2017
> *to design GPUs, or graphics chips, in-house.*"
>
> Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
> o Apple failed (yet again) clearly because Apple can't design a better GPU.

Let's see the actual text where Apple says what you claim...

...or is '"said"' quoted by you because it wasn't actually something
they said?

>
> o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again
> <https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
> *"Apple announced it would be building its own GPU and*
> *would no longer need Imagination's chips.*"
>
> Clearly, Apple "said" they could do it; and yet, as usual...
> o Apple failed (yet again) obviously because the Imagination GPU is better.

Supra.

>
>>> Apple _highly_ advertises they're "better than others" in design.
>>> o And yet, the facts prove ... Apple is not (and not even close, in fact).
>>
>> Give an example of such an advertisement.
>
> Apple claimed they didn't need Imagination's technology to build a GPU.
> o Obviously Apple failed (any adult can instantly see that, Alan Baker).

Let's see that claim...

...and such a claim is not advertising anything...

...unless they're saying it in advertising or at least marketing materials.

>
> Anyway, given you don't care that Apple fails at chip design, I'm not sure
> what _your_ argument is, since you don't care that Apple sucks at chip
> design.

You just restated my argument.

I don't care whether or not Apple is good or bad at chip design.

>
> I only care because my main goal is to bring truth to this Apple newsgroup
> o One fact at a time.
>
> The truth is that *Apple _sucks_ at chip design (e.g., modems & GPUs)*.

And the truth is that it doesn't matter if the products they make are
what people want...

...and they very clearly ARE what people want.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 18:30:45 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I only care because my main goal is to bring truth to this Apple newsgroup
>
> you are failing miserably at that task.

1. An adult should be able to comprehend facts;
2. And then, an adult should form tenable assessments of those facts.

While any adult can reasonably disagree on the assessment of facts, no
adult would dare to disagree with the facts (unless they have different
data).

FACT:
o It's clear Apple _tried_ ditching Qualcomm & Imagination
o It's clear Apple gave up and ended up paying the royalties

My Assessment:
o *Apple sucks at modem & GPU design*

If you have a _different_ assessment of the same facts...
o Let's hear it.

--
It's interesting when you see how apologists process facts...

[nospam]

In article <qulvv6$f0s$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> 1. An adult should be able to comprehend facts;

that makes you a child.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:51:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> HINT: The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker.
>
> Proof? Thought not.

You're that _ignorant_ of facts about the throttled iPhone modems?

And yet, even as you're _that_ ignorant, you deny the facts?

Really?

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:51:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> And the truth is that it doesn't matter if the products they make are
> what people want...

Hi Alan Baker,
*The facts support an assessment that Apple _sucks_ at modem & GPU design.*

Apple highly touts imaginary functionality to utter fools, Alan Baker.
o Clearly, that's the main assessment that matters most, to me.

No matter what imaginary functionality Apple claims on GPU & modem design
*The facts support an assessment that Apple _sucks_ at modem & GPU design.*

I provided facts supporting that assessment.
o As an adult, you can choose to ignore those facts.

--
Since you're an apologist, I'm sure you will...

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 19:06:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> 1. An adult should be able to comprehend facts;
>
> that makes you a child.

*These new facts are further proof that Apple _sucks_ at chip design*.
a. Apple claimed to be able to ditch Qualcomm - and yet - they can't.
b. Apple claimed to be able to ditch Imagination - and yet - they can't.

In both cases, Apple re-installed agreements they essentially abrogated.
o Those are facts you apologists appear to be utterly immune to.

Adults don't dispute facts that are common knowledge, nospam.
o Facts are funny that way; and adults are funny that way.

The only thing adults can do is dispute the assessment of those facts.

The facts support my assessment, nospam...
o What facts do you provide that support your assessment, nospam?

--
Hint: Apologists always prove to be fantastically immune to basic facts.

[nospam]

In article <qum6cj$3q0$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> o What facts do you provide that support your assessment, nospam?

the only facts are that you're a blithering idiot.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 20:52:20 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the only facts are that you're a blithering idiot.

Assuming there are actual adults on this Apple newsgroup...
o Multiple reliable sources assessed those facts the _same_ way I did.

For example, here's just one of many adult assessments of those facts:

o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat

<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

The adults on this Apple ng (if any exist) will note that you call me a
"blithering idiot" simply because I provided facts that you simply don't
like, and I provided verbatim quotes of the adult assessment of those
facts.

For those facts & verbatim assessments, you call me a "blithering idiot".

And yet, you apologists, as always, provide zero facts.
o All you _can_ do, nospam, is make childish ad hominem attacks.

*You simply can't stand the fact that Apple _sucks_ at chip design*.

--
Apologists turn into instant children in the face of facts they don't like.

[YK]

On 1/2/20 6:56 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
> My Assessment:

According to Merriam-Webster, an assessment is:
the action or an instance of making a judgment about something : the act
of assessing something : appraisal

For someone who touts that they spew only facts, this seems you used the
word incorrectly. Assessments are not always correct.

YK

[nospam]

In article <qum78s$cd5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > the only facts are that you're a blithering idiot.
>
> Assuming there are actual adults on this Apple newsgroup...

nope. just us kids.

> o Multiple reliable sources assessed those facts the _same_ way I did.

multiple reliable sources have assessed that you are a blithering idiot.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:01:24 -0500, YK wrote:

> According to Merriam-Webster, an assessment is:
> the action or an instance of making a judgment about something : the act
> of assessing something : appraisal
>
> For someone who touts that they spew only facts, this seems you used the
> word incorrectly. Assessments are not always correct.

I don't know you YK, so I'll assume, a priori, you're an adult.

Adults do two tasks Apple apologist never seem to be able to perform:
1. Adults comprehend facts
2. Adults form tenable assessments of those facts.

For example, this article contains (verbatim) published facts:

o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>

This is the author's (verbatim) published assessment of those facts:

"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

Every article I listed, from _multiple_ sources, supported those facts.
o Every quote I listed from those sources, supported that adult assessment.

What reliable source can you find that support an alternative assessment?

--
Apologists can't stand facts because Marketing fed them something else.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 02 Jan 2020 21:05:22 -0500, nospam wrote:

> multiple reliable sources have assessed that you are a blithering idiot.

Adults can do two things, you apologists, nospam, can't seem to do:
1. Adults comprehend facts, and,
2. Adults form logical assessments based on those facts.

FACT:

o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>

ASSESSMENT:

This is the author's (verbatim) published assessment of those facts:

"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

FACT:

Every article I listed, from _multiple_ sources, supported those facts.
o Every quote I listed from those sources, supported that adult assessment.

That you apologists don't like facts doesn't change that they're still facts.
--
Apologists can't seem to support their position with actual reliable facts.

[Alan Baker]

What I REALLY know is you've made a claim...

...and then spent time avoiding actually providing support.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-02 5:37 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 15:51:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And the truth is that it doesn't matter if the products they make are
>> what people want...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> *The facts support an assessment that Apple _sucks_ at modem & GPU design.*

I don't know if that's true or not. Certainly, nothing you've posted
proves that.

>
> Apple highly touts imaginary functionality to utter fools, Alan Baker.
> o Clearly, that's the main assessment that matters most, to me.

And we've moved the goal posts to "imaginary functionality"!

>
> No matter what imaginary functionality Apple claims on GPU & modem design
> *The facts support an assessment that Apple _sucks_ at modem & GPU design.*

What such claims have they made?

Let's see the facts you claim you're so loyal to.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-02 6:08 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:01:24 -0500, YK wrote:
>
>> According to Merriam-Webster, an assessment is:
>> the action or an instance of making a judgment about something : the act
>> of assessing something : appraisal
>>
>> For someone who touts that they spew only facts, this seems you used the
>> word incorrectly. Assessments are not always correct.
>
> I don't know you YK, so I'll assume, a priori, you're an adult.
>
> Adults do two tasks Apple apologist never seem to be able to perform:
> 1. Adults comprehend facts
> 2. Adults form tenable assessments of those facts.
>
> For example, this article contains (verbatim) published facts:
> o Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat
> <https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>

But that doesn't make the assessment you draw true.

>
> This is the author's (verbatim) published assessment of those facts:
> "...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

That is an assessment. An OPINION. All the facts in the article don't
make that assessment necessarily true.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-02 16:49, Arlen Holder wrote:

> *Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*
> o Like Maps
> o Like Modems
> o Like GPUs

Apple hasn't made modems since the dialup days. In terms of ceelular
modems, Apple hasn't attempted to make any. It bought IP from Intel as
leverage when negotiating a peace treaty with Qualcomm.

I saw Digital flounder, unwilling to relly push its Alpha architecture
and sell it outside its own products.

So when Apple bought that chip company, I feared it might become a
failure, especially since it intended to make proprietary chips. The
difference being that it would use the ARM architecture and existing
compilers and just design implementations of ARM architecture whereas
Digital did architecture design, chip design and chip FAB (except at end
when it got Intel to make them).

the end result has surprised me quite a bit with Apple able to produce
new Ax chips each year and significantly improve CPU performance and add
more and more gadgets into it like secure enclave, secure enclosure, the
hardware to do the FaceID etc.

So it is VERY impressive what Apple has managed to do with its chip team
and there is absolutely no justification to even consider it a failure.
Compared to other ARM implementations such as Snapdragon, Apple has
consistently been ahead in terms of the processing speed per unit of
electricity consumed and has been ahead or equal in terms of raw
processing speed.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-01-03 03:07, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-01-02 16:49, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> *Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*
>> o Like Maps
>> o Like Modems
>> o Like GPUs
>
> Apple hasn't made modems since the dialup days. In terms of ceelular
> modems, Apple hasn't attempted to make any. It bought IP from Intel as
> leverage when negotiating a peace treaty with Qualcomm.
>
> I saw Digital flounder, unwilling to relly push its Alpha architecture
> and sell it outside its own products.
>
> So when Apple bought that chip company, I feared it might become a
> failure, especially since it intended to make proprietary chips.

I can't count the times you try to bring in the failed DEC co. as a
business example to compare with Apple. You are comparing asteroids
with Koala bears. There is no technical or business comparison at all,
not remotely, not in anyone's dreams or fantasies.

It's dead Jim.

[Arlen Holder]

On 3 Jan 2020 06:50:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He's a fucking idiot zealot, completely blinded by facts that don't fit
> his biased world view. Pathetic child.

*I _love_ when Jolly Roger posts because he's the canonical apologist!*

His innate reaction to facts he doesn't like is instant hateful vitriol.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:59:04 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> That is an assessment. An OPINION. All the facts in the article don't
> make that assessment necessarily true.

Hi Alan Baker,

Allow me to provide a simple lesson on how _adults_ converse, ok?
o *Adult belief systems are comprised of at least a single fact!*

You apologists brazenly deny facts simply because you don't like them.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 03:07:19 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Apple hasn't made modems since the dialup days. In terms of ceelular
> modems, Apple hasn't attempted to make any. It bought IP from Intel as
> leverage when negotiating a peace treaty with Qualcomm.

Hi JF Mezei,

You're not an apologist, so an adult conversation is possible.
(Warning: Adult facts are supplied below.)

In this case, it's not at all surprising Apple punted on GPU design (IMHO).
o Was any adult surprised?

My main adult point is always that Apple is great at marketing to people
who wish to own imaginary belief systems that are devoid of facts.

The fact is, while Apple doesn't make the modems in their iOS devices,
Apple is reported to be in that modem-design business having bought Intel
out, and having invested billions in the facility right next door to
Qualcomm.

Each of those topics I've covered in detail separately when they broke the
news, so, as an adult, I simply agree with your point and explain what I
meant given that Apple _is_ clearly on record for what I report above.

The point isn't modems anyway, since even Apple Maps supports my point of
view that Apple Marketing is brilliant at "claiming" best-in-class; but
Apple engineering doesn't seem to deliver anything near best-in-class.

Even wireless charging proves Apple isn't best in class; so does power
design (what best in class company has to _secretly_ throttle CPUs, for
example?).

Even Apple's iPhone cameras don't even come close to best in class, where
Apple is lucky to have their phenomenally expensive iPhones stay in the top
ten for even a short period of time after launch, before they fall off the
charts in camera quality of results.
o *DXOMark Mobile Phone Camera Quality of Results*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/0bPpvi9EAu4/PJC0IoJsBQAJ>

Apple marketing "claims" best in class; but Apple Engineering doesn't
deliver. We know this to be a fact, where, just _look_ at the sordid
results of the extremely buggy iOS 13 if you want to see an adult fact
backing up that assessment in spades.

Apple doesn't make a _single_ best-in-class app in fact, and, when someone
else does, Apple sometimes even removes them from the App Store (which
we're reported upon _multiple_ times, so you know that to be a fact).
o *Has Apple _ever_ created a best-in-class iOS app*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cx1caxsBaUc/0Xmm4d74AgAJ>

My adult point, always, is to bring truth & facts to this newsgroup, where
the truth is, apparently, the only thing Apple is best-in-class in, IMHO,
is (admittedly brilliant) marketing.

In summary, Apple _is_ in the business of modem design, but the main point
of this thread is that reliable reports assess that Apple lost in its bid
to gain GPU performance which is why, the articles assessed, Apple signed
the new agreement with Imagination (which is owned, mostly, by the Chinese,
apparently).

I'm not in the least surprised that Apple doesn't make the best GPU, since
I comprehend facts, where Apple's main claim to best in class superiority,
is clearly, IMHO, very clearly in fact, in stellar marketing.
o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

Basically, Apple is great at marketing to people who own imaginary belief
systems that are not based on actual facts, but on marketing hype instead.

In this case, it's not at all surprising Apple punted on GPU design (IMHO).

Was any adult surprised?

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:56:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What I REALLY know is you've made a claim...
>
> ...and then spent time avoiding actually providing support.

And yet, as an adult, I provided not only a handful of reliable published
cites, but also the authors' verbatim assessments of the known facts.

*Meanwhile, you apologists provide _zero_ facts supporting your claims.*

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:57:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> I don't know if that's true or not. Certainly, nothing you've posted
> proves that.

Why did Apple throttle modems on the iPhone?
Why did Apple feel an intense need to secretly throttle CPUs?
Why did Apple surrender to Qualcomm to get 5G technology?
Why did Apple reverse their decision to eliminate Imagination?

Those are _adult_ rhetorical questions, Alan Baker, to make an adult point.

[Alan Baker]

The only *facts* you've presented in this thread I've accepted.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 9:40 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:56:25 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What I REALLY know is you've made a claim...
>>
>> ...and then spent time avoiding actually providing support.
>
> And yet, as an adult, I provided not only a handful of reliable published
> cites, but also the authors' verbatim assessments of the known facts.

What I know is that the claim you made...

"The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."

...isn't supported by the articles provided.

I guess that's why you snipped the claim, isn't it?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 9:40 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 21:57:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I don't know if that's true or not. Certainly, nothing you've posted
>> proves that.
>
> Why did Apple throttle modems on the iPhone?

Assumes FACTS not in evidence.

> Why did Apple feel an intense need to secretly throttle CPUs?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

> Why did Apple surrender to Qualcomm to get 5G technology?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

> Why did Apple reverse their decision to eliminate Imagination?

Doesn't prove anything, Arlen.

>
> Those are _adult_ rhetorical questions, Alan Baker, to make an adult point.

To be "rhetorical" implies you can answer them authoritatively...

...but you can't.

[Lewis]

In message <PcydnXf6FNcp25LD...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2020-01-03 03:07, JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 2020-01-02 16:49, Arlen Holder wrote:
>>
>>> *Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*
>>> o Like Maps
>>> o Like Modems
>>> o Like GPUs
>>
>> Apple hasn't made modems since the dialup days. In terms of ceelular
>> modems, Apple hasn't attempted to make any. It bought IP from Intel as
>> leverage when negotiating a peace treaty with Qualcomm.

They bought a lot more than IP.

>> I saw Digital flounder, unwilling to relly push its Alpha architecture
>> and sell it outside its own products.

No one on the planet outside of you cares about DEC. Not relevant to
anything, at all.

>> So when Apple bought that chip company, I feared it might become a
>> failure, especially since it intended to make proprietary chips.

You love to make things up to be :"afraid" of.

Hint: Apple is currently the king champion of chip design, hands down.
They are YEARS ahead of everyone else in an industry where weeks ahead
is a major advantage.

> I can't count the times you try to bring in the failed DEC co. as a
> business example to compare with Apple. You are comparing asteroids
> with Koala bears. There is no technical or business comparison at all,
> not remotely, not in anyone's dreams or fantasies.

He's got a dead horse, and by god, he's going to beat it!

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Oh, I think so, Brain! But doing a clog dance in actual clogs will
give me awful blisters."

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-03 12:39, Arlen Holder wrote:

> The fact is, while Apple doesn't make the modems in their iOS devices,
> Apple is reported to be in that modem-design business having bought Intel
> out, and having invested billions in the facility right next door to
> Qualcomm.

You accused Apple of failing in modems. It didn't try to make modems.
When relations with Qualcomm soured, Apple turned to Intel who decided
to try to make modems.

Intel is the one who failed at modems, and now Apple has gotten the work
Intel did at bargain-basement prices and can offer it to Qualcomm when
negotiating its peace treaty. Since modems are tightly integrated into
IOS devices (and Apple may actually design the chip based on Qualcomm
designs) there is no evil in Apple having offices near Qualcomm's.

> The point isn't modems anyway, since even Apple Maps supports

Apple Maps was a combination of problems (political, management and
legacy of Steve Jobs) as well as grossly underestimating the challenge
for Apple to build a mapping service from scratch.

For Montréal, the satelite imagery is from 2010, giving great
historical/museum visuals of many sites that have radically changed
since. So Apple bought imagery that is older than Apple Maps.

> view that Apple Marketing is brilliant at "claiming" best-in-class; but
> Apple engineering doesn't seem to deliver anything near best-in-class.

Your criticism does not apply to chips because Apple has done extremely
well with chips. And that is a very difficult business. Apple's
bragging about its Ax chips is very humble compared to the amount of
heroic work that is needed to produce new chips every year, with new
logic, not just speed boosts.

> Even wireless charging proves Apple isn't best in class;

Samsung bragged about its phones until they started to catch fire and
their phones were banned from aircraft. Apple is very conservative when
it comes to batteries, anf on the Xs, the lightning port shuts down when
it is cold now (very annoying when listening to music) to disable
charging when battery is cold which can damage it.

> design (what best in class company has to _secretly_ throttle CPUs, for
> example?).

We'll never know how much engineers had warned Apple about iPhone 6s
batteries being underpowered for the CPU after a year. Apple reacted by
ensuring components stop drawing too much power on older batteries. The
throttling can now be disabled if you want, and as long as you have an
Apple installed battery, you get battery health information. (not
providing it for other batteries is bad tough).

> I'm not in the least surprised that Apple doesn't make the best GPU,

Where is this claim of yours coming from?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-03 08:50, Alan Browne wrote:

> I can't count the times you try to bring in the failed DEC co. as a
> business example to compare with Apple.

You like to insult me. Had you read my post, you would have seen that I
showed that Apple succeeded where DEC failed.

[nospam]

In article <xuRPF.167354$4G2.1...@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:


>
> You accused Apple of failing in modems. It didn't try to make modems.

they did try.

here's the results:
<https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/apple-modem-and-
computer-in-museum-ria-novosti.jpg>
<https://i1.wp.com/www.apl2bits.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/applemode
m1.jpg>

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:07:29 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What I know is that the claim you made..

> "The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."
> ...isn't supported by the articles provided.
> I guess that's why you snipped the claim, isn't it?

Hi Alan Baker,

*Why do you persist in proving ignorance of what _everyone_ else knows?*

What I'm pointing out to you below, Alan Baker, is that you are a bit
different from the other apologists in that you have an incomprehensibly
immense ability to remain ignorant of basic simple facts _everyone_ else
knows.

And yet, you deny them anyway.


While you're clearly an apologist, I have to admit you're different from
the canonical apologists Jolly Roger, BK, Lewis, et al., who innately
resort to their inbred instant vitriolic potty-mouthed vitriolic behavior
when confronted with facts they simply don't like.

And, you're even somewhat different from nospam, who simply bullshits like
a flat earther when he is confronted with facts he simply doesn't like.

The difference is that nospam only appears to be ignorant of facts; he
actually _knows_ he's bullshitting like a politician knows he's
bullshitting.

You?
*You simply ignore facts that nobody else could possibly be ignorant of.*

We discussed Apple's modem throttling _many_ times, and it's all over the
news, so, it's like you're asking me to explain to you what everyone but
you already knows.

There's no way I have the skills to explain to you what everyone already
knows, Alan Baker, but that you prove utterly immune to.

Even if I did provide the links that everyone else already knows, Alan
Baker, you wouldn't read them (you've proved that so many times it's not
funny).

And, even if I finally forced you to read them, Alan Baker, you'd fail to
comprehend what everyone else comprehends anyway.

Given _everyone_ but you on this planet is aware of Apple's throttling of
modems, I'm gonna take the risk of providing you a link to what "sms" said,
where you can rest assured Steve Sharf is no apologist, but at the same
time, he'll defend Apple to the core no matter what - so you can read what
he wrote with confidence that it's essentially what you should know:
"For the modem, [Apple] felt that they had to throttle the Qualcomm
modem models of the iPhone 7, 8, and X to ensure that the Intel modem
models didn't have slower LTE speeds"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>

Notice I took the risk of providing you a cite to what _everyone_ else on
this planet is well aware of, where I know that you have a tendency to
focus on that single sentence and then deny the facts as "not proven" ad
infinitum; but what I'm trying to point out to you, Alan Baker, is
something different than the throttling of modems.

What I'm pointing out to you above, Alan Baker, is that you are a bit
different from the other apologists in that you have an incomprehensibly
immense ability to remain ignorant of basic simple facts _everyone_ else
knows.

And yet, you deny them anyway.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:09:08 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Why did Apple throttle modems on the iPhone?
> Assumes FACTS not in evidence.>

> Irrelevant to this discussion.

> Assumes facts not in evidence.

> Doesn't prove anything, Arlen.

> To be "rhetorical" implies you can answer them authoritatively...
> ...but you can't.

You, Alan Baker, are slightly different from the other apologists in that
you appear to display an incomprehensibly immense ability to remain
ignorant of basic simple facts _everyone_ else knows...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU/TKWgZQ-cBgAJ>

*Yet, even though you're ignorant - you brazenly deny those facts anyway.*

It's a basic trait of all you apologists:
o *What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/e5J-nW0hBAAJ>

--
How apologists respond to facts is proof they're not like normal people.

[nospam]

In article <quopfq$a2t$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> Why do you persist in proving my ignorance?

ftfy

actually, you prove that entirely on your own, without any additional
help from anyone else, although others might sometimes assist.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 5:24 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:07:29 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What I know is that the claim you made..
>> "The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."
>> ...isn't supported by the articles provided.
>> I guess that's why you snipped the claim, isn't it?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> *Why do you persist in proving ignorance of what _everyone_ else knows?*

If "_everyone_" supposedly knows this...

...why not simply quote and link to an authoritative source?

I don't know who Steve Sharf is, but you're claim is more nuanced than
simply performance leveling between two different chips.

>
> Notice I took the risk of providing you a cite to what _everyone_ else on
> this planet is well aware of, where I know that you have a tendency to
> focus on that single sentence and then deny the facts as "not proven" ad
> infinitum; but what I'm trying to point out to you, Alan Baker, is
> something different than the throttling of modems.

It proves ONE iPhone model had a component throttled for one period of
time...

...more than 3 years ago.

[Alan Baker]

Put back all of your text that I was replying to and I'll consider
replying to this.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-03 20:09, nospam wrote:

>> You accused Apple of failing in modems. It didn't try to make modems.
>
> they did try.

The guy was talking abour cellular modems, Qualcomm, Intel and apple
slowing down Qualcomm modems to match the speed of Intel's.

I recall stating that Apple did make modems during dialup era (and they
were quite advanced with how the sounds were generated and interpreted).

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:02:20 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> You accused Apple of failing in modems. It didn't try to make modems.
> When relations with Qualcomm soured, Apple turned to Intel who decided
> to try to make modems.

Hi J.F. Mezei,

It's rare to find an adult on this newsgroup, which I appreciate, since a
completely different conversation can ensue where we learn from each other.

I agreed with you, and I already conceded that Apple doesn't (yet) make
smartphone modems (although nospam's JPEGs were hilarious):

<https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/apple-modem-and-
computer-in-museum-ria-novosti.jpg>
<https://i1.wp.com/www.apl2bits.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/applemode
m1.jpg>

Where we all used the full-duplex & half-duplex put-the-handset-in-the-grip
modems way back in the mid 1970's and early 1980's.

I explained that modems aren't the main topic; they're just an example of
the main point, which is that Apple MARKETS far more than Engineering can
deliver.
a. Apple MARKETING claims best-in-class solutions, and yet,
b. Apple Engineering can't deliver them (i.e., poor "design choices").

Yet, if we discuss modems, we must state the fact that Apple spent
_billions_ last year alone to buy out Intel's modem business & to start
building a modem-design facility next door to Qualcomm; and, you must be
aware that the Apple-selected Intel modems were inferior to Qualcomm
modems, such that Apple had to _throttle_ the Qualcomm modems in the
following iPhones, as Steve Scharf explained:

"For the modem, [Apple] felt that they had to throttle the Qualcomm
modem models of the iPhone 7, 8, and X to ensure that the Intel modem
models didn't have slower LTE speeds"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>

My point on modems is simply the fact that Apple has had little success in
almost any best-in-class engineering endeavor; so what makes adults think
that Apple can be successful with GPUs?

The fact is, as I see those facts, if you remove the hugely influential
MARKETING claims Apple is so great at, we find almost zero best-in-class
solutions coming out of Apple.

*That statement shocks people who own purely imaginary belief systems.*
o But it does not shock people who comprehend facts.

BTW, I don't actually blame engineering for Apple's lack of best-in-class
solutions; Federighi just can't deliver what MARKETING promises since what
MARKETING promises is a tight schedule of purely imaginary functionality.

It's a lot easier to advertise modem performance than it is to deliver it.
o That's why Apple surrendered to Qualcomm on 5G modems, for example.

> Apple Maps was a combination of problems (political, management and
> legacy of Steve Jobs) as well as grossly underestimating the challenge
> for Apple to build a mapping service from scratch.

I don't disagree with any logical assessment of the facts, as you're well
aware, J.F. Mezei; hence I don't disagree with your assessment of what
happened with Apple Maps.

Admittedly, Google is as good at Maps as Apple is at marketing; where it's
amazing to me that Google kicked Garmin's ass, and Garmin had the nav
market sewn up prior to the advent of Google.

I don't blame Apple for losing to Google on Maps, since _everyone_ loses to
Google on maps. For example, as you're likely aware, I remove everything I
can on my phone that is related to Google (even the Google Account), and
yet, I still am forced (at times), to use Google Maps on my new $100 Moto
G7, which luckily has plenty of storage for programs (64GB + 512GB sd):
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgn4z5L4/googlemaps.jpg>

> For Montréal, the satelite imagery is from 2010, giving great
> historical/museum visuals of many sites that have radically changed
> since. So Apple bought imagery that is older than Apple Maps.

Thank you for that factual data and logical assessment of those facts.
o I don't disagree with tenable logical assessments based on facts.

The good news is that Apple MARKETING claims they'll have best-in-class
quality Maps soon, and I actually am friends with coders on their map team
in Cupertino, who "say" Apple _will_ catch up; where I'm a fan of
competition, particularly when a company spends millions to give me a free
product.

Hence, I _hope_ Apple creates a best-in-class Map product, and, in fact, I
hope Apple creates lots of best-in-class products - because that means the
competition will give me better free products overall.

But my main point of bringing up Maps was simply as yet another example
where it's easier to loudly claim best in class than it is to deliver it.

> Your criticism does not apply to chips because Apple has done extremely
> well with chips. And that is a very difficult business. Apple's
> bragging about its Ax chips is very humble compared to the amount of
> heroic work that is needed to produce new chips every year, with new
> logic, not just speed boosts.

I'm not sure if you made your case on chips, where I don't claim to be an
expert in chip design, but, I do know that Apple has had to secretly
throttle millions of CPUs due to nothing but poor "design choices".

The case of the modems was a "design choice" by Apple (to throttle Qualcomm
modems in Apple iPhones).

Likewise, Apple has a well known penchant for the "design choice" of paltry
RAM, and few CPUs, where, for example, my $100 Android 8-core Moto G7 has
4GB of RAM as a matter of habit (and 64GB of storage, plus expansion of
512GB), all of which are decent "design choices" for a $100 phone.

Unfortunately, the thread on the topic of the closest 'design choice' from
Apple didn't come to any useful conclusion on which iPhone is closest:
o *What is the closest Apple iPhone comparison to the $100 64GB 4GB RAM Motorola G7?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/0hqJt3SOcAI/NlqW_3WyCAAJ>

> Samsung bragged about its phones until they started to catch fire and
> their phones were banned from aircraft. Apple is very conservative when
> it comes to batteries, anf on the Xs, the lightning port shuts down when
> it is cold now (very annoying when listening to music) to disable
> charging when battery is cold which can damage it.

You have facts about cold weather, which I appreciate, since Apple seems to
have only tested the iPhones in Cupertino, which, let's face it, has one of
the nicest climates on this planet.

I understand why you "think" Apple is "very conservative" when it comes to
batteries, where I'd say it's more obvious that Apple is just as stingy
with battery capacity as Apple is stingy with RAM & CPU cores.

You assess the facts as "conservative"; while I assess the facts as
'stingy'.
o Stingy batteries
o Stingy RAM
o Stingy CPU cores
etc.

In fact, the "design choice" of stingy batteries were one of the main
reasons Apple felt the intense need to secretly, drastically, and
permanently throttle CPU speeds in iPhones after only about a year of use.

I wouldn't call secretly, permanently, and drastically throttling CPUs to
about half speed in about a year of use as a "conservative" approach to the
solution, would you?

I'd assess CPU throttling facts as an extremely drastic solution by Apple.

But I do agree with you that Apple doesn't seem to have tested their
iPhones in a refrigerator up in Cupertino (based on the evidence so far).

> We'll never know how much engineers had warned Apple about iPhone 6s
> batteries being underpowered for the CPU after a year.

Again, I have to agree with you J.F. Mezei, since I know plenty of
engineers at Apple (many of my neighbors work for either Apple or Google
where I discuss this with them all the time).

Your assessment of the facts is reasonable.

I suspect _lots_ of engineers worried about the "design choices" Apple
MARKETING foisted upon Engineering. As I've said all along, Apple's claim
to fame is their MARKETING.

The problem is that it's a lot easier to market superior performance than
it is to deliver it, even at the astronomical prices of iPhones today.

> Apple reacted by
> ensuring components stop drawing too much power on older batteries. The
> throttling can now be disabled if you want, and as long as you have an
> Apple installed battery, you get battery health information. (not
> providing it for other batteries is bad tough).

Yes. But. The problem remains on those phones. Forever.
It was a poor "design choice", which only the apologists can try to deny.

>> I'm not in the least surprised that Apple doesn't make the best GPU,
> Where is this claim of yours coming from?

My main claim is that Apple does two things, consistently:
a. Apple MARKETING claims best-in-class solutions, and yet,
b. Apple Engineering can't deliver them (i.e., poor "design choices").

The proof is what we've been discussing (e.g., modems, Maps, GPUs, Power
Delivery, etc.).

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:37:12 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Apple is currently the king champion of chip design, hands down.
> They are YEARS ahead of everyone else in an industry where weeks ahead
> is a major advantage.

Lewis' statements exemplify why I claim this ng lacks adult leadership.

Lewis makes a proclamation such as that one, which I'm sure he believes,
and yet, he makes this wide-ranging proclamation sans even a _single_ fact
that bolsters his wholly imaginary belief system.

In doing so...
*Lewis proves to own a belief system perfectly crafted by Apple Marketing.*

A simple rhetorical question that instantly destroys Lewis' premise:
Q: How exactly is Apple "YEARS ahead of everyone else" in 5G modem design?

--
Apple MARKETING brilliantly feeds people like Lewis what to believe.

[Arlen Holder]

Why do apologists like nospam always prove (by what they write) to
instantly revert to children when they're confronted with facts they simply
don't like?

The facts here are that adults publicly assess Apple (may have) failed,
based on the reports published this week, yet again, at chip design.

That is the topic of this thread, whether nospam likes the facts or not.
o Did Apple fail again in chip design - this time with graphics chips?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU>

--
See also:
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:44:27 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> If "_everyone_" supposedly knows this...
>
> ...why not simply quote and link to an authoritative source?

Ummm... I did.

You just proved (yet again) apologists are shockingly _immune_ to facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 7:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:44:27 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> If "_everyone_" supposedly knows this...
>>
>> ...why not simply quote and link to an authoritative source?
>
> Ummm... I did.

Ummm.... ...no... ...you didn't.

A poster to Usenet is not an automatic authority.

>
> You just proved (yet again) apologists are shockingly _immune_ to facts.
>

No shock you just snipped all context, is it?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

And yet you cannot produce a single instance of Apple actually marketing
themselves on this supposed leadership...

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 6:46 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:02:20 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> You accused Apple of failing in modems. It didn't try to make modems.
>> When relations with Qualcomm soured, Apple turned to Intel who decided
>> to try to make modems.
>
> Hi J.F. Mezei,
>
> It's rare to find an adult on this newsgroup, which I appreciate, since a
> completely different conversation can ensue where we learn from each other.
>
> I agreed with you, and I already conceded that Apple doesn't (yet) make
> smartphone modems (although nospam's JPEGs were hilarious):
> <https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/apple-modem-and-
> computer-in-museum-ria-novosti.jpg>
> <https://i1.wp.com/www.apl2bits.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/applemode
> m1.jpg>
> Where we all used the full-duplex & half-duplex put-the-handset-in-the-grip
> modems way back in the mid 1970's and early 1980's.
>
> I explained that modems aren't the main topic; they're just an example of
> the main point, which is that Apple MARKETS far more than Engineering can
> deliver.

> a. Apple MARKETING claims best-in-class solutions, and yet,...

...you cannot produce a single example of them actually doing so.

You have repeatedly blamed Apple for that.

Can't be bother with any more of your verbal diarrhean tonight.

<snip>

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 7:14 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:42:23 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <quopfq$a2t$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
>> <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you persist in proving my ignorance?
>>
>> ftfy
>>
>> actually, you prove that entirely on your own, without any additional
>> help from anyone else, although others might sometimes assist.
>
> Why do apologists like nospam always prove (by what they write) to
> instantly revert to children when they're confronted with facts they simply
> don't like?
>
> The facts here are that adults publicly assess Apple (may have) failed,
> based on the reports published this week, yet again, at chip design.
>
> That is the topic of this thread, whether nospam likes the facts or not.
> o Did Apple fail again in chip design - this time with graphics chips?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU>
>

Do you even know what a circular argument IS?

What do you imagine posting a link TO THIS VERY THREAD proves?

:-)

[Savageduck]

On Jan 3, 2020, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <qup1oj$o9g$5...@gioia.aioe.org>):

In the case of the AH remarks, which I only see when somebody else foolishly responds to him it would probably be “begging the question”
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:35:56 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Ummm.... ...no... ...you didn't.
>
> A poster to Usenet is not an automatic authority.

Umm... Alan Baker. Do you have eyes?

If you have eyes that see, then just look using those eyes.

Look at the link I provided.

Yeah. Look.

Yup. Again.

Look. Look. Open your eyes. Alan Baker.

Look at the post from sms, Alan Baker.

What is in Steve's post?

HINT: A bunch of links. The links you claim don't exist.

You apologists always prove to be unfathomably ignorant of facts.

Even when those facts are literally staring you in the face.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-03 11:19 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 19:35:56 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Ummm.... ...no... ...you didn't.
>>
>> A poster to Usenet is not an automatic authority.
>
> Umm... Alan Baker. Do you have eyes?

Yup.

>
> If you have eyes that see, then just look using those eyes.

I did.

>
> Look at the link I provided.

A link to an entire Usenet thread.

>
> Yeah. Look.

Done.

>
> Yup. Again.

Still done.

>
> Look. Look. Open your eyes. Alan Baker.

Still done.

>
> Look at the post from sms, Alan Baker.
>
> What is in Steve's post?

A claim.

>
> HINT: A bunch of links. The links you claim don't exist.

Nope.

Not "a bunch". ONE. About ONE phone.

Let's put back your claim (which you snipped again!):

"The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."

You've shown that ONE model of iPhone might have had its modem throttled
so that all iPhones of that same model would have the same performance.

Ohhhh!

It looks like I DID read the link—one link! The others were talking on
different subjects or actually stated that modems WERE NOT throttled..

:-)

[Alan Browne]

I did read your post. Apple's success in employing the ARM architecture
in their own way is in no way at all comparable to DEC's misadventures
with the Alpha architecture. Alpha was not even all that pertinent to
DEC's demise.

When you go into statements such as:
"I saw Digital flounder, unwilling to relly<sic> push its

Alpha architecture and sell it outside its own products.

So when Apple bought that chip company, I feared it might
become a failure, especially since it intended to make
proprietary chips."

It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups. Your use of the vertical
personal pronoun above as if you were the lone sage in the wilderness
seeing this Greek tragedy unfold is frankly, pathetic.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:05:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> "The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."
>
> You've shown that ONE model of iPhone might have had its modem throttled
> so that all iPhones of that same model would have the same performance.
>
> Ohhhh!
>
> It looks like I DID read the link—one link! The others were talking on
> different subjects or actually stated that modems WERE NOT throttled..

Hi Alan Baker,

*How you apologists miss obvious facts is utterly astounding to an adult.*

You apologists always prove me right on a key observation:
o You're fantastically _immune_ to facts

Why you're so immune to facts differs by apologist.
o For example, nospam isn't stupid - he just bullshits like no other.
o But others, like Jolly Roger or Lewis or BK are just plain stupid.

You?
o You, Alan Baker, never read anything before disputing it.
o And you, Alan Baker, when forced to read the cite, don't comprehend it.

This happens _all_ the time with you Alan Baker.
o For example, did you see that iPhone 7, 8, & X modems are throttled?

From sms (who _also_ included cites in the news supporting his claims!):

"For the modem, [Apple] felt that they had to throttle the Qualcomm
modem models of the iPhone 7, 8, and X to ensure that the Intel modem
models didn't have slower LTE speeds"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>

--
How you apologists _miss_ obvious facts is utterly astounding to an adult.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:01:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
> Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups. Your use of the vertical
> personal pronoun above as if you were the lone sage in the wilderness
> seeing this Greek tragedy unfold is frankly, pathetic.

Hi Alan Browne,

I'm not sure about DEC (I used the PDP 11 and the VAX machines for years,
but Sun killed them pretty quickly) - but I must say that J.F. Mezei was
right that it was wrong of me to compare Apple's failure with modems
_directly_ to Apple's (newly reputed) failure with GPUs.

Apple's failure with modems and GPUs is due to 'bets' that they lost.
o In both cases Apple dropped the market leader - to go at it on their own.

And in both cases (modems & GPUs), Apple failed on their own.
o So both cases (modems & GPUs) are similar in that regard.

But J.F. Mezei is correct that the (purported) GPU failure situation is
different in that Apple didn't actually try to make the modems; rather
Intel did (and hence, it was Intel who failed Apple).

Hence, I give J.F. Mezei credit for owning adult observation skills.
o Notice you, Alan Browne, are on the listing simply because you don't.

You Apple Apologists, Alan Browne, react with childish hateful vitriol
whenever someone states any fact you simply don't like.

Prove me wrong.

[nospam]

In article <quqmdi$24a$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> *How I miss obvious facts is utterly astounding

> You always prove me wrong

> Why I'm so immune to facts

> o And me, Arlen Holder, when forced to read the cite, doesn't comprehend it.
>
> This happens _all_ the time with me.

ftfy

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-04 10:44 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:05:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> "The modem in many iPhones is permanently _throttled_ Alan Baker."
>>
>> You've shown that ONE model of iPhone might have had its modem throttled
>> so that all iPhones of that same model would have the same performance.
>>
>> Ohhhh!
>>

>> It looks like I DID read the link¡Xone link! The others were talking on

>> different subjects or actually stated that modems WERE NOT throttled..
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> *How you apologists miss obvious facts is utterly astounding to an adult.*
>
> You apologists always prove me right on a key observation:
> o You're fantastically _immune_ to facts
>
> Why you're so immune to facts differs by apologist.
> o For example, nospam isn't stupid - he just bullshits like no other.
> o But others, like Jolly Roger or Lewis or BK are just plain stupid.
>
> You?
> o You, Alan Baker, never read anything before disputing it.
> o And you, Alan Baker, when forced to read the cite, don't comprehend it.
>
> This happens _all_ the time with you Alan Baker.
> o For example, did you see that iPhone 7, 8, & X modems are throttled?
>
> From sms (who _also_ included cites in the news supporting his claims!):
> "For the modem, [Apple] felt that they had to throttle the Qualcomm
> modem models of the iPhone 7, 8, and X to ensure that the Intel modem
> models didn't have slower LTE speeds"
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZTmmGoAndyM/UxvB5AMeCAAJ>
>

The problem, you little snowflake, is that the article that sms linked
to only said the iPhone 7 had modems that were throttled...

...and it was only to make sure that all of them had the same performance:

'Apple confirmed limiting iPhone 7 Qualcomm modem to keep performance on
par with Intel chip'

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/18/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip>

There is not a single mention that modems in iPhone 8s or Xs were ever
throttled.

You lose.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-04 10:49 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:01:23 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
>> Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups. Your use of the vertical
>> personal pronoun above as if you were the lone sage in the wilderness
>> seeing this Greek tragedy unfold is frankly, pathetic.
>
> Hi Alan Browne,
>
> I'm not sure about DEC (I used the PDP 11 and the VAX machines for years,
> but Sun killed them pretty quickly) - but I must say that J.F. Mezei was
> right that it was wrong of me to compare Apple's failure with modems
> _directly_ to Apple's (newly reputed) failure with GPUs.

There's been no "failure", Arlen.

Is it a "failure" that Apple doesn't make every component from base
materials in making its products?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-04 10:01, Alan Browne wrote:

> It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
> Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups.

Holden accused Apple of failing in chips. (look at subject title)

So discussion about companines who fail in chip business is pertinent.

I provided the comparision with DEC to show a failure, and how Apple not
only beat the odds in going on its own but ended up with a big
competitive advantage over the rest of the pack who allmost entirely
reliant on Snapdragon. The ability to integrate into the chip features
such as secure enclave etc gives Apple advantages competitors that are
based on Snapdragon can't have.

And if you want to know how come ARM made it to the small devices now
used by everyone, suggest you read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrongARM


The "lawsuit" that is refered in the article is DEC accusing Intel of
stealing Alpha patents for its Pentium III. DEC won, and as
compensation, DEC got Intel to buy portions of Digital as part of
Digital's efforts to downsize so its suitor-in-waiting Compaq could
eventually buy it.

And DEC's failure enshrined the "fabless" chip design philosophy because
others didn,t want to repeat DEC's mistakes.


Later HP gave Intel all of the Alpha IP, which included the memory
controller designs that became CSI/Quickpath first developped for Alpha
EV7).

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-01-04 15:38, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-01-04 10:01, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
>> Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups.
>
>
> Holden accused Apple of failing in chips. (look at subject title)
>
> So discussion about companines who fail in chip business is pertinent.
>
> I provided the comparision with DEC to show a failure,

Stop skating.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 14:18:43 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> This happens _all_ the time with me.
>
> ftfy

You never miss a chance to prove you own the mindset of a child, nospam.

o *Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4>

Apparently you _hate_ the fact that Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems.
o And yet, the fact you hate facts doesn't change they are _still_ facts.

--
Apologists prove to only own 7 responses to fact - none of them adult.
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

[nospam]

In article <qurin4$oes$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> I never miss a chance to prove I own the mindset of a child

ftfy

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:05:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You've shown that ONE model of iPhone might have had its modem throttled
> so that all iPhones of that same model would have the same performance.

And that's all I _need_ to show to prove Apple throttled modem performance
simply because the Intel modems failed to meet Qualcomm's performance.
o Apple confirmed limiting iPhone 7 Qualcomm modem
<https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/196836/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip/p3>

*Apple tried, and failed*, which is the point, Alan Baker.
o Just like Apple tried, and failed, with GPUs.

That's the only point, Alan Baker.
o Apple failed, again.

Is any adult surprised?
o Apple fails in such endeavors all the time, Alan Baker.

And _that's_ the point.

However, to J.F. Mezei's point, where he's not an apologist, it wasn't
Apple who failed directly in the case of modems: It was Intel who failed
Apple.

But the result is the same.

The result of Intel's failure is the same as the result of Apple's GPU
failure - which is Apple said they'd go without Qualcomm, and then Apple
had to literally surrender all their demands to Qualcomm to the tune of
over 6 billion dollars, just to get Qualcomm modems back.

Otherwise Apple would have gone out of business (IMHO) in just a few years.
o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>

HINT: Apple _sucks_ at chip design decisions (witness power management!).

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 11:50:53 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Is it a "failure" that Apple doesn't make every component from base
> materials in making its products?

Hi Alan Baker,

Do you consider Apple surrendering to Qualcomm a "success"?

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:38:43 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Holden accused Apple of failing in chips. (look at subject title)

J.F. Mezei was correct in logically arguing that the comparison of Apple's
failure with modems was _different_ in many was to Apple's failure on GPUs.

The similarity is that in both cases Apple broke off a relationship with a
market leader to make a go at it on its own or with the help of Intel, and
in both cases, Apple had to eat crow after they failed.

But how Apple failed, as JF Mezei pointed out, is different:
o In the case of modems, it was Intel who failed Apple
o In the case of GPUs, it's apparently Apple who failed

I leave the discussion of DEC to others.

[Arlen Holder]

You actually think, in your fifth grade mind, that you're original & funny.
*You literally _hate_ the fact that Apple failed in GPU design*.
So you respond to that fact - with your childish games, nospam.

[Alan Baker]

I don't think they surrendered at all.

They lost a legal battle.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-04 7:33 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:05:41 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You've shown that ONE model of iPhone might have had its modem throttled
>> so that all iPhones of that same model would have the same performance.
>
> And that's all I _need_ to show to prove Apple throttled modem performance
> simply because the Intel modems failed to meet Qualcomm's performance.
> o Apple confirmed limiting iPhone 7 Qualcomm modem
> <https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/196836/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip/p3>

And yet you tried to claim it was also the iPhone 8 and the iPhone X...

I guess that's why you snipped all the context, huh?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-04 22:33, Arlen Holder wrote:

> *Apple tried, and failed*, which is the point, Alan Baker.
> o Just like Apple tried, and failed, with GPUs.

APPLE DID NOT TRY TO MAKE ITS OWN CELLULAR MODEMS.

Apple had a spat with Qualcomm so it switched to Intel as much as it
could. Intel was the new kid on the cellular modem block and had
inferior product. For a few iPhones, Apple had a mix of Intel and
Qualcomm (likely to support CDMA in USA), at which point it limited the
Qualcomm speeds so all iPhones had same performance.

Consider if you are AT&T and Apple gives you intel-based iPhones while
Apple gives your competitor Qualcomm based iPhones. Verizon brags about
faster iPhones compared to AT&? and AT&T's lawyers knock at Apple's HQ
doors quite fast.

So it made sense to not give any cellular carrier an undue advantage
others can't get.

Later, Intel was able to supply all iPhones.
And later, Intel threw in the towel, knowing it couldn't be competitive
in 5G market for cellular modems.

Apple made peace with Qualcomm and new iPhones will have their modems.
Shortly after that, Intel threw in the towel for cellular modems, and
Apple bought the intelluctual property related to cellular modems.

Will apple eventually develop their onw? or will they just use that IP
as leverage against/with Qualcomm? It is not known at this stage.

Apple MAY make its own modems in the future, but it hasn't tried to make
their own in the past, so you can't accuse them of having failed at
making cellular modems.

You can question Apple's decision to move to Intel who was an unproven
maker of cellular modems. But recall that Qualcomm was suing its
customers (not just Apple) left and right.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-04 22:33, Arlen Holder wrote:

> J.F. Mezei was correct in logically arguing that the comparison of Apple's
> failure with modems was _different_ in many was to Apple's failure on GPUs.

Can you provide some context on your assertian that Apple failed at
GPUs? Which GPUs did apple design/make on it own and which are
considered failures ?

[Snit]

Arlen Holder <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:44:14 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Why should I care who makes the components that go into Apple's products?
>>
>> I care how the whole package works.
>
> You bring up a logical point, Alan Baker.
> o Your point is that you don't care where Apple gets its parts.
>
> My point is completely different in that my point is an adult point about
> Apple; not about Apple parts.
> o *Apple highly touts imaginary design capabilities that simple don't exist.*
>
> My observation is an assessment of Apple's marketing of imaginary design.
> o My point is that Apple does NOT build "best in class" chips. Period.
>
> In fact...
>
> *Apple _fails_ almost every time Apple tries anything remotely difficult.*

They succeeded enough to clearly make you jealous of their success.

And they make tools which serve millions of people well. They are not
perfect — nor are their products — but nothing is.

> o Like Maps

I use it and Google Maps. Both have benefits. One benefit of the Apple
solution is showing where stoplights are. In other ways the Google solution
is better.

> o Like Modems

Do they even make those anymore?

> o Like GPUs

They make great CPUs and that is lovely — but I would not care if they
outsourced those (as they do for Macs). Same with GPUs. If they can make
ones that serve me better they is great. If not I am happy they get them
elsewhere. I do not want them to feel they need to do everything in-house.
That would be good for nobody.

>
> My point is simply the assessment of those basic obvious & known facts.
> o Your point is different - which is that you don't care (which is fine).
>
> *My point is the adult assessment of Apple's marketing bullshit.*

Your immature jealousy is not “adult”.

> Apple _highly_ advertises they're "better than others" in design.

Which ads do you mean. I do not watch them.

> o And yet, the facts prove ... Apple is not (and not even close, in fact).

Do they have an ad about GPUs which is inaccurate? If so I shall join you
in calling them out. Just link to it and I shall watch.

> If Apple did not highly tout this "better than thou" imaginary strenght
> o Then I wouldn't be bothering to point out that Apple isn't.
>

You are jealous and want attention. Do you think that is not obvious?


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

[Arlen Holder]

Hi J.F. Mezei,

I repeat that you were correct that Apple failed at modems, but not because
Apple themselves tried to design them - but the similarity with Apple's
reputed failure designing GPUs is the same otherwise.
o Apple tried to go at it alone, sans their original supplier, and failed.
o Apple came back to the original supplier they had previously dropped.

In the case of GPUs, the answer was in the original cites, for example:
o *Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat*
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

That "assessment" seems reasonably consistent across all the cites.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 02:38:25 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Apple MAY make its own modems in the future, but it hasn't tried to make
> their own in the past, so you can't accuse them of having failed at
> making cellular modems.

FACTS & ASSESSMENT

Agree Apple did not originally try to make cellular modems on their own.
o The similarity seems to be in only half the situation, as shown below.

1. Apple summarily dropped Qualcomm, in favor of Intel modems.
2. Apple failed. (Is anyone surprised?)
3. Apple returned to Qualcomm in order to get back their modems.

1. Apple summarily dropped Imagination, (reputedly) in favor of Apple GPUs.
2. Apple (reputedly) failed. (Is anyone surprised?)
3. Apple returned to Imagination in order to get back their GPUs.

I repeat. I agree with your adult point of view that Apple did not try to
make cellular modems on their own; but the similarity (as shown above)
still exists in that Apple dropped the key supplier in order to try
something else, which failed, so Apple was (reputedly) forced to return.

This is the similarity:
a. Apple drops key supplier in order to try it on their own terms.
b. Apple fails. (Is anyone surprised?)
c. Apple returns to the key supplier.

--
Apple is apparently trying to make cellular modems on their own now, but
the odds are Apple will fail since the history is that Apple fails at chip
design (almost?) every time. (Has Apple ever _not_ failed at chip design?)

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 17:44:56 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Put back all of your text that I was replying to and I'll consider
> replying to this.

The salient _adult_ question of facts at hand is...
o *Has Apple ever _not_ failed at chip design?*

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 10:05:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> The only *facts* you've presented in this thread I've accepted.

[Lewis]

In message <oJ6QF.228618$%d1.1...@fx45.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-01-04 10:01, Alan Browne wrote:

>> It's just another manifestation of your obsession with DEC, VMS and
>> Alpha that have 0 pertinence in these groups.

> Holden accused Apple of failing in chips. (look at subject title)

Don't respond to trolls.

--
'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony
with the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and
it's wicked of them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones
with hot lead.'

[Alan Baker]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors>

2.1 Apple A4
2.2 Apple A5
2.3 Apple A5X
2.4 Apple A6
2.5 Apple A6X
2.6 Apple A7
2.7 Apple A8
2.8 Apple A8X
2.9 Apple A9
2.10 Apple A9X
2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
2.16 Apple A13 Bionic

And these:

3.1 Apple S1
3.2 Apple S1P
3.3 Apple S2
3.4 Apple S3
3.5 Apple S4
3.6 Apple S5

And these:

4.1 Apple T1
4.2 Apple T2

And these:

5.1 Apple W1
5.2 Apple W2
5.3 Apple W3

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 1:22 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

Asked and answered...

...something you don't have the courtesy to do when I
ask questions.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 10:28:06 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors>

You're joking, right?
o Does the name "ARM" mean anything to you?

HINT: Anyone can license someone elses' technology.
o That's the entire point of this thread.

Apple punted on GPU design and (apparently, according to the reports).
o Apple felt they had to license Imagination's technology instead.

Just like Apple does with Qualcomm modems and ARM CPUs.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 11:30 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 10:28:06 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors>
>
> You're joking, right?
> o Does the name "ARM" mean anything to you?

Yup.

>
> HINT: Anyone can license someone elses' technology.
> o That's the entire point of this thread.

Apple hasn't been licensing the DESIGNS, Arlen: they've licensed the
ARCHITECTURE.

"Designed by third parties

These cores implement the ARM instruction set, and were developed
independently by companies with an architectural license from ARM."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_microarchitectures#Designed_by_third_parties>

Notice the listing for Apple.

>
> Apple punted on GPU design and (apparently, according to the reports).
> o Apple felt they had to license Imagination's technology instead.
>
> Just like Apple does with Qualcomm modems and ARM CPUs.

Factually incorrect...

"The Apple A4 is a 32-bit package on package (PoP) system-on-a-chip
(SoC) designed by Apple Inc. and manufactured by Samsung.[4] It is
Apple's first in-house designed system-on-a-chip."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4>

...but we both know you won't admit it.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-05 04:19, Arlen Holder wrote:

> 1. Apple summarily dropped Qualcomm, in favor of Intel modems.
> 2. Apple failed. (Is anyone surprised?)
> 3. Apple returned to Qualcomm in order to get back their modems.

Point 2 is false. Intel failed. Not Apple.

> 1. Apple summarily dropped Imagination, (reputedly) in favor of Apple GPUs.
> 2. Apple (reputedly) failed. (Is anyone surprised?)

What products did Apple build with its own GPU? Last I heard, they were
integrating other people's GPUs into their products (NVIDIA, Radeon and
others may have been mentioned over the years).

And also, which products do you consider Apple had failed graphics?

In some laptops, Apple did use the "build in" Intel graphiocs card and I
knwo they were criticised for the choice of a low performance GPU chip
on laptops sold at a premium price. But again, this was not an Apple GPU.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 14:41:18 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Point 2 is false. Intel failed. Not Apple.

Hi J.F. Mezei,

I must admit, it's refreshing to exchange ideas with an actual adult on
this newsgroup, where I've learned from you, e.g., you correct a
misconception of mine on how Apple's chip-design failures were different.

In fact:
1. I agreed with you that Apple's failure at modems is different from
Apple's (reputed) failure with GPUs (which you aptly backed up with facts).

2. I also said there were similarities in both cases (which I backed up
with facts).

In both cases, Apple failed - but for different reasons.
o In the case of modems, it was Intel who failed Apple.

More to the point, has Apple _ever_ designed a best-in-class smartphone
chip? I don't know. Certainly ARM CPUs, Qualcomm modems, & Imagination's
GPUs don't count.

The valid adult question to ponder is...
o *What best-in-class smartphone chip has Apple _ever_ designed?*

> What products did Apple build with its own GPU? Last I heard, they were
> integrating other people's GPUs into their products (NVIDIA, Radeon and
> others may have been mentioned over the years).
>
> And also, which products do you consider Apple had failed graphics?
>
> In some laptops, Apple did use the "build in" Intel graphiocs card and I
> knwo they were criticised for the choice of a low performance GPU chip
> on laptops sold at a premium price. But again, this was not an Apple GPU.

Yours is a valid adult question, J.F. Mezei, which I applaud.

I'm going off the published reports which claim Apple (reputedly) failed:

o *Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat*
<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

To date, I haven't seen Apple's response to the many published reports.

*Does anyone have evidence here that counters that published report?*
(Note: That's not the only similar report - it's simply the most direct.)

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-05 14:30, Arlen Holder wrote:

> You're joking, right?
> o Does the name "ARM" mean anything to you?

Correct. Apple uses the ARM architecture. But the work to create a chip
that implements the ARM architecture is still Apple's. And the work to
implenent the other functiiaonlity embeded in the chip such as secure
enclave, secure enclosure and now the motion sensing hardware is all
Apple's.

And consider that Apple was first to market with the new 64 bit version
of the ARM architecture. So this means its engineers managed to create
the new chip with the new instructiosn and 64 bit data paths in less
time than Qualcomm and others. Hardly the sign of failure.


And Apple's implementations of the ARM instruction set tend to have
extremly good performance, and the best power/performance ratio which is
why iPhones can have such long autonomy with smaller batteries.

Apple has done an incredible job of creating its ARM based chips to
consume much less power than competitors, and that is a huge win for
Apple. Yes, the ARM architecture itself is designed to make it easier to
consume less power, but the fact that Apple's chips implementing ARM
architecture consume less power than Qualcomm chips that implement the
same architectures shows that Apple is better.

Apple has many failings. But chips are not it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 11:53 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 14:41:18 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> Point 2 is false. Intel failed. Not Apple.
>
> Hi J.F. Mezei,
>
> I must admit, it's refreshing to exchange ideas with an actual adult on
> this newsgroup, where I've learned from you, e.g., you correct a
> misconception of mine on how Apple's chip-design failures were different.
>
> In fact:
> 1. I agreed with you that Apple's failure at modems is different from
> Apple's (reputed) failure with GPUs (which you aptly backed up with facts).
>
> 2. I also said there were similarities in both cases (which I backed up
> with facts).
>
> In both cases, Apple failed - but for different reasons.
> o In the case of modems, it was Intel who failed Apple.
>
> More to the point, has Apple _ever_ designed a best-in-class smartphone
> chip? I don't know. Certainly ARM CPUs, Qualcomm modems, & Imagination's
> GPUs don't count.

And now you're just a liar.

Apple designs its own ARM-based CPUs

They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.

[nospam]

In article <qutdgl$jh0$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple-designed_processors>
>
> You're joking, right?
> o Does the name "ARM" mean anything to you?
>
> HINT: Anyone can license someone elses' technology.

apple does much more than license the technology.

apple's processors are entirely their own design which outperform other
arm processors and even intel in many cases.

apple's a7 chip nearly a decade ago was the industry's first 64 bit arm
processor, which was so far ahead of anything else that the competition
was forced to bash the need for 64 bit, all the while they scrambled to
catch up.

the s4 in the apple watch is the industry's first 64 bit processor for
wearables and *well* ahead of the competition.

the a* and s* series processors currently use a 7nm process and next
year they're expected to be 5nm, while intel is fumbling getting below
10nm.

<https://bgr.com/2019/07/19/iphone-12-specs-5nm-cpu-to-hit-production-in-
time-for-2020-launch/>
Each new iPhone generation brings us a brand new Apple processor
that is faster than ever, and much better than what the competition
has to offer. The A12 chips that power the iPhone XS and 2018 iPad
Pros are so fast that they can outperform most computers in benchmark
tests. And that performance inspired many comparisons between the
iPhone and MacBooks, further fueling speculation that Apple might
soon launch MacBooks powered by its own ARM chips.
...
When the A14 and A14X chips launch next year, they will have no
equivalent in the smartphone or desktop business. AMD has just
launched its own 7nm chips for computers and next-gen gaming
consoles, and Intel is trailing even farther behind, still struggling
with its own 10nm chips.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-05 14:53, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I'm going off the published reports which claim Apple (reputedly) failed:
> o *Apple will license Imagination's graphics tech once again after public spat*
> <https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>
> "...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

Doing some googling:

A10 chip (iPhone 7) had the Imagination PowerVR GPU design.

A11 and successors do appear to have Apple's own GPU chip with no
mention of using other's designs/architecture.

The news above has key text:
"under which Apple has access to a wider range of Imagination's
intellectual property in exchange for license fees."

In other words, Apple continues to design its own GPUs but doesn't have
to fear patent infringement lawsuit from Imagination.


Articles do state that GPU performance on iPhone lagged behind some
Android phones. However, I would need to see articles from the days of
Apple using the PowerVR one to see if Apple faired better back then.

And those articles do state that GPU performance for the A13 (iPhone 11)
is dramatically improved and makes Apple very good against the Android
phones. So it doesn't look like Apple failed.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-05 15:21, Alan Baker wrote:

> Apple designs its own ARM-based CPUs
>
> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.

Not quite 100% true. Apple uses core designs from ARM as a basis to
build its chips. There is work to be done on the core design, and then
you need to design a chip wit multiple cores (in the case of Axx chips,
cores of different speeds), and also integrate them to the memory, IO
etc, and add the anciliary processors such as GPU, secure enclave,
secure enclosure, neural network etc.



And getting a core design doesn't mean you can sent it to the FAB, you
still need to adjust it to shrink it to whatever process you will have
chips built. For instance, Apple is leading the pack with 7nm process
for its chips, so this means the core design it gets from ARM needs to
be adjusted to work in such a small form factor. power from one lead can
interfere with power in the lead next to it (induction) so when you
shrink everything and make leads closer together, there are many
implications, and that is work Apple does, not ARM.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 12:46 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-01-05 15:21, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Apple designs its own ARM-based CPUs
>>
>> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.
>
> Not quite 100% true. Apple uses core designs from ARM as a basis to
> build its chips. There is work to be done on the core design, and then
> you need to design a chip wit multiple cores (in the case of Axx chips,
> cores of different speeds), and also integrate them to the memory, IO
> etc, and add the anciliary processors such as GPU, secure enclave,
> secure enclosure, neural network etc.

Apple might have done that at the beginning...

...but I think you'll find they don't do that now.

>
> And getting a core design doesn't mean you can sent it to the FAB, you
> still need to adjust it to shrink it to whatever process you will have
> chips built. For instance, Apple is leading the pack with 7nm process
> for its chips, so this means the core design it gets from ARM needs to
> be adjusted to work in such a small form factor. power from one lead can
> interfere with power in the lead next to it (induction) so when you
> shrink everything and make leads closer together, there are many
> implications, and that is work Apple does, not ARM.

Why do you think they get even a core design from ARM?

[Alan Baker]

According to Arlen's position, Qualcomm doesn't design their ARM-based
microprocessors either.

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-05 15:49, Alan Baker wrote:

> Why do you think they get even a core design from ARM?
>

When Apple released the first 64 bit Ax chip, it was stated that Apple
was first to implement the then new ARM 64 CORES. Not "64 bit
instruction set".

There were other mentions of Apple using ARM core designs. ARM have
been very good at designing power efficient cores over time.

Not saying Apple builds its chips without modifying the ARM core design,
but that they are using these core designs as a foundiation to build on.
aka: no re-inventing the wheel when building the whole car.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 1:11 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2020-01-05 15:49, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Why do you think they get even a core design from ARM?
>>
>
> When Apple released the first 64 bit Ax chip, it was stated that Apple
> was first to implement the then new ARM 64 CORES. Not "64 bit
> instruction set".

I'd like to see your cite for that, please.

>
> There were other mentions of Apple using ARM core designs. ARM have
> been very good at designing power efficient cores over time.

And I have actual quotes saying differently:

'ARM offers two types of CPU licenses: It sells licenses for complete
CPU designs that its customers can then incorporate into their own
processors, and it sells another license that allows customers to make
their own CPU designs that are compatible with the ARM instruction set.

...

Apple, on the other hand, doesn’t use ARM’s designs at all. Ever since
the A6 processor, which debuted with the iPhone 5 in 2012, Apple has
used CPU cores of its own design.'

<https://www.macworld.com/article/3298438/arms-new-roadmap-doesnt-tell-us-anything-about-apple-making-its-own-mac-cpus.html>

'When the Cortex-A76 was announced last year, Filippo told CNET that he
thought the chip design would “do well against Apple.” Apple has for
years made smartphone and tablet processors that far outperform chips
from rivals, designing its own cores instead of licensing them from ARM,
and that’s remained true even with ARM’s latest designs.

ARM and Apple aren’t entirely in competition, though. While Apple
doesn’t explicitly use ARM’s processor designs — as other companies,
like Qualcomm, do — it does rely on ARM’s instruction set when designing
processors of its own. Bringing in someone who’s deeply familiar with
creating chip designs based on ARM’s tech is a natural step as Apple
tries to further what its own chips can do.'

<https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18760083/apple-arm-architect-hire-cortex-a76-mac-processors-intel>

I have other sources if you insist...

...but I suspect you are an "adult".

;-)

>
> Not saying Apple builds its chips without modifying the ARM core design,
> but that they are using these core designs as a foundiation to build on.
> aka: no re-inventing the wheel when building the whole car.

No... ...they are not.

Sorry.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 16:11:42 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Not saying Apple builds its chips without modifying the ARM core design,
> but that they are using these core designs as a foundiation to build on.
> aka: no re-inventing the wheel when building the whole car

Exactly.

We covered the marketing bullshit of "arm cores" in the past, in detail.

See the _facts_ in this thread, for example:
o Q: Is there any functional hardware on iPhones not ALREADY on Android?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Q8zK-6L_Pkw/OQPn_hzWBwAJ>

Apple's only secret sauce in smartphone CPUs is (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING.

Verbatim quote:
o Custom cores versus ARM cores, what is it all about?
<https://www.androidauthority.com/arm-cortex-core-custom-core-kryo-explained-664777/>
"What is the point of designing a custom ARM core? To design a
custom core is expensive, you need to employ a team of highly
skilled CPU engineers over a long period (several years) to build
a CPU core, which is at best a few percentage points faster than
your rival, plus it will become obsolete in a matter of months.
*The 'why' is _marketing_*

Anyone talking about Apple "arm cores" is spouting bullshit marketing
(IMHO) since it's meaningless bullshit that only Marketing spouts.

For example, even with "arm cores", millions of iPhones are still throttled
to less than half speed in about a year.

These are facts _adults_ should not be immune to.

--
Even with "arm cores", iPhones are throttled to less than half CPU sppeds.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 15:46:29 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

>> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.
>
> Not quite 100% true. Apple uses core designs from ARM as a basis to
> build its chips.

Exactly.

Apple essentially writes a script & punch the buttons to run that script.
o A CPU comes out; but it's _still_ using ARM-licensed technology.

Essentially the same as almost every (if not every?) one else does.

And yet, what comes out of the _other_ smartphone manufacturers does not
need to be secretly, drastically, and permanently throttled to about half
the CPU speed in about a year.

That's a fact.

Anyone making _any_ claim of 'best in class' CPUs for Apple can only make
that claim if they completely _ignore_ facts every adult already knows.

*Many apple smartphone CPUs are _half_ the performance after about a year.*

Nonetheless, the _adult_ factual question remains:
o *Has Apple _ever_ designed a best-in-class smartphone IC?

If so... simply name it.

[Arlen Holder]

Hi JF Mezei,

*Thank you for acting like an _adult_ on this newsgroup!*

I rarely quote the entire post (except JR who avoids Google archival), but
your post was FANTASTIC so I felt the need to quote it, in full.

THANK YOU for acting like an _adult_, which you have to admit, is a rarity
on this Apple newsgroup (what with Alan Baker & nospam & Lewis, et al.).

I _appreciate_ that you looked up the _facts_ on Apple's GPU endeavors,
none of which do I dispute, so I trust that your answers are factually
correct.

Remember, adults can do two things apologists never seem to be able to do:
1. Adults comprehend facts, first and foremost.
2. Adults form reasonable assessments of those facts.

Note that adults who form reasonable assessments of the facts can almost
always (if not always) find other adults, in published accounts, who form
the _same_ reasonable assessments based on those facts.

Also note the apologists can almost never (if not always never) find _any_
reliable published accounts which agree with their assessments (other than
marketing bullshit).

It seems that the FACTS we agree on, which were hinted at in _all_ the
cites I provided in the original post, which is that Apple _tried_ to make
a go at smartphone GPU design _without_ Imagination.

We can accept that as a fact (even as it was implied in _all_ the articles,
so I knew that simply from what the articles assessed).

We can also accept as a fact that we can both be pretty sure Apple has good
lawyers would wouldn't tie their hands in _any_ contract, such that it's
likely that Apple can design whatever they want of their _own_ designs
outside of Qualcomm, ARM, and Imagination.

We can accept that, a priori, as a fact, that Apple can _always_ design
their own GPU, and their own CPU, and their own modem, even if their design
is not best in class for a smartphone IC.

The main question that remains is the ASSESSMENT of the facts.
a. Apple tried to go at it _without_ Imagination
b. Apple came running back to Imagination.
c. The articles I quoted said (or implied) this:

"...*this is evidence of Apple struggling to make its own graphics chips*"

<https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/02/apple-imagination-reinstate-chip-deal/>

In summary, I appreciate that you validated what all the cited articles
implied, which is that Apple certainly tried to put GPUs in smartphone, and
that Apple still can (if they wish to do so); but that Apple felt the need
to license Imagination's GPU technology, just as Apple felt the need to
license ARM & Qualcomm smartphone technology.

A fact which remains unknown is whether Apple has _ever_ designed a
best-in-class smartphone IC, where I simply ask the question of all
concerned.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 05 Jan 2020 15:27:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

> apple does much more than license the technology.

Cut the Apple Marketing bullshit, nospam.
o *Simply name just _one_ best-in-class smartphone IC Apple designed.*

Name just one.

> apple's processors are entirely their own design which outperform other
> arm processors and even intel in many cases.

Cut the bullshit nospam.

o Apple processors are widely known to be throttled to half speed in about
a year, for entire iPhone lines, for years on end, for millions of people.

So cut the bullshit since all it does is prove you're ignorant of facts.

> apple's a7 chip nearly a decade ago was the industry's first 64 bit arm
> processor, which was so far ahead of anything else that the competition
> was forced to bash the need for 64 bit, all the while they scrambled to
> catch up.

Cut the bullshit nospam.
o Only a fool like you will pretend he doesn't know how CPU design works.

You're on top for a few months; and then you're not.
o Happens to _all_ of them, nospam.

So cut the cherry-picked marketing bullshit, nospam.

> the s4 in the apple watch is the industry's first 64 bit processor for
> wearables and *well* ahead of the competition.

Cut the bullshit nospam.
o The topic is Apple-designed smartphone ICs.

> the a* and s* series processors
> currently use a 7nm process and next year they're expected to be 5nm,
> while intel is fumbling getting below 10nm.

Cut the bullshit, nospam.

The evidence clearly shows these facts:
a. Apple _failed_ at smartphone modem design (actually Intel failed Apple)
b. Apple (reputedly) _failed_ at smartphone GPU design (based on the news)
c. Apple _throttles CPUs_ to less than half performance in about a year

Cut the marketing bullshit nospam.

*Name a _single_ best-in-class smartphone IC that Apple designed.*
o Name just one

> <https://bgr.com/2019/07/19/iphone-12-specs-5nm-cpu-to-hit-production-in-
> time-for-2020-launch/>
> Each new iPhone generation brings us a brand new Apple processor
> that is faster than ever, and much better than what the competition
> has to offer.

Cut the bullshit nospam.

No other phone manufacturer on the planet has felt the intense need to
secretly, drastically, and permanently throttle CPUs - other than Apple.

*That's a fact which proves Apple makes fantastically shitty designs*.

You apologists _ignore_ that simple obvious well-known indisputable fact;
o But there isn't an adult on this planet who doesn't know this _is_ a fact.

The _adult_ question remains:
o Has Apple _ever_ designed a best-in-class smartphone chip?

If you think so...
o Name just one

--
The problem with apologists is that they are utterly immune to facts.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 15:03:45 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Correct. Apple uses the ARM architecture. But the work to create a chip
> that implements the ARM architecture is still Apple's. And the work to
> implenent the other functiiaonlity embeded in the chip such as secure
> enclave, secure enclosure and now the motion sensing hardware is all
> Apple's.

Agreed. I always agree to adult rational logical sensible arguments.

There are two fundamental ways to create a CPU, where Apple (and most, if
not all smartphone manufacturers?) choose to license ARM technology.

That begs the basic question:
Q: *Does _any_ major smartphone manufacturer _not_ use ARM CPU technology?*

> And consider that Apple was first to market with the new 64 bit version
> of the ARM architecture. So this means its engineers managed to create
> the new chip with the new instructiosn and 64 bit data paths in less
> time than Qualcomm and others. Hardly the sign of failure.

We could discuss whether those marketing bullet points are meaningful; but
the question here is whether Apple has _ever_ created a best-in-class IC.

Merely implementing someone elses' technology doesn't count for IC "design"
(whether that's ARM, Qualcomm, or Imagination's proprietary technology).

> And Apple's implementations of the ARM instruction set tend to have
> extremly good performance, and the best power/performance ratio which is
> why iPhones can have such long autonomy with smaller batteries.

Cough cough.
o Let's not be ignorant of basic facts that _everyone_ knows, please.

Please do not make claims that are trivial to DESTROY with a single fact.

HINT: No other smartphone manufacturer has _ever_ designed such a shitty
power-delivery system such that Apple alone felt the intense need to
secretly, permanently, and drastically cut CPU performance in half, in
about a year, for their entire iPhone product line, for years on end!

Let's be adults please and hence let's take into account actual facts.

The facts easily prove:
*Apple arguably makes the _worst_ power-delivery system of any smartphone!*

> Apple has done an incredible job of creating its ARM based chips to
> consume much less power than competitors, and that is a huge win for
> Apple.

Let's be adults please.

The facts _easily_ prove...
o *Apple arguably makes the _worst_ power delivery system ever designed.*
(for a smartphone)

> Yes, the ARM architecture itself is designed to make it easier to
> consume less power, but the fact that Apple's chips implementing ARM
> architecture consume less power than Qualcomm chips that implement the
> same architectures shows that Apple is better.

Let's not ignore facts when we make our arguments please.

It's a fact iPhone CPU performance is cut in about _half_ for the entire
smartphone lineup for _years_ on end, after "about a year" of use.

That's _not_ something Apple MARKETING touts; but it's still a fact.

In fact, that's a fact you can choose to be ignorant of.
o But no adult on this planet is ignorant of that basic well-known fact.

> Apple has many failings. But chips are not it.

Let's remain adults when we discuss "facts", where the basic question is:
o Name just one smartphone IC that Apple designed that is best in class?

Name just one.

It's a simple adult question to ask, which is pertinent to the subject:
o Name just one.

I can't name a _single_ best-in-class smartphone IC from Apple.
o Can anyone?

If so...
o Name just one.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 12:21:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> And now you're just a liar.
>
> Apple designs its own ARM-based CPUs
>
> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.

FACTS.

*Name just _one_ smartphone best-in-class smartphone chip Apple designed?*
o Name just one.

HINT: Arm, Qualcomm, and Imagination are _licensed_ technology, which
_anyone_ can license (and probably they all do).

It could be Apple has _never_ even once made a best-in-class smartphone IC.
o But I'm willing to let the facts speak for themselves.

Name just one best-in-class smartphone IC that Apple designed & used.
o Name just one.

--
Those with imaginary belief systems always fail this simple test of facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 2:32 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 15:46:29 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:
>
>>> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.
>>
>> Not quite 100% true. Apple uses core designs from ARM as a basis to
>> build its chips.
>
> Exactly.

Exactly wrong.

>
> Apple essentially writes a script & punch the buttons to run that script.
> o A CPU comes out; but it's _still_ using ARM-licensed technology.

Nope. Wrong.

It uses ARM's ARCHITECTURE.

Apple does its own core designs.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-01-05 2:32 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 12:21:09 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And now you're just a liar.
>>
>> Apple designs its own ARM-based CPUs
>>
>> They use the ARM ARCHITECTURE, but they are entirely Apple's designs.
>
> FACTS.
>
> *Name just _one_ smartphone best-in-class smartphone chip Apple designed?*
> o Name just one.

A6

A7

*

*

*

A13

All use Apple designs.

[Arlen Holder]

On 5 Jan 2020 21:37:16 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> In other words, Apple continues to design its own GPUs but doesn't
>> have to fear patent infringement lawsuit from Imagination.
>

> It's hilarious how long it took you guys to finally figure this out.

Note that this fact was known since the opening post.
o Of course Apple can _try_ to make a best-in-class smartphone GPU.

*The question in this thread is the (reputed) observation that they can't.*

Worse, there's no factual evidence Apple has _ever_ designed a
best-in-class chip in their entire history of smartphone design.

Reputedly Apple failed in smartphone GPU design.
Certainly Apple failed at modem design (via Intel).
Clearly many Apple CPUs are throttled in half after about a year.
etc.

The adult factual question arises...
o *Has Apple _ever_ designed a best-in-class smartphone IC in its history?*