Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Apple would have died as a copmany if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm - now Apple is in advanced talks to purchase Intel's 5G unit for over a billion dollars more

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 23, 2019, 1:21:46 AM7/23/19
to
The amount of money Apple is spending for 5G is utterly astronomical.
Which is funny given nospam insists that "Apple isn't worried" about 5G.

Apple Might Scoop Up Thousands of Intel Patents in Pursuit of 5G Modem
The sooner Apple can extricate itself from a relationship with Qualcomm,
the better.
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/07/10/apple-might-scoop-up-thousands-of-intel-patents-in.aspx>
"Intel has entered into exclusive talks with an unnamed buyer that is
very likely none other than Apple"

"it's become abundantly clear that Apple utterly loathes doing business
with Qualcomm."

The WSJ named Apple and intimated the hugely expensive deal is about a week
away.

Apple in Advanced Talks to Buy Intel┬ Smartphone-Modem Chip Business
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-in-advanced-talks-to-buy-intels-smartphone-modem-chip-business-11563830356>
"Apple Inc. is in advanced talks to buy Intel Corp.┬ smartphone-modem
chip business, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that
would jump-start the iPhone maker┬ push to take control of developing the
critical components powering its devices."

It's amazing that (a) Apple surrendered ot Qualcomm, and now (b) Apple is
spending at least a billion more, for what nospam constantly claims Apple
isn't worried about.

For a company that isn't worried - they're sure spending many (many)
billions of dollars to get a hold of 5G technology.

Personally, I don't blame Apple for surrendering to Qualcomm and for buying
out Intel, because, without 5G, the entire company would have been dead in
just a couple of years.

5G is that important (despite nospam's insistence that they're "not
worried").

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 24, 2019, 2:40:17 AM7/24/19
to
On 2019-07-22 10:21 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> The amount of money Apple is spending for 5G is utterly astronomical.
> Which is funny given nospam insists that "Apple isn't worried" about 5G.
>
> Apple Might Scoop Up Thousands of Intel Patents in Pursuit of 5G Modem
> The sooner Apple can extricate itself from a relationship with Qualcomm,
> the better.
> <https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/07/10/apple-might-scoop-up-thousands-of-intel-patents-in.aspx>
> "Intel has entered into exclusive talks with an unnamed buyer that is
> very likely none other than Apple"
>
> "it's become abundantly clear that Apple utterly loathes doing business
> with Qualcomm."
>
> The WSJ named Apple and intimated the hugely expensive deal is about a week
> away.
>
> Apple in Advanced Talks to Buy Intel¢s Smartphone-Modem Chip Business
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-in-advanced-talks-to-buy-intels-smartphone-modem-chip-business-11563830356>
> "Apple Inc. is in advanced talks to buy Intel Corp.¢s smartphone-modem
> chip business, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that
> would jump-start the iPhone maker¢s push to take control of developing the
> critical components powering its devices."
>
> It's amazing that (a) Apple surrendered ot Qualcomm, and now (b) Apple is
> spending at least a billion more, for what nospam constantly claims Apple
> isn't worried about.

It's amazing that one person can write so much bullshit...

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 9:05:28 AM7/25/19
to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:40:16 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> It's amazing that one person can write so much bullshit...

Hi Alan Baker,

You Apple apologists call facts bullshit because you literally hate facts.
o The apologists' belief systems are easily shown to be devoid of fact.

The reason you are apologists is because you only know what Apple feeds you.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 12:03:41 PM7/25/19
to
On 2019-07-25 6:05 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:40:16 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> It's amazing that one person can write so much bullshit...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You Apple apologists call facts bullshit because you literally hate facts.

How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?

Lewis

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 1:30:32 PM7/25/19
to
In message <qhcjsr$1muo$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
> How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?

Dipshit thinks that paying Qualcomm less money than they owned AND
getting patent rights is "surrendering."

Nothing Dipshit has ever posted is in anyway a fact.

--
LOOSE TEETH DON'T NEED MY HELP Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF16

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 4:39:20 PM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:03:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?

Hi Alan Baker,

Do you Apologists ever even just once read (and understand) the news?

The news used the word "surrender" - I simply understood the terms & agree.
o Apple Surrenders To Qualcomm Before Starting The Mega-Trial
<https://www.techspynews.com/apple-surrenders-to-qualcomm-before-starting-the-mega-trial/>

o Qualcomm is the unquestioned leader in 5G as Apple surrendered to its terms
<https://investorplace.com/2019/04/apple-blinks-pays-qualcomm/>

o Apple Backs Down Against Qualcomm To Secure iPhone 5G Technology
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2019/04/17/apple-iphone5g-modem-qualcomm-settlement-intel-tim-cook-huawei/>

o Apple's legal surrender in Qualcomm case is blow for its supply chain strategy
<https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/apples-legal-surrender-in-qualcomm-case-is-blow-for-its-supply-chain>

*Notice many references support the simple fact Apple _surrendered_ to Qualcomm!*
o Can you Apologists name even a _single_ reference which supports your math?

Let's see if _you_ understand the terms, by this very simple question:
o What did Apple _gain_ by their deal with Qualcomm?

HINT: Notice Apple is paying far _more_ now, per phone, to Qualcomm - than
they were paying to Qualcomm before the battle started - and that's what
the battle was all about!

DOUBLEHINT: Apple was openly betting on Intel saving their ass - and yet -
Intel themselves said very openly they couldn't save Apple & hence Intel
was dropping the unit - selling the parts or the whole - to whatever the
fire-sale market will bear.

Had Apple not surrendered to Qualcomm - Apple would have ceased to exist.
o The stakes were that high once it was clear Intel couldn't save Apple.

Alan Baker - I simply ask you the simplest of adult questions...
o Name just ONE reference on the planet that backs up your view

This is the simple adult test that you Apologists _always_ seem to fail:
o Name just one

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 4:39:21 PM7/25/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:30:31 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Dipshit thinks that paying Qualcomm less money than they owned AND
> getting patent rights is "surrendering."
>
> Nothing Dipshit has ever posted is in anyway a fact.

Hi Lewis,

All you apologists constantly fail the simpest of all adult tests of...
o Name just one

I _love_ when you post (along with JR & BK) since you're PERFECT!
o You don't understand a _single_ thing about the Qualcomm agreement!

FACT:
o Apple is paying _more_ now per phone to Qualcomm than they were before!

You Apple Apologists have absolutely no comprehension of even simple facts!
o Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/lJ4CkRhfCwAJ>

Let's see if you Apologists can find a _single_ reference that supports
your claims that Apple is paying _less_ now, than before!
o Name just one

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 4:50:16 PM7/25/19
to
On 2019-07-25 1:39 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:03:40 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Do you Apologists ever even just once read (and understand) the news?

Do you understand the term "sensational language"?

sms

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 6:27:06 PM7/25/19
to
On 7/22/2019 10:21 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> For a company that isn't worried - they're sure spending many (many)
> billions of dollars to get a hold of 5G technology.

No company wants to be dependent on others for the core technology in
their products, if possible. Obviously Apple isn't going to get into the
screen business, but they are very good at designing processors and will
eventually become very good at designing modems.

nospam

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 6:37:48 PM7/25/19
to
In article <qhdabn$6d1$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> No company wants to be dependent on others for the core technology in
> their products, if possible. Obviously Apple isn't going to get into the
> screen business,

obviously, they *are*, and have been working on it for several years:

<https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/18/apple-microled-rumor/>
Apple quietly acquired a company called LuxVue in 2014 that was
working on low-power MicroLED display technology. A report by
Bloomberg indicates that development has continued and that Apple
is making a "significant investment" in the new technology with an
eye toward including them in devices like the iPhone or Apple Watch
in a few years.

> but they are very good at designing processors and will
> eventually become very good at designing modems.

sooner than you might think.

YK

unread,
Jul 25, 2019, 10:49:01 PM7/25/19
to
On 7/25/19 9:05 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> You Apple apologists

Are there Microsoft, Chrome, Android, or Linux apologists?

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 4:26:51 AM7/26/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:37:46 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> but they are very good at designing processors and will
>> eventually become very good at designing modems.
>
> sooner than you might think.

Qualcomm isn't sitting still in 5G modems - and Qualcomm has a lot of
patents locked up (as did Intel)...

Even Apple's basic processor technology is licensed from someone else.
o Yet ... Apple _does_ have more money than God.

So, if Apple spends ungodly amounts of money on 5G modem technology
o Maybe ... just maybe ... they can do what Intel could not do.

However ... if Apple can't even make a best in class MAP app, even with the
ungodly amount of money they're pouring into the effort - then it remains
to be seen if Apple can actually make best-in-class modems.

Remember, Apple's main core competency is BRILLIANT MARKETING
o For example, bright red phones sell to idiots - who eat up that marketing

But 5G modem technology is something that is easily tested
o Which will tax Apple's brilliance in fomenting imaginary belief systems

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 4:26:52 AM7/26/19
to
Hi sma,

The main point of this thread is simply to inform Apple aficionados that
Apple is very close to buying out the leftovers from Intel's failed bid in
5G modems.

It's clear that Apple lost their shirt to Qualcomm - even though you,
yourself, clearly did the math wrong (and never admitted that you did it
wrong).

The fact is that Apple lost their shirt to Qualcomm simply because they
needed 5G modem technology - which - they had bet the farm that Intel could
second source it - and when Intel failed - then Apple is left to do it on
its own.
o Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/6f7OlTtfCwAJ>

Bearing in mind that Apple's gift is MARKETING - and NOT technology - it
remains to be seen if Apple will _ever_ catch up to Qualcomm. Personally, I
doubt it because Apples's key strength is MARKETING of imaginary
functionality, and not delivering actual functionality.

The proof of that statement is rampant (e.g., there isn't a single iOS app
that Apple has ever created that works outside the walled garden which is
even remotedly close to best in class, as just one of many examples).
o Has Apple ever created a best-in-class iOS app that works OUTSIDE the walled garden?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cx1caxsBaUc/0Xmm4d74AgAJ>

Even the processor technology is licensed from ARM, and, as you're well
aware, Apple has almost never even made the best camera, where, the Apple
iPhones are generally in the bottom of the top ten at any one point in
time, with many Android phones having far better camera output consistently
over Apple.

These are simply facts.
o The apologists _hate_ these facts.

But the fact apologists hate facts doesn't change that they're still facts.

It just means that Apologists own imaginary belief systems
o Which is what Apple is absolutely fantastic at creating from scratch

The problem with 5G modems is that they're _easy_ to test
o So Apple can't create an imaginary belief system that will hold water

Even with apologists - who - at some point in their lives - will have to
accept the fact that Apple literally lost their shirt to Qualcomm - and
will continue to do so - paying more now per phone than ever before -
simply because 5G technology is _that_ important to a supposedly "high end"
mobile phone in the coming years.

You can hate these facts...and you can hate me for stating these facts...
o But that doesn't change the fact that they're still just facts.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 4:26:53 AM7/26/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:48:58 -0400, YK wrote:

> Are there Microsoft, Chrome, Android, or Linux apologists?

Hi YK,

How does Microsoft, Google, & Canonical MARKETING stack up to Apple?

Over the years, I've noticed that Apple has the finest MARKETING on the
planet, where I'm utterly awed by their sheer MARKETING brilliance:
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>

As an example of their sheer marketing brilliance, they make people like
Alan Baker "believe" they got a good deal from Qualcomm, even though Apple
lost their shirt to Qualcomm - clearly - by all accounts - save for what
the Apple Apologists believe.

The Apple Apologists are sort of like flat earthers ...
o They own a completely imaginary belief system, fostered by Apple
MARKETING

For example, they don't even realize that there is _nothing_ by way of app
functionality in iOS that isn't already in Android - and - far worse -
there is so much app functionality in a five year old Android device that
is NOT in any iOS device on the planet - that it's just sad to list them
out (e.g., app launchers, automatic call recorders, wifi graphical
debugging, ability to organize a desktop, ability to load from any
repository, the official Tor browser, etc.).

What Apple does is market the FEELING of safety to the apologists
o They only care to "feel" safe - not actually _be_ safe!

It turns out, that the apologists believe what Apple MARKETING feeds them.
o Where normal adults can see through the marketing in a split second

Basically, there are a small group of posters on this ng who only know what
Apple Marketing BRILLIANTLY feeds them - where - if you know anything about
marketing - it's the job of all marketing organizations to foster imaginary
belief systems - which - clearly - the Apple Apologists own.
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

Those people all prove, time & again, they own the exact imaginary belief
system that Apple Marketing feeds them.

As just one example, they actually believe an iPhone is, somehow,
(magically?) private.
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>
Simply because Apple Marketing said so! :)

You have to admit, Apple MARKETING is brilliant!
o Also, there are a score of people on this ng, who _believe_ that
marketing to the point that they make apologies for the fact that their
belief system has almost zero basis in actual facts.

They're much like flat earthers are ... in that they own the same brain.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 4:26:54 AM7/26/19
to
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:50:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Do you understand the term "sensational language"?

Hi Alan Baker

Jesus Christ - you Apologists are like little childish school children.
o All you _can_ do, is play silly idiotic childish word games.

1. You are the one who asked
"How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?"
2. Then when I gave you the answer, you play silly childish word games.

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker. Who gives a shit what word they used.

The math works out that Apple lost their shirt in that Qualcomm deal!
o *What part of _PAYING MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE_ to Qualcomm don't you comprehend?*

It doesn't matter _what_ word you use to describe the fact that Apple paid
through the nose, and lost EVERYTHING they were fighting for.

Choose _any_ word you want to describe Apple LOST big time to Qualcomm...
o Hook, line, and sinker.

You apologists prove - in every post - that you're all utter morons.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 5:26:41 PM7/26/19
to
On 2019-07-26 1:26 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:26:59 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>>> For a company that isn't worried - they're sure spending many (many)
>>> billions of dollars to get a hold of 5G technology.
>>
>> No company wants to be dependent on others for the core technology in
>> their products, if possible. Obviously Apple isn't going to get into the
>> screen business, but they are very good at designing processors and will
>> eventually become very good at designing modems.
>
> Hi sma,
>
> The main point of this thread is simply to inform Apple aficionados that
> Apple is very close to buying out the leftovers from Intel's failed bid in
> 5G modems.
>
> It's clear that Apple lost their shirt to Qualcomm - even though you,
> yourself, clearly did the math wrong (and never admitted that you did it
> wrong).

"Lost their shirt", "Arlen"?

Really?

What was the total amount you claim they "lost"...

...and how does it compare to a single quarter's profit?

>
> The fact is that Apple lost their shirt to Qualcomm simply because they
> needed 5G modem technology - which - they had bet the farm that Intel could
> second source it - and when Intel failed - then Apple is left to do it on
> its own.
> o Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/6f7OlTtfCwAJ>
>
> Bearing in mind that Apple's gift is MARKETING - and NOT technology - it
> remains to be seen if Apple will _ever_ catch up to Qualcomm. Personally, I
> doubt it because Apples's key strength is MARKETING of imaginary
> functionality, and not delivering actual functionality.

All the "A" processors Apple designs and builds: those are marketing,
are they?

>
> The proof of that statement is rampant (e.g., there isn't a single iOS app
> that Apple has ever created that works outside the walled garden which is
> even remotedly close to best in class, as just one of many examples).
> o Has Apple ever created a best-in-class iOS app that works OUTSIDE the walled garden?
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cx1caxsBaUc/0Xmm4d74AgAJ>

Since NO iOS apps work outside the walled garden, your "test" is a sham.

>
> Even the processor technology is licensed from ARM, and, as you're well

'The Apple A5X is a 32-bit system-on-a-chip (SoC) designed by Apple
Inc., introduced at the launch of the third generation iPad on March 7,
2012.'

'The Apple A6X is a 32-bit system-on-a-chip (SoC) designed by Apple
Inc., introduced at the launch of the fourth generation iPad on October
23, 2012.'

'The Apple A7 is a 64-bit system on a chip (SoC) designed by Apple Inc.
It first appeared in the iPhone 5S, which was introduced on September
10, 2013.'

'The Apple A8 is a 64-bit ARM-based system on a chip (SoC) designed by
Apple Inc. It first appeared in the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, which
were introduced on September 9, 2014.'

'The Apple A9 is a 64-bit ARM-based system-on-chip (SoC), designed by
Apple Inc. Manufactured for Apple by both TSMC and Samsung, it first
appeared in the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus which were introduced on September
9, 2015.'

'The Apple A10 Fusion is a 64-bit ARM-based system on a chip (SoC),
designed by Apple Inc. and manufactured by TSMC. It first appeared in
the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus which were introduced on September 7, 2016.'

'The Apple A11 Bionic is a 64-bit ARM-based system on a chip (SoC),
designed by Apple Inc.[6] and manufactured by TSMC.[1] It first appeared
in the iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X which were introduced on
September 12, 2017.'

'The Apple A12 Bionic is a 64-bit ARM-based system on a chip (SoC)
designed by Apple Inc.[7] It first appeared in the iPhone XS, XS Max,
XR, and 2019 versions of the iPad Air and iPad Mini.'

> aware, Apple has almost never even made the best camera, where, the
> Apple
> iPhones are generally in the bottom of the top ten at any one point in
> time, with many Android phones having far better camera output
> consistently
> over Apple.

In reality, Apple cameras currently rank 3 and 4 here:

<https://www.creativebloq.com/features/best-camera-phone>


>
> These are simply facts.
> o The apologists _hate_ these facts.

Since you rarely present any, how could you know that?

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 5:28:33 PM7/26/19
to
On 2019-07-26 1:26 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:50:09 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Do you understand the term "sensational language"?
>
> Hi Alan Baker
>
> Jesus Christ - you Apologists are like little childish school children.
> o All you _can_ do, is play silly idiotic childish word games.
>
> 1. You are the one who asked
> "How is it a "fact" that Apple supposedly "surrendered" to Qualcomm?"

Yes. I asked YOU to explain HOW.

> 2. Then when I gave you the answer, you play silly childish word games.

You didn't answer. You gave news reports that echoed your language.

That is not an actual supporting argument.

>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker. Who gives a shit what word they used.
>
> The math works out that Apple lost their shirt in that Qualcomm deal!
> o *What part of _PAYING MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE_ to Qualcomm don't you comprehend?*

What part of "Apple isn't losing its shirt" don't you get?

>
> It doesn't matter _what_ word you use to describe the fact that Apple paid
> through the nose, and lost EVERYTHING they were fighting for.

Really?

So they're not still making huge profits on iPhones?

Show your conviction and short Apple.

:-)

YK

unread,
Jul 26, 2019, 5:53:07 PM7/26/19
to
On 7/26/19 4:26 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>> Are there Microsoft, Chrome, Android, or Linux apologists?

> Hi YK,
>
> How does Microsoft, Google, & Canonical MARKETING stack up to Apple?

Not an answer to my question. "yes or no"

> Basically, there are a small group of posters on this ng who only
know what
> Apple Marketing BRILLIANTLY feeds them - where - if you know anything
about
> marketing - it's the job of all marketing organizations to foster
imaginary
> belief systems - which - clearly - the Apple Apologists own.
> o Alan Baker<nu...@ness.biz>
> o Alan Browne<bitb...@blackhole.com>
> o Andreas Rutishauser<and...@macandreas.ch>
> o Beedle<Bee...@dont-email.me>
> o...@Onramp.net
> o Chris<ithi...@gmail.com>
> o Davoud<st...@sky.net>
> o Elden<use...@moondog.org>
> o Elfin<elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
> o*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
> o joe<no...@domain.invalid>
> o Joerg Lorenz<hugy...@gmx.ch>
> o Johan<JH...@nospam.invalid>
> o Jolly Roger<jolly...@pobox.com>
> o Lewis<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
> o Lloyd<elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
> o Lloyd Parsons<lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
> o Meanie<M...@gmail.com>
> o nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid>
> o Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
> o Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
> o Tim Streater<timst...@greenbee.net>
> o Wade Garrett<wa...@cooler.net>
> o Your Name<Your...@YourISP.com>
> o et al.

Your typical ad nausea um answer, I think everyone who reads your posts
is familiar with your list of perceived losers.

Time to put another thread in the kill file. I made the mistake of
thinking you could actually answer my simple question with a yes or no
answer. But, you are just not capable of such a thing.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 3:00:20 AM7/27/19
to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:53:05 -0400, YK wrote:

> Time to put another thread in the kill file. I made the mistake of
> thinking you could actually answer my simple question with a yes or no
> answer. But, you are just not capable of such a thing.

Read this for a public comparison from today of Apple to other companies:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 3:00:21 AM7/27/19
to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:26:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> What was the total amount you claim they "lost"...

Hi Alan Baker,

Facts first.
o You apologists always seem to prove you can't comprehend even simple facts.

FACTS:
*Apple lost _EVERYTHING_ Apple asked for in the court fight*
o The arrears payment alone was between five & six billion dollars.
o New royalties per iPhone _grew_ about 113% overall.

Based on your responses to date, it could very well be that I'm perhaps the
only person on this ng who has the capacity to comprehend even simple facts
which are well reported in the news - but which you apologists can't seem
to comprehend.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/EhC6IaKlBwAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/KrBSGXSkBwAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/LA2k7dyjBwAJ>
etc.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 3:12:03 AM7/27/19
to
On 2019-07-27 12:00 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:26:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What was the total amount you claim they "lost"...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Facts first.
> o You apologists always seem to prove you can't comprehend even simple facts.

That isn't a fact. That is an assertion. We've been over this.

>
> FACTS:
> *Apple lost _EVERYTHING_ Apple asked for in the court fight*

So that's not money they had to pay out?

> o The arrears payment alone was between five & six billion dollars.

> o New royalties per iPhone _grew_ about 113% overall.
>


Sorry. Specific cites please.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 3:12:53 AM7/27/19
to
On 2019-07-27 12:00 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
What does that have to do with this thread?

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 5:04:59 AM7/27/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:12:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> What does that have to do with this thread?

Ask YK whom I was responding to when he pulled the _classic_ Apologists' move.
o *Blame everyone else (i.e., _anyone but Apple_) for Apple's mistakes*

REFERENCE:
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>

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 5:16:25 AM7/27/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:12:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry. Specific cites please.

What's sad is that you are actually serious that you _missed_ the cite!
o You _missed_ the cite even though it was supplied _multiple_ times!

None of you apologists have _any_ education or intelligence whatsoever
o You couldn't last a week in graduate school, or in the Silicon Valley

Yet again, here is the cite from sms, an avowed Apple user himself
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ>

What's most scary is that people like you apologists ... actually do exist.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 5:22:21 AM7/27/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:12:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> So that's not money they had to pay out?

You apologists are actually _serious_ when you make those statements.
o That's what is so sad about this conversation

*Do you have _any_ comprehension of what that lawsuit was about?*
o HINT: It wasn't to RAISE royalties, overall, to about 113% for God's sake.
Oo Nor was it to uphold, completely & totally, the original Qualcomm contracts!

Are you _really_ that incognizant of what that lawsuit was all about?

You Apologists couldn't last a week in graduate school or in the Silicon Valley.
o You show absolutely zero comprehension of even the _simplest_ of facts.

B...@onramp.net

unread,
Jul 27, 2019, 11:14:10 AM7/27/19
to
That doesn't matter. He takes any thread and turns it to endless
prattle. He doesn't have a life other than that. He's ill and needs
therapy.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 28, 2019, 1:46:14 AM7/28/19
to
On 2019-07-27 2:04 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:12:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What does that have to do with this thread?
>
> Ask YK whom I was responding to when he pulled the _classic_ Apologists' move.
> o *Blame everyone else (i.e., _anyone but Apple_) for Apple's mistakes*

He literally said absolutely nothing that could be construed with that
meaning.

This is the entire new content of his post to which you were responding:

'Not an answer to my question. "yes or no"'

[then a lot of lines of your previous post]

'Your typical ad nausea um answer, I think everyone who reads your posts
is familiar with your list of perceived losers.

Time to put another thread in the kill file. I made the mistake of
thinking you could actually answer my simple question with a yes or no
answer. But, you are just not capable of such a thing.'

Now, please:

You underline or requote which of those words you contend mean:

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 28, 2019, 4:41:44 PM7/28/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:46:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> He literally said absolutely nothing that could be construed with that
> meaning.

Hi Alan Baker,

Bear in mind that you apologists only have a half dozen responses to facts.
o Given that - what do you _think_ YK was implying when he asked:

*"How does Microsoft, Google, & Canonical MARKETING stack up to Apple?*

C'mon Alan ... what do you _think_ YK was implying with that question?
o HINT: Apple Apologists only have a half dozen responses to fact.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 29, 2019, 12:22:08 PM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-27 2:16 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 00:12:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry. Specific cites please.
>
> What's sad is that you are actually serious that you _missed_ the cite!
> o You _missed_ the cite even though it was supplied _multiple_ times!

No such citations to the claim that "new royalties per iPhone _grew_
about 113% overall." have ever been produced.

Handwaving at a Usenet thread that might contain a post that might
contain a link to an article that might contain something relevant is
not a proper citation with the relevant quote.

>
> None of you apologists have _any_ education or intelligence whatsoever
> o You couldn't last a week in graduate school, or in the Silicon Valley

And yet we demolish your arguments with regularity.

Weird.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 29, 2019, 12:29:57 PM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-28 1:41 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:46:13 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> He literally said absolutely nothing that could be construed with that
>> meaning.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Bear in mind that you apologists only have a half dozen responses to facts.
> o Given that - what do you _think_ YK was implying when he asked:
>
> *"How does Microsoft, Google, & Canonical MARKETING stack up to Apple?*

YK did not say that in the post to which you replied to which I replied.

And even so, this:


'Ask YK whom I was responding to when he pulled the _classic_
Apologists' move.

o *Blame everyone else (i.e., _anyone but Apple_) for Apple's mistakes*'

..is just not something that matches your rhetoric.

He in no way, shape or form blamed anyone else for any of Apple's mistakes.

>
> C'mon Alan ... what do you _think_ YK was implying with that question?
> o HINT: Apple Apologists only have a half dozen responses to fact.
>

I know he wasn't imply that Apple's mistakes were the fault of anyone
other than Apple.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:19:39 AM7/31/19
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:22:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> No such citations to the claim that "new royalties per iPhone _grew_
> about 113% overall." have ever been produced.

Hi Alan Baker,

You Apologists always fail the simplest adult test of all, Alan:
o Find Just One

Even Steve (sms) had to shut up when he realized that Apple royalties
_GREW_ to about 113% of what they were before the lawsuit, Alan.

And he's not even an Apologist!

The fact is that I am likely the only person on this newsgroup capable of
comprehending what the news articles said - which is pretty damn sad when
you think of the number of you Apple posters that are on this newsgroup.

It's damn sad - actually - that not a single one of you has any brains -
which we proved - long ago - when NONE of you could tell the difference
between a decibel and a megabit for Christs' sake.
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

It's shocking how stupid you Apple posters continually prove to be, Alan.
o My role on this newsgroup is simply to point that fact out.

> Handwaving at a Usenet thread that might contain a post that might
> contain a link to an article that might contain something relevant is
> not a proper citation with the relevant quote.

Why is it that Steve (sms) can post an article, and I can read it, and yet,
you can't even find that article in Steve's own post?

If that doesn't prove you Apologists are shockingly stupid - nothing will.

> And yet we demolish your arguments with regularity.

Hehhehheh... the sad thing is that you actually _believe_ that statement.

Here's a quick adult test for you, Alan Baker.
o Find just _one_ article on this planet - who does not say Apple is paying
MORE in royalties per phone to Qualcomm than Apple was before the lawsuit,
Alan.

Find just one.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:19:40 AM7/31/19
to
On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:14:08 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> That doesn't matter. He takes any thread and turns it to endless
> prattle. He doesn't have a life other than that. He's ill and needs
> therapy.

Hi BK,

*Facts _DESTROY_ your entire imaginary belief system in seconds, BK.*

Hence, I only speak facts.
o You don't realize that my goal is to show EXACTLY what Apologists are.

I do that with facts.
o It's that easy to DESTROY the belief system of Apple Apologists.

In fact, it's child's play...
o Facts instantly _DESTROY_ your entire imaginary belief system.

Which is why you _hate_ me.
o And that's OK.

You hate me, BK, because you hate facts about Apple products.
o Your entire belief system, BK, is imaginary.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:19:41 AM7/31/19
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:29:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> He in no way, shape or form blamed anyone else for any of Apple's mistakes.

Hi Alan Baker,

You Apologists only have about a half dozen responses to facts.
o YK's response to facts was one of those half dozen responses.

You're like flat earthers - you really don't have much of a repertoire.
o The fact is that Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple mistakes

Which proves - that even Apologists realize - the Apple advertising is of
an imaginary functionality - where - in reality - the functionality and
vulnerabilities are the same as all the other companies.

*It's just the MARKETING that's different.*
o Admittedly, Apple brilliantly markets an imaginary product.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:26:33 AM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 12:19 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:22:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> No such citations to the claim that "new royalties per iPhone _grew_
>> about 113% overall." have ever been produced.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You Apologists always fail the simplest adult test of all, Alan:
> o Find Just One
>
> Even Steve (sms) had to shut up when he realized that Apple royalties
> _GREW_ to about 113% of what they were before the lawsuit, Alan.

Quote and reference please.

>
> And he's not even an Apologist!
>
> The fact is that I am likely the only person on this newsgroup capable of
> comprehending what the news articles said - which is pretty damn sad when
> you think of the number of you Apple posters that are on this newsgroup.
>
> It's damn sad - actually - that not a single one of you has any brains -
> which we proved - long ago - when NONE of you could tell the difference
> between a decibel and a megabit for Christs' sake.
> o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

That is a Usenet THREAD.

It's not even a single post containing support you claim is there.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:27:05 AM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 12:19 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:14:08 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>
>> That doesn't matter. He takes any thread and turns it to endless
>> prattle. He doesn't have a life other than that. He's ill and needs
>> therapy.
>
> Hi BK,
>
> *Facts _DESTROY_ your entire imaginary belief system in seconds, BK.*

How would you know?

You don't know the difference between fact and assertion.

>

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 31, 2019, 3:28:06 AM7/31/19
to
On 2019-07-31 12:19 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:29:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> He in no way, shape or form blamed anyone else for any of Apple's mistakes.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You Apologists only have about a half dozen responses to facts.
> o YK's response to facts was one of those half dozen responses.

<snip>

Blah, blah, blah.

Either explain how his words are blaming anyone else or admit you've got
nothing...

...again.

Arlen Holder

unread,
Dec 28, 2019, 12:29:19 PM12/28/19
to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 05:21:45 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> The amount of money Apple is spending for 5G is utterly astronomical.
> Which is funny given nospam insists that "Apple isn't worried" about 5G.

On 27 Dec 2019 17:06:26 -0500, bri...@panix.com wrote:

> What available iPhones, if any, support 5G?

It's notable that the headline for today's Apple Insider article on the
highlight of the year 2019, is the following headline.

o April 2019 in review: *Apple settles with Qualcomm to get its 5G modem*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/12/27/april-2019-in-review-apple-settles-with-qualcomm-to-get-its-5g-modem>

"analysts... reckoned that Apple must have paid $6 billion"
"...plus $9 per iPhone sold in royalties."

The article appropriately said:
o "Good thing Apple has money"

Which, if we think like adults should, that should be changed to:
o "*Good thing Apple has _your_ money*"

I think it's interesting that people "think" Apple is superior at IC
design, and yet, 2019 facts prove Apple can't even design a decent modem.
--
Apple surrendered to Qualcomm because they would have died otherwise.

Alan Baker

unread,
Dec 28, 2019, 1:46:07 PM12/28/19
to
LOL!
0 new messages