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)

[arlen holder]

Qualcomm shares outstanding: 1,210,306,000
<https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/qcom/stock-report>

Qualcomm statement as to the incremental EPS due to the Apple deal = $2
<https://247wallst.com/consumer-electronics/2019/04/16/qualcomm-sees-2-per-share-eps-boost-after-settling-all-apple-lawsuits/>

Number of shares outstanding x $2/share = $2,500,000,000

That likely doesn't even include the billion already owed to Qualcomm in
royalties that Apple told manufacturers not to pay while the suits were
being negotiated.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:54:55 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> That likely doesn't even include the billion already owed to Qualcomm in
> royalties that Apple told manufacturers not to pay while the suits were
> being negotiated.

Nor does that include any "poison pill" style arrangement with Intel.

Nor the costs to dismantle plans for the design center in Qualcomm's
backyard.

Nor legal fees and a host of other fees involved, plus interest, which we
can presume was at least charged on the withheld billion dollars.

Fact is ... it's gonna be big.

And guess who gets to pay this?

HINT: Apple's admittedly loyal and yet long suffering customers!

No wonder iPhone owners enjoy atrocious overall cost of ownership!

[Beedle]

Actually if that’s what Apple paid them right now, it’s most likely the
settlement amount. It likely does not include what the courts told Apple to
pay prior to the settlement. And Qualcomm was also told to pay Apple $1bn
prior to this settlement.

So Qualcomm pays Apple the rebates the owe.
Apple pays Qualcomm whatever the court said was owned.
Then just before the trial, Apple and Qualcomm come to settlement.

At this point, the slate is clean. Everyone has paid everyone. And now you
have a new deal spanning 6 years or whatever the duration is and it makes
clear what Apple will pay for licensing and chips. I doubt Apple would have
agreed to a percentage of the phone’s sale price capped at $400 per
handset. That truly was insane of Qualcomm. Qualcomm in my opinion, had the
most to lose. If this case went against Qualcomm their IP device would have
been dealt a death blow. You just don’t make that kind of bet on a court
case. You settle, and you hope no one else sues you under the same
circumstances.

I’d bet Apple got most of what they wanted. And Qualcomm realized their
gamble of extorting Apple was not too smart and may well have damaged the
company long term. At this point, everyone else has to be thinking about
suing them. And these are multi billion dollar companies. They can totally
afford to sue Qualcomm. And they get similar tech from elsewhere.

How long until Apple builds it’s own competing tech and stops buying from
Qualcomm anyway? I’ll bet that takes less than six years. I’ll even bet
that Apple drops Intel as well. One thing this really shows is why you have
to own your own IP. Apple had said Qualcomm wanted more than they pay for
all their other IP combined from third party. The double dipping Qualcomm
was doing should be challenged.

I go to buy a car from you. And you use all kinds of IP in that car that
doesn’t belong to you. But you license it from all the various groups that
own the IP. Then, the IP holders come to me and say, where’s your license
for our IP? I bought the car from someone who licensed your IP in their
vehicle. I don’t need a license. The manufacturer needs it so they can
build and sell what they build and sell. What’s next, is Qualcomm going to
ask for a list of customers cause we have to pay Qualcomm too? Qualcomm is
clearly in the wrong. What they are doing is simply not done. I sure hope
this isn’t over.

--
Beedle

[Alan Baker]

You can't even read...

"Expect Incremental EPS of ~$2.00 as product shipments ramp."

"AS PRODUCT SHIPMENTS RAMP." indicates quite clearly that the settlement
is not the only thing that was being discussed. It may not have been any
part of the discussion that led to that statement.

AND...

...you could actually have checked this for yourself:

<https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/3cb803e8-fc20-4ec6-87e2-7af6f6936e2c>

"Expect incremental EPS of ~$2.00 as product shipments ramp [1]

1 Financial impacts include both the global patent agreement and the
chipset supply agreement based on current market conditions..."

Qualcomm WASN'T even discussing any settlement.

Too bad for you.

:-(

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:56:50 -0500, Beedle wrote:

> Actually if that¢s what Apple paid them right now, it¢s most likely the
> settlement amount. It likely does not include what the courts told Apple to
> pay prior to the settlement. And Qualcomm was also told to pay Apple $1bn
> prior to this settlement.

Hi Beedle,

This is my first post in response to you, since you appear to be relatively
new (or a reincarnation of someone whom I don't recognize from your style).

Assuming you're new to the ng, I _love_ that you're thinking like an adult,
where it's _refreshing_ to note that there are people on this ng who can
handle basic facts, and then form reasonable logical deductions from those
facts.

What most of the apologists do on this ng, AFAICT, is flatly disagree with
_any_ fact about Apple that they don't like. That's as far as any
"conversation" gets with them, since they will flatly refute any and all
facts that don't fit into what turns out to be an imaginary belief system.
(e.g., Snit _still_ believes the iPhone can do something as simple as graph
wifi signal strength for nearby access points over time).

Hence, it's refreshing that you appear to comprehend the basic facts, and,
what's better, you move on to the stage of interpreting what the
ramifications of those facts might be, where the real world is more
complicated than we'd like it to be sometimes.

I understand what you're saying, where I don't claim to know any more than
you or anyone else does with respect to the seemingly immense size of the
settlement.

Given that this suit appears to settle _all_ outstanding claims, you could
very well be correct that the initial billion dollars withheld by the
manufacturers could be included in Apple's portion.

It could just as well be a separate financial transaction between the 4
manufacturers and Qualcomm though, for all we currently know - since that's
how the payments were _originally_ structured (AFAIK).
1. The 4 manufacturers entered into agreements with Qualcomm
2. Those 4 manufacturers owed Qualcomm 1 billion USD based on the price of
the manufactured good (i.e., the iPhone)
3. Apple reimburses those 4 manufacturers that 1 billion dollars
4. Qualcomm, if it feels Apple was nice to them, then rebates the billion
dollars back to Apple.

Notice the game only works if _everyone_ pays, which didn't happen:
1. The 4 manufacturers pay Qualcomm
2. Apple reimburses the 4 manufacturers
3. Qualcomm rebates Apple

Given the almost assuredly immense complexity of the actual contracts of
who is paying whom, I'm sure they can _hide_ a few billion dollars by
spreading out who is paying whom at what time.

Speaking of timing, that incremental $2 EPS is, presumably, for the year
(not the quarter), and, it seems to be ongoing, so it's a yearly
incremental EPS uptick, although we're not sure of the details, and it
seems to be including a lot more than the original settlement, so, as are
most factual things that are instantly sprung on us, our opinions will
change over time as more detailed facts emerge.

The final bill could be, for all we really know, multiple times what the
current settlement is, in total costs overall, given there are _many_
facets to the financial accounting portion of this presumably shockingly
huge agreement (e.g., what about Apple's new design center, which itself
could have cost billons, and what about the punitive costs of broken
contracts with Intel?).

> So Qualcomm pays Apple the rebates the owe.
> Apple pays Qualcomm whatever the court said was owned.
> Then just before the trial, Apple and Qualcomm come to settlement.

Actually, AFAICR, it didn't work that way since it was Qualcomm who wasn't
paid because Apple, according to Qualcomm, told the 4 manufacturers to STOP
paying Qualcomm - so it was Apple (actually the 4 manufacturers) who owed
the money to Qualcomm (who had purportedly already written it off as a loss
in prior years).

But I agree it was a legally convoluted setup, where I don't care to
quibble, as that's the specialty of the Apple Apologists, who, as you may
be aware, are better at it than I will ever be.

> At this point, the slate is clean. Everyone has paid everyone.

Yes. If Apple (or the 4 manufacturers) pays Qualcomm the unpaid billion
dollars in royalties, plus, presumably, interest and penalties which are
almost certainly written into the original contracts that each of the 4
manufacturers signed with Qualcomm, then _that_ part of the original
disagreement is settled.

But that part was likely the _simplest_ of the details of the settlement,
IMHO, simply because it was based on previous contracts which, AFAIK, have
never been successfully refuted in a court of law.

> And now you
> have a new deal spanning 6 years or whatever the duration is and it makes
> clear what Apple will pay for licensing and chips.

Yes. I like that you're thinking about breaking up the payments into the
initial "settlement" and then the (usually far bigger) overall deal in
terms of contractual obligations.

It "appears" that Qualcomm's system of taxing the entire product "may"
still be intact, but we're not told, yet, whether that's the case or not
(AFAIK).

Certainly this alone is worth billions of dollars that we didn't account
for in the initial settlement, where my _main_ point is that the hapless
Apple customer is, in the end, the one footing Qualcomm's bill to Apple.

Bear in mind that Apple products, due solely to Apple's customer, fly in
the face of logic when it comes to the common mantra of "better faster
cheaper" for almost all electronics.

For example, do you know of any other common consumer electronic product
that is NOT "better faster cheaper" over the years than the highly marketed
Apple iPhone?

For an example, I used to pay upwards of $400 for my Android phones, where
my last Android phones were $300 and $200 and now $130 for my LG Stylo 3
Plus phablet, which I _love_ by the way.

It seems to me you'd be hard pressed to find _any_ other common consumer
base (other than Apple customers) who put up with "better faster more
expensive" than the Apple fan base.

Please note how significantly important this thought question is ... whose
answer is revealingly apropos in terms of who actually foots the bill for
Apple's outrageously high attempted product prices.

If Apple didn't enjoy the type of customer who loves Apple products, they'd
be better faster cheaper, IMHO (like almost all other electronics is),
rather than better faster more expensive year to year.

If you don't get the subtle implication, I'll state it outright that the
Apple customer appears, to me, to be a fool, in all ways, in that they buy
into the imaginary product that simply doesn't exist (e.g., the imaginary
camera performance or the imaginary privacy or the imaginary functionality,
etc.).

Apple sells the *illusion* of safety, for example, but an iPhone turns out
to be no less (or more) safe than any well maintained Android phone is; but
the Apple customer is generally clueless about these facts - so they are
willing to pay, IMHO, for the mere _illusion_ of safety.

Very few common consumer electronic products enjoy such a fantastically
loyal & gullible (and hence, clueless, IMHO), customer base.

The main point here is that this clueless consumer - is who is footing
Qualcomm's almost assuredly immense bill.

> I doubt Apple would have
> agreed to a percentage of the phone¢s sale price capped at $400 per
> handset. That truly was insane of Qualcomm. Qualcomm in my opinion, had the
> most to lose. If this case went against Qualcomm their IP device would have
> been dealt a death blow. You just don¢t make that kind of bet on a court
> case. You settle, and you hope no one else sues you under the same
> circumstances.

Hi Beedle,
THIS is the big kahuna!

Who knows _what_ the agreement is that the 4 manufacturers will be signing
with Qualcomm for how Qualcomm assesses the royalties!

It's a big unknown to me, so if you find out what the deal that each of the
manufacturers signed with Qualcomm is, let us all know.

I suspect Apple was so desperate for 5G technology that they acceded to
Qualcomm's demands, but I don't know that for a fact. I only deduce it from
the fact that Apple was clearly desperate and that Apple had only bad
options to choose from.

Knowing Apple's customer base, I would assume Apple figured they could
easily bamboozle the clueless customer into paying Qualcomm whatever Apple
eventually agree to anyway.

> I¢d bet Apple got most of what they wanted. And Qualcomm realized their
> gamble of extorting Apple was not too smart and may well have damaged the
> company long term. At this point, everyone else has to be thinking about
> suing them. And these are multi billion dollar companies. They can totally
> afford to sue Qualcomm. And they get similar tech from elsewhere.

Hi Beedle,
As long as you state the factual basis for your logical deductions, you're
entitled to your opinion that Apple won big, where I will point out that I
quoted, already, numerous articles which _clearly_ stated that Qualcomm was
the big winner here.

Apple may be "a" winner in terms of obtaining the 5G technology they were
literally desperate for, but, at what cost?

Notice that it's far easier to argue that Qualcomm is the big winner.

For example:
o Qualcomm finally struck a blow against Apple
o "This has been a bigger victory for Qualcomm than Apple"
<https://finance.yahoo.com/news/winner-week-qualcomm-qcom-stock-152915481.html>

But for sure, we're not the only ones debating who is the winner here:
o These Are the Winners and Losers in the Apple-Qualcomm Settlement
o "The biggest winner: Qualcomm"
<http://fortune.com/2019/04/17/apple-qualcomm-stock-price-winner-loser/>

o Who's Who: Winners and Losers of Apple's Truce With Qualcomm
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/who-s-who-winners-and-losers-of-apple-s-truce-with-qualcomm>

The logic points to hapless Apple customers footing the immense bill, where
a salient quote in that first reference is reproduced below. which shows
the value at about two and a half billion annually for the terms of the
contract, most of which is pure profit:
"Apple had supplied $2 billion or more annually in revenue - revenue
with big profit margins, since most of the money was for royalties on
patents. Now Apple has agreed to pay back royalties it withheld over
the past two years, plus it will pay future royalties and again buy
modem chips from Qualcomm. In a brief note to investors on Tuesday,
Qualcomm said its earnings per share, which amounted to $3.69 last
year on an adjusted basis, could increase $2 annually under the deal."

Notice that Qualcomm, already a hugely profitable company, stated that the
value to them, of this deal, is an additional two dollars per share (about
150%!) on an existing profitable roughly $4 per share, which _someone_ has
to pay.

That someone?
o IMHO, it's the hapless Apple customer yet again footing an immense bill.

> How long until Apple builds it¢s own competing tech and stops buying from
> Qualcomm anyway? I¢ll bet that takes less than six years. I¢ll even bet
> that Apple drops Intel as well. One thing this really shows is why you have
> to own your own IP. Apple had said Qualcomm wanted more than they pay for
> all their other IP combined from third party. The double dipping Qualcomm
> was doing should be challenged.

Hi Beedle,
I have to admire the wishful thinking that you (and most Apple customers)
exude, which is that you _trust_ that Apple makes a "best in class"
product, even against any reasonable facts to the contrary.

I suspect, but do not know, that you actually think Apple makes, for
example, the best camera, even though the facts show otherwise almost all
the time.

That you have so much faith in Apple's design skills is commendable, but I
will just point out that there is a reason Apple uses ARM technology, just
like Android manufacturers do, which is that Apple _knows_ it can't make
the best technology.

That's also the reason Apple ditched Intel (remember, the deal with
Qualcomm is "exclusive", although we don't know all the details as it
pertains to Intel's "poison pill" provisions).

Intel, for sure, didn't waste time ditching the 5G smartphone modem
business, that's for sure, so, if Intel can't make a decent 5G modem, what
makes you so extremely confident that Apple can?

I suspect, by the way, that Apple will continue its 5G development, but,
remember, Apple was second fiddle to not only Qualcomm and Intel, but also
Hauwei, MediaTek, and Samsung, to name a few.

The point is that, IMHO, nobody has _ever_ shown Apple hardware to be best
in class, and certainly never has Apple made _software_ apps which were
best in class, where we have an entire thread on that subject which can be
exemplified simply by comparing Apple Maps to Google Maps.

Bear in mind that I have a friend who works for Apple Maps as an engineer,
who, like you, is supremely confident that Apple _will_ finally have a best
in class product - where I explained to him how deficient the iOS apps are,
where he too was clueless.

Since he's a good friend, he knew not to play the idiotic Alan Baker game
of refuting obvious facts because they didn't fit into his belief system,
so we had a good conversation where what I learned from him was that he's
confident that Apple Maps _will_ be a best-in-class tool, simply because of
the immense amount of money Apple is pouring into the product line.

As always, guess who is paying for that immense expenditure?
o HINT: It's _always_ the hapless Apple consumer.

It's yet again one of the reasons that iPhone owners historically have
enjoyed such an immensely atrocious overall cost of product ownership.

> I go to buy a car from you. And you use all kinds of IP in that car that
> doesn¢t belong to you. But you license it from all the various groups that
> own the IP. Then, the IP holders come to me and say, where¢s your license
> for our IP? I bought the car from someone who licensed your IP in their
> vehicle. I don¢t need a license. The manufacturer needs it so they can
> build and sell what they build and sell. What¢s next, is Qualcomm going to
> ask for a list of customers cause we have to pay Qualcomm too? Qualcomm is
> clearly in the wrong. What they are doing is simply not done. I sure hope
> this isn¢t over.

Hi Beedle,

I agree with you that Qualcomm has a sweet deal with the 4 iPhone
manufacturers, where Qualcomm's argument is, legitimately, that those
manufacturers freely & legally entered into those deals with Qualcomm.

Unless Qualcomm opts to allow them _out_ of that deal, which I don't see
any evidence of why Qualcomm would do that unless they thought that the
courts would strike them down, then I would "presume" that the deal still
holds, perhaps modified, but in essence, in the original form.

As you may be aware, California charges about 10% sales tax on the total
price of a cellphone, even if you got that cellphone from the carrier for
free. Is that fair? I think not. Is that legal? Apparently it is.

Who pays, eventually for that unfair but legal deal?
o As always, it's the hapless customer - which is may main point after all.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:20:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You can't even read...

Hi Alan Baker,
I won't spend the energy to speak to you in detail as I did with Beadle.

Suffice to paraphrase what I wrote to Beedle, which is that my opinions
will change as the facts emerge.

Hence, I appreciate your clarifications.

[Király]

In comp.sys.mac.system arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> royalties

Can you post this drivel in c.s.m.advocacy where the people who might
actually care about this hang out? c.s.m.system is for technical
discussions.

--
K.

Connection closed by foreign host.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 1:47 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:20:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You can't even read...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> I won't spend the energy to speak to you in detail as I did with Beadle.

But you will delete the factual quotes I provided....

>
> Suffice to paraphrase what I wrote to Beedle, which is that my opinions
> will change as the facts emerge.
>
> Hence, I appreciate your clarifications.

Try again.

[sms]

The price of an iPhone is unrelated to whatever was paid to Qualcomm.
The prices are set by what the market will bear. If prices are too high
you have to lower them, regardless of what your underlying costs are,
and accept lower margins. If demand is extremely high then you can raise
your prices and increase margins.

Surely you're not naive enough to believe companies can price their
products based on the cost of legal settlements?

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:13:45 -0700, sms wrote:

> The price of an iPhone is unrelated to whatever was paid to Qualcomm.

Hi Steve,

I only speak facts and I only make logical deductions from those facts.

Hence, I don't disagree that the price is "set" by Apple MARKETING.
o It's based on a host of factors

Obviously, for example, they overpriced the current spate of iPhones
o Where Tim Cook literally said that he needed a way to hide the price

Can you name any other common consumer electronics that doesn't get
"better, faster, cheaper" over time?

> The prices are set by what the market will bear.

Hi Steve,
I am well acquainted with microeconomics, particularly supply & demand
curves.

For an iPhone, "supply" isn't a problem, so it's all about creating demand.

Apple MARKETING artificially inflates the "perceived value" of the iPhone
o As you're well aware, I don't fall for it - but many admittedly loyal
Apple customers fall for the imaginary image that MARKETING spins.

That imaginary image revolves around
o Imaginary performance & imaginary functionality
o Imaginary privacy
o Imaginary safety & imaginary security
etc.

You have _never_ seen me state that Apple MARKETING is stupid, Steve.
o They are the best of the best in selling an illusion of a product

You may have quite a few times heard me intimate the customer is stupid
o They pay through the nose for the mere illusion spun by MARKETING

The fact is that, for a typical iPhone...
o The hardware is "about the same" (and yet, severely flawed in many cases)
o The overall app functionality is literally shockingly primitive
o And yet, inside the walled garden, the iPhone works great!

Even the camera QOR is almost never on top of Android camera QOR.
o It's simply that MARKETING markets the ILLUSION of functionality

The admittedly loyal Apple consumer pays through the nose for that illusion
o It's why iPhone owners enjoy an atrocious overall cost of ownership

> If prices are too high
> you have to lower them, regardless of what your underlying costs are,
> and accept lower margins. If demand is extremely high then you can raise
> your prices and increase margins.

Hi Steve,
Let's be honest, please, about margins.
o Apple's margins are just about as good as margins can get, right?

Let's also be clear that it's the hapless consumer who pays those margins.

Let's also be clear that Tim Cook literally said he had to hide the true
cost from his admittedly loyal hapless customers.

And, let's not forget that Apple lowered the price to wholesalers selling
to China, in an obvious attempt to lower the price without actually
lowering the MSRPP.

> Surely you're not naive enough to believe companies can price their
> products based on the cost of legal settlements?

Hi Steve,
Please assume that what I say I said, but please stop assuming I say what
you wish I had said.

Just stop.

What I said was that this cost Apple dearly, and that Apple's revenue comes
from the admittedly loyal hapless customer.

I've already posited that the iPhone would have been likely ground into
dust in the next few years had Apple not incurred this cost.

This huge expense is an expense that Apple had to incur, IMHO, in order to
keep the iPhone IMAGE alive, Steve.

Whom do you _think_ will pay this astoundingly huge bill, Steve?
o Do you think Tim Cook is going to pay the huge bill with his own money?

Do you think Apple will cut the profit margins of its services?
o Where is the money going to come from, Steve, if not the customers?

HINT: I realize Apple has tons of money in the bank, so, it _could_ come
from there, but let's see what happens, over the next few years, to that
before we can claim it was simply taken "out of the bank". which, itself,
will likely lower the stock price.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:56:31 -0000 (UTC), Király wrote:

> Can you post this drivel in c.s.m.advocacy where the people who might
> actually care about this hang out? c.s.m.system is for technical
> discussions.

The goal of this thread is to see how much this surrender cost Apple.
o How much Apple surrendered to Qualcomm is important for all Apple owners.

This Mac Daily News article from today said $30 billion was "at stake".
o Here’s what likely happened between Apple, Qualcomm and Intel
<http://macdailynews.com/2019/04/17/heres-what-likely-happened-between-apple-qualcomm-and-intel/>

9to5Mac was quoted as saying that Apple's loss of Intel basically killed
Apple's bargaining position, which may explain why Apple surrendered to
Qualcomm's demands.
"Either Intel told Apple that it was cancelling the project,
or Apple did a progress review and lost confidence. Either way,
that left Apple out in the cold without an alternative 5G modem
supplier."

The article implies the logic was this simple:
o *Apple surrendered to Qualcomm because they lost their bargaining chip.*

Literally.
o Here’s what Wall Street analysts are saying
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/apple-qualcomm-settled-their-legal-battle-heres-what-wall-street-thinks.html>

Notice this statement on the 5-7 billion "catch-up payment"...
"the settlement will be an immediate bump to QTL license revenue
starting in the JunQ and a $5-7B catchup payment with iPhone
product insertion in 2H20(F21E)"

[Beedle]

On Apr 17, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <q98tuj$ej3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2019-04-17 5:54 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> > Qualcomm shares outstanding: 1,210,306,000
> > <https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/qcom/stock-report>
> >
> > Qualcomm statement as to the incremental EPS due to the Apple deal = $2
> > <https://247wallst.com/consumer-electronics/2019/04/16/qualcomm-sees-2-per-s
> > hare-eps-boost-after-settling-all-apple-lawsuits/>
> >
> > Number of shares outstanding x $2/share = $2,500,000,000
> >
> > That likely doesn't even include the billion already owed to Qualcomm in
> > royalties that Apple told manufacturers not to pay while the suits were
> > being negotiated.
>
> You can't even read...
>
> "Expect Incremental EPS of ~$2.00 as product shipments ramp."

That’s a good catch. I didn’t notice that. And to be honest, I’m not
really reading any of the news on this other than one article from Apple
News, I think it was from WSJ.

If Apple has to pay some huge amount, it will show up in their statements,
just as Microsoft had to write down the 7.9 billion USD they wasted on
renting the Nokia brand.

The only part I actually care about, it’s actually two parts, is that I
hope Apple got Qualcomm to stop double-dipping. And I hope Apple really
pushes themselves to build their own modem IP. I like what Qualcomm achieves
technologically, but I don’t agree with their licensing practices at all.

> "AS PRODUCT SHIPMENTS RAMP." indicates quite clearly that the settlement
> is not the only thing that was being discussed. It may not have been any
> part of the discussion that led to that statement.
>
> AND...
>
> ...you could actually have checked this for yourself:
>
> <https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/3cb803e8-fc20-4ec6-87e2-7af6f6936e
> 2c>
>
> "Expect incremental EPS of ~$2.00 as product shipments ramp [1]

Yeah, so that to me sounds like Apple may have placed a pre-order as do for
memory and other components. And so that money is in the bag, but where is
comes from, settlement or sales, it sounds more like sales to me.

[nospam]

In article <q9abb6$l6r$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> For an iPhone, "supply" isn't a problem, so it's all about creating demand.

nonsense. iphones are supply constrained, backordered for weeks or even
months at launch. apple could sell more if they could make more.

[Beedle]

On Apr 18, 2019, nospam wrote
(in article<180420191516104017%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

They could fulfill their orders more quickly, yes. Would that give them a
bigger audience? Who knows. I actually wait a bit. Totally being series. I
wait until I can walk into a store and buy one without a crowd and without
waiting for a month. I’ve done it this way since the iPhone 4. The 3GS was
the last phone I bought as it was announced.

I just bought the MacBook Pro 15” a couple weeks ago. Glad I waited too
because the VEGA20 was released after the initial AMD Xseries which was at
launch.

For the AirPods I was waiting and waiting for so long I not hit the BUY
button, I got on ColorWare and ordered two more in black and blue. I thought
the darn charging mat was coming. Nope. A little mad about that, but there
are alternatives so it’s not a deal breaker anyway.

I like to wait a bit. The very first people in take the leap of faith for me.

While I agree Apple is constrained by supply, I don’t think it translates
in “more”. I think it translates into “faster fulfillment”. I will
concede that some people are so unwilling to wait even a little while that
they will buy something else that is readily available. I don’t think it is
a huge number though. All if this is just my take on it. Not the brightest
guy in the room.

--
Beedle

[Lewis]

In message <q9a6nf$1ko$1...@dont-email.me> Király <m...@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.system worthless shitbag wrote:
>> royalties

> Can you post this drivel in c.s.m.advocacy where the people who might
> actually care about this hang out? c.s.m.system is for technical
> discussions.

Trollboi has to shit in ALL the corners. Replying to him just encourages
him. Don't.

--
Looking into Granny's eyes was like looking into a mirror. What you saw
looking back at you was yourself, and there was no hiding place.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.226907F800...@news.giganews.com>,

Beedle <bee...@dont-email.me> wrote:

> > > For an iPhone, "supply" isn't a problem, so it's all about creating
> > > demand.
> >
> > nonsense. iphones are supply constrained, backordered for weeks or even
> > months at launch. apple could sell more if they could make more.
>
> They could fulfill their orders more quickly, yes. Would that give them a
> bigger audience? Who knows. I actually wait a bit. Totally being series. I
> wait until I can walk into a store and buy one without a crowd and without

> waiting for a month. I靶e done it this way since the iPhone 4. The 3GS was

> the last phone I bought as it was announced.

the iphone 7 didn't reach equilibrium for about 3-4 months after launch.

apple is getting better at managing initial demand surge, but there is
always *some* backorders.

>
> For the AirPods I was waiting and waiting for so long I not hit the BUY
> button, I got on ColorWare and ordered two more in black and blue. I thought
> the darn charging mat was coming. Nope. A little mad about that, but there

> are alternatives so it零 not a deal breaker anyway.

airpods were supply constrained for at least 6 months, with 4-6 weeks
ship time, as i recall.

[Beedle]

On Apr 18, 2019, nospam wrote

(in article<180420191622262762%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.226907F800...@news.giganews.com>,
> Beedle <bee...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
> > > > For an iPhone, "supply" isn't a problem, so it's all about creating
> > > > demand.
> > >
> > > nonsense. iphones are supply constrained, backordered for weeks or even
> > > months at launch. apple could sell more if they could make more.
> >
> > They could fulfill their orders more quickly, yes. Would that give them a
> > bigger audience? Who knows. I actually wait a bit. Totally being series. I
> > wait until I can walk into a store and buy one without a crowd and without

> > waiting for a month. I¹ve done it this way since the iPhone 4. The 3GS was

> > the last phone I bought as it was announced.
>
> the iphone 7 didn't reach equilibrium for about 3-4 months after launch.
>
> apple is getting better at managing initial demand surge, but there is
> always *some* backorders.
>
> >
> > For the AirPods I was waiting and waiting for so long I not hit the BUY
> > button, I got on ColorWare and ordered two more in black and blue. I thought
> > the darn charging mat was coming. Nope. A little mad about that, but there

> > are alternatives so it¹s not a deal breaker anyway.

>
> airpods were supply constrained for at least 6 months, with 4-6 weeks
> ship time, as i recall.

I bought them as soon as they put them up. From Apple I already have them.
ColorWare is another matter. Those guys take FOREVER. My 4th purchase from
those guys and every single time I buy from them I swear up and down it will
be the last. I don’t know why they take so long.

--
Beedle

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:31:04 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> I
> wait until I can walk into a store and buy one without a crowd and without

> waiting for a month. Iĸve done it this way since the iPhone 4. The 3GS was

> the last phone I bought as it was announced.

Hi Beedle,
Do you realize what it really means for a "crowd" to be lined up outside an
Apple store on the day that a new iPhone releases?

You might not want to realistically consider what this actually means.

Let me give you a hint.
o What do you think those customers are doing with their _old_ iPhones?

> While I agree Apple is constrained by supply

How exactly is Apple constrained by supply?
o What component(s) in an iPhone, are rare?

I get that Apple "predicts" orders, and then Apple's suppliers likely
perform "just in time inventory" (which was all the rage a while ago, where
I'm not sure if it's still in vogue).

Sure, if you planned wrong, you run out of parts temporarily.
o But someone is gonna have to show what parts on an iPhone are "rare" for
me to believe nospam's claims that the supply is "constrained" by any
realistic measure.

> I donĸt think it translates
> in īmoreĄ. I think it translates into īfaster fulfillmentĄ.

I don't know how Apple stores "stock" devices, but I suspect they do what
everyone else does, which is "predict" that the red phone will sell in
quantities of X, and the blue phone will sell in quantities of Y, and the
green phone will sell in quantities of Z.

So they order those quantities, because inventory costs money too.

If they guessed wrong, and the red phone has 2X demand, sure, for a short
period of time, the store won't have red phones on the shelves, but they
can stock them as soon as the suppliers can make them.

If someone here (like nospam) is intimating that there is something "rare"
in the iPhone that literally causes the supply to be constrained, then they
should simply name what it is that is "rare" in an iPhone.

Otherwise, iPhones are like potato chips.
o You can have as many as you want; they'll just make more.

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:16:10 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> For an iPhone, "supply" isn't a problem, so it's all about creating demand.
>
> nonsense. iphones are supply constrained, backordered for weeks or even
> months at launch. apple could sell more if they could make more.

Hi nospam,
I get your point but, in reality, phones are like potato chips (IMHO).

There is nothing in a phone that is a 'rare' specialty item.

You can have as many as you want.
o They'll make more.

[nospam]

In article <q9bnpn$etl$3...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I get your point but, in reality, phones are like potato chips (IMHO).

tasty.

> There is nothing in a phone that is a 'rare' specialty item.

false.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 01:58:50 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> There is nothing in a phone that is a 'rare' specialty item.
>
> false.

Here's an adult test for you nospam, based on your claim above:
o Name just one.

[Beedle]

On Apr 18, 2019, arlen holder wrote
(in article <q9bnpm$etl$2...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:31:04 -0700, Beedle wrote:
>
> > I
> > wait until I can walk into a store and buy one without a crowd and without

> > waiting for a month. Iÿve done it this way since the iPhone 4. The 3GS was

> > the last phone I bought as it was announced.
>
> Hi Beedle,
> Do you realize what it really means for a "crowd" to be lined up outside an
> Apple store on the day that a new iPhone releases?
>
> You might not want to realistically consider what this actually means.
>
> Let me give you a hint.
> o What do you think those customers are doing with their _old_ iPhones?

If they are like me, they will hang to it for a while as a backup. What do
you suppose they do with it?

> > While I agree Apple is constrained by supply
>
> How exactly is Apple constrained by supply?
> o What component(s) in an iPhone, are rare?

Not a question of rare. A question of reality. When they first announce they
have to guess the demand and not over do it. How many memory chips will they
need? How many screens? And on and on. How many able bodies does FOXXCON have
to start assembly. How much do you stockpile before announcing. There are all
kinds of considerations. The original AirPod took a good while to get. Apple
had more demand than capacity. It happens. I wouldn’t classify this as an
issue caused by rare required things Apple needs. I’d classify it more as
just the logistics when dealing with the reality that you might have a
product in which 40 million people want all at once.

> I get that Apple "predicts" orders, and then Apple's suppliers likely
> perform "just in time inventory" (which was all the rage a while ago, where
> I'm not sure if it's still in vogue).

Pretty sure it is still the way to go and will be for some time.

> Sure, if you planned wrong, you run out of parts temporarily.
> o But someone is gonna have to show what parts on an iPhone are "rare" for
> me to believe nospam's claims that the supply is "constrained" by any
> realistic measure.

Rare is your own word, Sir. You’re creating straw men and then talking to
them. I never said rare anything. You do the same things with Apple
“Surrendered” to Qualcomm. This is simply a logistics issue. We’re at a
point now where we have the sales of 20 to 40 million units of a product per
quarter. If you made them all at once, you’d have way too much capacity.
What would all that capacity do after the initial release? Sit on their hands
all day?

> > I donÿt think it translates
> > in ´more¡. I think it translates into ´faster fulfillment¡.

>
> I don't know how Apple stores "stock" devices, but I suspect they do what
> everyone else does, which is "predict" that the red phone will sell in
> quantities of X, and the blue phone will sell in quantities of Y, and the
> green phone will sell in quantities of Z.
>
> So they order those quantities, because inventory costs money too.
>
> If they guessed wrong, and the red phone has 2X demand, sure, for a short
> period of time, the store won't have red phones on the shelves, but they
> can stock them as soon as the suppliers can make them.
>
> If someone here (like nospam) is intimating that there is something "rare"
> in the iPhone that literally causes the supply to be constrained, then they
> should simply name what it is that is "rare" in an iPhone.
>
> Otherwise, iPhones are like potato chips.
> o You can have as many as you want; they'll just make more.

Let me state what my point was and still is again. Capacity is just capacity.
It doesn’t create demand. You can built a capacity that can meet demand
more quickly, but I doubt that doing so will increase demand by some huge
volume. It will likely give you a little more customers, those that don’t
wish to wait. But ultimately, you have to be capable of meeting demand within
a reasonable time period. As long as you can do that, your capacity isn’t
broken at all. And all of that depends on the market you’re in. For the
phones, you can’t have people waiting a year for delivery. A whole new set
of technologies will available in that time frame. If you want a fleet of
F35s, a ten year wait list might be totally acceptable. 5th Gen jets take
forever to define, design, test, and manufacture.

In general Apple seems to be balancing all of this well. Which is why I
questioned it at all by saying that greater capacity (from apple) likely
won’t gain them many more customers.

--
Beedle

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.226A5F0B00...@news.giganews.com>,

Beedle <bee...@dont-email.me> wrote:

> > How exactly is Apple constrained by supply?
> > o What component(s) in an iPhone, are rare?
>
> Not a question of rare. A question of reality. When they first announce they
> have to guess the demand and not over do it. How many memory chips will they
> need? How many screens? And on and on. How many able bodies does FOXXCON have
> to start assembly. How much do you stockpile before announcing. There are all
> kinds of considerations. The original AirPod took a good while to get. Apple

> had more demand than capacity. It happens. I wouldnąt classify this as an
> issue caused by rare required things Apple needs. Iąd classify it more as

> just the logistics when dealing with the reality that you might have a
> product in which 40 million people want all at once.

airpods shipped two months late, in very limited quantities, supposedly
due to manufacturing issues. there's a *lot* of tech inside them.

[Beedle]

On Apr 19, 2019, nospam wrote
(in article<190420191613327463%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.226A5F0B00...@news.giganews.com>,
> Beedle <bee...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
> > > How exactly is Apple constrained by supply?
> > > o What component(s) in an iPhone, are rare?
> >
> > Not a question of rare. A question of reality. When they first announce they
> > have to guess the demand and not over do it. How many memory chips will they
> > need? How many screens? And on and on. How many able bodies does FOXXCON
> > have
> > to start assembly. How much do you stockpile before announcing. There are
> > all
> > kinds of considerations. The original AirPod took a good while to get. Apple

> > had more demand than capacity. It happens. I wouldn¹t classify this as an
> > issue caused by rare required things Apple needs. I¹d classify it more as

> > just the logistics when dealing with the reality that you might have a
> > product in which 40 million people want all at once.
>
> airpods shipped two months late, in very limited quantities, supposedly
> due to manufacturing issues. there's a *lot* of tech inside them.

Perhaps. How long does it take to assemble them? I have no idea. How many
assemblers are devoted to it? I have no idea. All I know is took months for
me to get my first pair. And the first ones I ordered from ColorWare took 7
months to ship.

--
Beedle

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:54:51 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> If they are like me, they will hang to it for a while as a backup. What do
> you suppose they do with it?

Roughly, what percentage do you think trade in their old iPhone, or
otherwise sell it, soon after they lined up outside the store at midnight
waiting to buy the latest new iPhone?

> Not a question of rare. A question of reality. When they first announce they
> have to guess the demand and not over do it.

That's exactly what I said when I said they _predict_ demand and then ramp
up to meet that predicted demand.

If the demand is greater than predicted, particularly on, oh, say, red
product X, it's just like potato chips; they'll make more.

There's nothing inherently limiting in the supply chain that I've seen
anyone factually show to be the case yet.

Have you?

When nospam claims that the supply is "constrained", I simply ask for
facts, which, with nospam, almost never exist.

Fact is, the apologists almost always fail a simple 3-word fact check of...
o Name just one.

> Let me state what my point was and still is again. Capacity is just capacity.
> It doesn¢t create demand. You can built a capacity that can meet demand
> more quickly, but I doubt that doing so will increase demand by some huge
> volume.

We agree.
o Adults are funny that way.

> It will likely give you a little more customers, those that don¢t
> wish to wait. But ultimately, you have to be capable of meeting demand within
> a reasonable time period. As long as you can do that, your capacity isn¢t
> broken at all.

We agree.
o Facts are funny that way.

> In general Apple seems to be balancing all of this well. Which is why I
> questioned it at all by saying that greater capacity (from apple) likely
> won¢t gain them many more customers.

We agree.
o Facts first; then reasonable logic deduced from those facts is all I ask.

[Beedle]

On Apr 19, 2019, arlen holder wrote
(in article <q9ddg5$tah$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:54:51 -0700, Beedle wrote:
>
> > If they are like me, they will hang to it for a while as a backup. What do
> > you suppose they do with it?
>
> Roughly, what percentage do you think trade in their old iPhone, or
> otherwise sell it, soon after they lined up outside the store at midnight
> waiting to buy the latest new iPhone?

No idea. But what do you suppose they do with the phone? And more over, what
point are you making in light of what they do with the phone when the new
model comes out. You have to link it all together. So, please... Link away.

> > Not a question of rare. A question of reality. When they first announce they
> > have to guess the demand and not over do it.
>
> That's exactly what I said when I said they _predict_ demand and then ramp
> up to meet that predicted demand.
>
> If the demand is greater than predicted, particularly on, oh, say, red
> product X, it's just like potato chips; they'll make more.
>
> There's nothing inherently limiting in the supply chain that I've seen
> anyone factually show to be the case yet.

Hmm, let me make a morons observation. If I take a liter of water, and I try
to empty it as quickly as possible, might using a hole the size of an atom
constrict that flow of water from escaping quickly?

So even though there is 1 liter of water, the size of the exit hole does
constrain it, yes?

> Have you?
>
> When nospam claims that the supply is "constrained", I simply ask for
> facts, which, with nospam, almost never exist.

Really? So if the people and/or magic machines that make the components are
not supplying them as quickly as the assemblers could assemble them, that’s
not constraint? Call me stupid but saying we can make more isn’t a
counter-argument to supply being constricted.

So I had to look up the word... being an idiot an all. Here’s what I found:

verb (used with object)
to force, compel, or oblige:
He was constrained to admit the offense.
to confine forcibly, as by bonds.
to repress or restrain

So if they are like potato chips, you’re saying that somehow negates supply
constrain. How exactly? Please explain...

> Fact is, the apologists almost always fail a simple 3-word fact check of...
> o Name just one.
>
> > Let me state what my point was and still is again. Capacity is just
> > capacity.
> > It doesn¢t create demand. You can built a capacity that can meet demand
> > more quickly, but I doubt that doing so will increase demand by some huge
> > volume.
>
> We agree.
> o Adults are funny that way.
>
> > It will likely give you a little more customers, those that don¢t
> > wish to wait. But ultimately, you have to be capable of meeting demand
> > within
> > a reasonable time period. As long as you can do that, your capacity isn¢t
> > broken at all.
>
> We agree.
> o Facts are funny that way.
>
> > In general Apple seems to be balancing all of this well. Which is why I
> > questioned it at all by saying that greater capacity (from apple) likely
> > won¢t gain them many more customers.
>
> We agree.
> o Facts first; then reasonable logic deduced from those facts is all I ask.

--
Beedle

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:44:40 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> No idea. But what do you suppose they do with the phone? And more over, what
> point are you making in light of what they do with the phone when the new
> model comes out. You have to link it all together. So, please... Link away.

Hi Beedle,
This concept is so logical that I don't need to link to anything.
o And yet, you've likely never once thought about the concept I'm about to explain.

Many of those iPhone owners, lined up outside the store, are lined up...
o Because they can't wait to ditch their old iPhone, and,
o Because they can't wait to replace their old iPhone with a new iPhone.

Think about the logic about those factual statements above, Beedle.

Now, the question is what _percentage_ can't wait to ditch their iPhone?
o What is it?

Searching for a factual percentage, the first hit from a year ago says:
o 22 percent of iPhone owners intend to upgrade to new model in 2018
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/03/12/22-percent-of-iphone-owners-intend-to-upgrade-to-new-model-in-2018-survey-suggests>
"The numbers compare to 23 percent last year, when Apple was
widely rumored to launch iPhone X, and 15 percent two years
ago with iPhone 7. "

"In addition to the 22 percent who intend to buy Apple's
latest iPhone model, another 20 percent expect to upgrade
to an iPhone 8 or iPhone X within the next year, bringing
the total share of potential *upgraders up to _42_ percent*."

But, of course, that's just one set of surveys, and, more importantly,
that's not the percentage of people upgrading who are lined up outside the
Apple store since some of the people lined up outside the Apple store may
be first-time buyers.

Still, _some_ of those people (perhaps most?) can't wait to _ditch_ their
old iPhone, which is a logically tenable argument I make because I _also_
comprehend what they're actually doing, and not only what the image of what
they're doing appears to be.

Notice that facts don't scare me like they clearly intimidate Apologists.
o I'll show facts either way of any argument I make, if they're warranted.

That's because all I care about is the ultimate truth of the situation.
o My belief system is based on facts - it's not imaginary as it is with apologists.

For example, by way of contrast, in 2018, MacRumors reported only 18% of
iPhone owners still held onto their iPhone 5 model, while the iPhone 6
enjoyed a 48% ownership share.
o iPhone Ownership Reaches All-Time High in United States
<https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/20/iphone-ownership-all-time-high-us/>

This interested article asserts that ownership periods for some iPhone 8
buyers was dismally short, where iPhone 8 owners couldn't wait to ditch
their rather new iPhone 8 for the next model:
o iPhone X Buyers Are Immediately Trading in Their Newly Purchased iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus
<https://wccftech.com/iphone-x-trade-in-iphone-8/>
"We thought it would be just iPhone 7 [for trade-in], but it
seems people aren┤ necessarily satisfied with the iPhone 8.
7 percent of thousands of iPhones it bought in the past month were
iPhone 8 models, while in the same period last year the percentage
of the iPhone 7 was just 1 percent. A 256GB storage model of the
iPhone 8 can be traded at up to $500, but it actually costs $849
to purchase one."

And those are the _best_ prices you'll likely get from a commercial buyer,
according to this article from 2017:
o The Best Ways to Finance Your New iPhone 8 or X
<https://www.nbcnews.com/better/business/best-way-finance-your-new-iphone-8-or-x-ncna809381>

Notice if those were California customers, they paid over 900 dollars for a
phone (adding tax), that, a mere short time later, they _ditched_ for only
500 dollars, where, the California tax would eat up another 50 of that
trade-in value, so they only gained 450 dollars on a 900 dollar phone
(roughly about half) in value.

Who would ditch an essentially brand new phone, and lose half the value in
the process?
o Answer: Someone who can't wait to ditch that iPhone, that's who.

Here's a different 2017 statistic, which, I'm sure, bolsters your beliefs,
which is that most iPhone owners (by far) are _already_ iPhone owners.
o The Fine Line Between IPhone Success or Failure
<https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-09-11/apple-iphone-x-sales-depend-on-those-who-have-one-already>
"The vast majority of new iPhones -- about 81% of the global total
this year -- are sold to people who already own one".

The main point is that you can look at a divorce in two logical ways:
o The husband can't wait to ditch his old wife, or,
o The husband can't wait to replace his old wife with a new one.

Which is it?
o HINT: Both apply equally, don't they? :)

Almost certainly, a large percentage of those people standing outside the
Apple store all night, simply can't wait to ditch their current iPhone for
a new one.

> So even though there is 1 liter of water, the size of the exit hole does
> constrain it, yes?

Hi Beedle,
We already agreed that there are artificial constraints on the supply chain
due to natural "just in time" inventory and manufacturing methods.

Why do you need the water example to re-iterate what we already agreed on?

An iPhone is not much different than a potato chip in this regard (IMHO)
o If there is a rush on the "blue" iPhone, rest assured, they'll make more.

[Beedle]

On Apr 19, 2019, arlen holder wrote

(in article <q9dl2k$ecc$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:44:40 -0700, Beedle wrote:
>
> > No idea. But what do you suppose they do with the phone? And more over, what
> > point are you making in light of what they do with the phone when the new
> > model comes out. You have to link it all together. So, please... Link away.
>
> Hi Beedle,
> This concept is so logical that I don't need to link to anything.
> o And yet, you've likely never once thought about the concept I'm about to
> explain.
>
> Many of those iPhone owners, lined up outside the store, are lined up...
> o Because they can't wait to ditch their old iPhone, and,
> o Because they can't wait to replace their old iPhone with a new iPhone.
>
> Think about the logic about those factual statements above, Beedle.
>
> Now, the question is what _percentage_ can't wait to ditch their iPhone?
> o What is it?

Oh I see. Do you know this word, conflate? You should look it up. I’ll ask
you this once. Show me where in any article it states that these users
can’t wait to “ditch” their iPhone. Waiting the latest and greatest
does not mean, I can’t wait to ditch. You seem to want to make it sound
like the experience they are having is horrible and they can’t wait to
escape it. If that were true, they wouldn’t stick with Apple. The reality
is, they love their phone, and believe that if Apple says they have an even
better one coming, then they will love it even more. That’s why they stand
in line and remain loyal to Apple. People who can’t wait to ditch
something, don’t remain loyal.

> seems people aren¢t necessarily satisfied with the iPhone 8.

--
Beedle

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:26:47 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> Oh I see. Do you know this word, conflate? You should look it up.

Hi Beedle,
IMHO, most people see only the obvious, and what Apple MARKETING feeds
them, whereas I strive to dig down deeper into what is _actually going on.

IMHO, the people lined up outside an Apple store are sort of like people
lined up outside of a Vegas courthouse, where both these may be true:
o They can't wait to ditch the tired old wife as soon as they possibly can
o They can't wait to replace the tired old wife with a new one ASAP

Where else are a large number of people so very extremely unhappy with
their iPhones that, as in the case of the iPhone 8 I cited in the prior
post, which long ago sparked this observation by the way, they quickly lose
*half* the value of the almost brand new phone, just to ditch it in favor
of the iPhone X, in only a short period of time.

That's a fact Beedle.
o You might not like that fact; but that doesn't change that it's a fact.

As for "conflate", here's one of the two definitions which may apply:
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate>
"to combine (things, such as 2 readings of a text) into a composite whole"

BTW, those documented actions by the iPhone 8 owners are just one of the
many facts I can easily point out which belie my belief system (which is
only based on facts) that iPhone owners historically enjoy an atrocious
overall cost of ownership.


> Iÿll ask

> you this once. Show me where in any article it states that these users

> canÿt wait to ´ditch¡ their iPhone. Waiting the latest and greatest
> does not mean, I canÿt wait to ditch.

Hi Beedle,
Did you _comprehend_ the facts I quoted about the iPhone 8 owners instantly
losing *half* the price they paid for that iPhone, just so that they could
upgrade it, in a very short period of time mind you, to the iPhone X?

Are you just playing silly games with me Beedle?
o You sound very much like Alan Baker - who - can _never_ comprehend
anything, and keeps asking for facts that were _already_ well proven.

If you can't comprehend the facts I cited, then don't bother asking for
more cites of the _same_ thing that you're asking, please.

It's unbecoming of an adult to not comprehend the cite I already provided
that shows iPhone 8 owners, in a surprisingly large number of cases,
ditched their iPhone 8 in a very short period of time for the iPhone X,
losing *half* the value of the iPhone 8 in the trade-in process, Beedle.

If you can't comprehend simple facts, then stop asking me for facts.

> You seem to want to make it sound

> like the experience they are having is horrible and they canÿt wait to
> escape it.

You tell me why they lost *half* the value in the iPhone 8, simply to ditch
it, as soon as they could, like a wife married in Vegas with buyers'
remorse?

They practically busted down the door (so to speak) at the Apple store,
just to _ditch_ that iPhone 8, Beedle.

They lost _half_ its value, Beedle.

If you don't comprehend those simple facts, then stop asking me for facts.
o Remember, I'm not an apologists - so I _comprehend_ facts, Beedle.

> If that were true, they wouldnÿt stick with Apple. The reality

> is, they love their phone, and believe that if Apple says they have an even

> better one coming, then they will love it even more. Thatÿs why they stand
> in line and remain loyal to Apple. People who canÿt wait to ditch
> something, donÿt remain loyal.

Hi Beedle,
Please comprehend simple statements.

Have I _ever_ said that the Apple consumer isn't "loyal"?
o Think about that.

I have _always_ said that the Apple customer is surprisingly loyal to
Apple.

You need to learn how to comprehend what people actually say.

I said, very clearly, many are waiting in line for two concurrent things:
o They can't wait to _ditch_ their current wife, for a newer model, and,
o They can't wait to _replace_ their current wife, with that newer model.

You can call that "loyalty" if you want, but the point is that it's loyalty
to _Apple_ (who wins big by this seemingly aberrant behavior).

*But it's decidedly _not_ loyalty to the _current_ iPhone they own!*

You have to admit, the admittedly loyal Apple consumer, in this case
o Is extremely loyal to Apple (to the tune of losing half the iPhone 8 value!)
o But they are _not_ loyal to the iPhone 8 (which they ditched ASAP).

Bear in mind Beedle, I am of about average intelligence (if that); hence,
what I say even you can comprehend, as it doesn't take a genius to
comprehend such _extremely obvious_ basic facts.

IMHO, the main problem with the apologists, Beedle, is that they own a
brain that doesn't form belief systems based on such obvious facts.

Their belief system is almost wholly imaginary
o Hence, they almost always fail the 3-word belief-system test

I never fail that test - since - my belief system is based on facts.
o Facts _bolster_ my belief system Beedle (facts threaten the apologists)

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 05:41:22 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> BTW, those documented actions by the iPhone 8 owners are just one of the
> many facts I can easily point out which belie my belief system (which is
> only based on facts) that iPhone owners historically enjoy an atrocious
> overall cost of ownership.

Wow. That was a horrid thinko!
o In that sentence, belie was supposed to be "underlie".

Apologies for the ironic faux pas.

The fact is, my belief system is based on facts.
o It's not an imaginary belief system sans a single defensible fact.

Those many iPhone 8 owners ditched their 900 dollar iPhone 8 in a very
short period of time, losing _half_ the value, so that they could have an
iPhone X.

You can call that "loyalty"; but it's loyalty to the brand; not to the
device.

It's like lining up at midnight in Vegas outside the courthouse to divorce
your current wife for a newer model on the very day of her 18th birthday
o The point is that Apple owners own a strange kind of loyalty

Many of those lining up at midnight outside the Apple store literally can't
wait to ditch their old iPhone at the earliest possible moment, IMHO.

That was my point which took you so many posts to comprehend.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-18 10:50 a.m., arlen holder wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:56:31 -0000 (UTC), Király wrote:
>
>> Can you post this drivel in c.s.m.advocacy where the people who might
>> actually care about this hang out? c.s.m.system is for technical
>> discussions.
>
> The goal of this thread is to see how much this surrender cost Apple.
> o How much Apple surrendered to Qualcomm is important for all Apple owners.
>
> This Mac Daily News article from today said $30 billion was "at stake".

> o Here’s what likely happened between Apple, Qualcomm and Intel

> <http://macdailynews.com/2019/04/17/heres-what-likely-happened-between-apple-qualcomm-and-intel/>
>
> 9to5Mac was quoted as saying that Apple's loss of Intel basically killed
> Apple's bargaining position, which may explain why Apple surrendered to
> Qualcomm's demands.
> "Either Intel told Apple that it was cancelling the project,
> or Apple did a progress review and lost confidence. Either way,
> that left Apple out in the cold without an alternative 5G modem
> supplier."
>
> The article implies the logic was this simple:
> o *Apple surrendered to Qualcomm because they lost their bargaining chip.*
>
> Literally.

> o Here’s what Wall Street analysts are saying

> <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/apple-qualcomm-settled-their-legal-battle-heres-what-wall-street-thinks.html>
>
> Notice this statement on the 5-7 billion "catch-up payment"...
> "the settlement will be an immediate bump to QTL license revenue
> starting in the JunQ and a $5-7B catchup payment with iPhone
> product insertion in 2H20(F21E)"
>

Show that you know what that means...

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:42:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Show that you know what that means...

Hi Alan Baker,

Unlike your imaginary belief system, mine is based on facts.
o And the settlement billions are far larger than I had imagined
o Based on the facts that are slowly coming out of the media over time

Since my belief system is _not_ imaginary, I can _always_ provide a cite:
o It's _your_ belief system which you can never seem to back up with facts!

For example, here's a cite that bolsters my belief system, Alan Baker:
"Apple agreed to make a lump-sum payment to Qualcomm
to cover unpaid royalties over the past nine quarters.
Cowen analyst Matthew Ramsay estimates the catch-up
payment is worth about $5 billion to Qualcomm."
<https://www.laohu8.com/news/1904978294>

The absolutely astoundingly huge amount of money that Apple is going to pay
for this clear and obvious almost complete & total surrender, will, IMHO,
be on the scale of Paulus' 6th Army surrender, Alan Baker.

What's odd is that you've never shown even once that you can comprehend
_any_ link provided to you, and yet, you ask for more just so that you
won't comprehend them either. In most cases, you can't even _find_ the link
(e.g., in nospam's posts in the past), let alone comprehend it.

Rest assured, Apple's lack of ability to keep up with 5G technology is
costing the company _many_ (many) billions of dollars over the next few
years.

Guess who gets to pay for this surrender, Alan Baker?
o HINT: Apple iPhone owners already enjoy an atrocious cost of ownership.

[sms]

On 4/22/2019 12:16 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> Rest assured, Apple's lack of ability to keep up with 5G technology is
> costing the company _many_ (many) billions of dollars over the next few
> years.

Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would have.

Going back to Qualcomm after Intel is fine and the vast majority of
phone users don't know or care whose modem is in their phone. There
might have been a little more awareness with the iPhone 7, 8, and X
modems because the Intel version of these phones could not be used on
Verizon or Sprint, and the Qualcomm modem speed was throttled to ensure
that the performance of the Intel-based models wasn't slower. With the
Xs and Xr all the modems were Intel. And BTW, today it was announced
that Samsung may also be supplying 5G modems to Apple
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/22/kuo-2020-iphones-5g-qualcomm/>.

> Guess who gets to pay for this surrender, Alan Baker?
> o HINT: Apple iPhone owners already enjoy an atrocious cost of ownership.

The retail price of phones is set by the market. It isn't set by
underlying legal costs. No matter what the settlement costs, prices will
be set by what the market will bear. There does seem to be price
resistance for flagship phones so the ability to raise prices, based on
introducing new features, may be reduced for all flagships.

Ownership costs on iPhones are not "atrocious" at all when you take into
account the fact that iPhone users keep their phones longer than Android
users, and that iPhones have much higher resale value; the yearly cost
of ownership difference is probably not much different between devices
on the two platforms.

On an Android phone you're lucky to get two major OS version upgrades
before support is discontinued. On iOS you get OS upgrades for a long
time. iOS 12 works all the way back to the 5s, released in 2013 with iOS
7. Six months ago, the three iPhones most still in use were the 7, 7
Plus, and 6s
<https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/11/most-common-iphones-in-use/>. There's
almost certainly a tremendous amount of pent up demand for iPhone
upgrades that will be unleashed with the 5G iPhone models.

[nospam]

In article <q9l730$ouf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The retail price of phones is set by the market. It isn't set by
> underlying legal costs. No matter what the settlement costs, prices will
> be set by what the market will bear.

true.

> There does seem to be price
> resistance for flagship phones so the ability to raise prices, based on
> introducing new features, may be reduced for all flagships.

false.

recent flagship phones have been pushing prices even higher.

at the extreme, the galaxy fold at $1980 and huawei mate x at $2600 are
about *double* that of existing top tier phones.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-22 12:16 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:42:57 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Show that you know what that means...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Unlike your imaginary belief system, mine is based on facts.

Really? And yet you haven't provided the answer requested.

> o And the settlement billions are far larger than I had imagined

They aren't part of the settlement.

> o Based on the facts that are slowly coming out of the media over time

Which you haven't presented.

>
> Since my belief system is _not_ imaginary, I can _always_ provide a cite:
> o It's _your_ belief system which you can never seem to back up with facts!
>
> For example, here's a cite that bolsters my belief system, Alan Baker:
> "Apple agreed to make a lump-sum payment to Qualcomm
> to cover unpaid royalties over the past nine quarters.
> Cowen analyst Matthew Ramsay estimates the catch-up
> payment is worth about $5 billion to Qualcomm."
> <https://www.laohu8.com/news/1904978294>

And why do you contend that one should trust Matthew Ramsay's estimate?

And how can that have anything to do with your earlier quoted claim
which talks about revenues in the future?

>
> The absolutely astoundingly huge amount of money that Apple is going to pay
> for this clear and obvious almost complete & total surrender, will, IMHO,
> be on the scale of Paulus' 6th Army surrender, Alan Baker.

No, actually.

Paying royalties owed is not the same as a settlement.

>
> What's odd is that you've never shown even once that you can comprehend
> _any_ link provided to you, and yet, you ask for more just so that you
> won't comprehend them either. In most cases, you can't even _find_ the link
> (e.g., in nospam's posts in the past), let alone comprehend it.
>
> Rest assured, Apple's lack of ability to keep up with 5G technology is
> costing the company _many_ (many) billions of dollars over the next few
> years.
>
> Guess who gets to pay for this surrender, Alan Baker?

> o HINT: Apple iPhone owners already enjoy an atrocious cost of ownership.\

And yet they're more than willing to pay.

I couldn't be because the find value in the product, could it?

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:

> Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
> probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
> were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would have.

Hi Steve,

First, all people have to fact the facts.
o *Apple _surrendered_ so you _know_ the bill is going to be huge.*

This is a verbatim quote from CNBC:
o *"Apple paid a high price to end the litigation."*
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/apple-paid-5-billion-to-6-billion-to-settle-with-qualcomm-ubs.html>

The fact is that Apple was so desperate for 5G technology now, that they
basically endured an embarrassingly stark Paulus-style surrender to Zhukov.

I think facts show rather clearly this surrender cost Apple dearly:
o Apple is forced to pay about 113% _more_ in royalties per phone, and,
o Apple is forced to pay back 5 to 6 billion in "catch-up" payments.

In short:
o Apple lost big on the royalty fight when they surrendered to Qualcomm
o But, Apple won about 1.5 billion dollars in unpaid catch-up royalties.

You're correct that Qualcomm said it was over 7 billion last year, where
there almost certainly are interest and penalties assessed in the contract.
o Qualcomm says Apple $7 billion behind in royalty payments
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-idUSKCN1N102D>

9to5Mac said, recently that it likely grew to about 7.5 billion:
o Apple paid $6 billion, agreed to higher royalty per iPhone to end Qualcomm battle
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/18/apple-qualcomm-settlement-royalty/>
"Both Apple and its suppliers were withholding royalty payments
to the chipmaker, and most recent estimates valued that
withholding at around $7.5 billion."

Most estimates I've seen run from five billion to six billion:

*FIVE BILLION:*

"Apple agreed to make a lump-sum payment to Qualcomm
to cover unpaid royalties over the past nine quarters.
Cowen analyst Matthew Ramsay estimates the catch-up
payment is worth about $5 billion to Qualcomm."
<https://www.laohu8.com/news/1904978294>

*SIX BILLION:*
"Apple paid up to $6 billion to settle with Qualcomm"
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/apple-paid-5-billion-to-6-billion-to-settle-with-qualcomm-ubs.html>

In addition, Apple was forced in their surrender terms to pay about 113%
_HIGHER_ royalties per phone, than they were paying previously!

o Apple Paid an Estimated $5-$6 Billion to Settle Qualcomm Dispute, Plus $8-$9 Per iPhone in Royalty Fees
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/18/apple-qualcomm-estimated-settlement-terms/>

With respect to royalties, in this abject surrender by Apple to Qualcomm,
Apple will be forced to pay _increased_ royalties per phone.
"Apple had been paying $7.50 to Qualcomm per iPhone sold,
so this is a notable increase for Qualcomm from a royalties standpoint."

Where the amount Apple is paying _INCREASED_ by 113%!
"UBS estimates that Apple will pay Qualcomm between $8 and $9 in
patent royalties per iPhone. UBS bases this estimate on Qualcommÿs
revision to its earnings, which included a $2 increase in earnings
per share."

Remember, many had expected Apple to negotiate a $5 royalty, but, with
Intel collapsing on Apple, Apple lost their last bargaining chip, so they
had to settle for somewhere between $8 and $9 per phone.
"The settlement is ´a solid outcome for Qualcomm and certainly
better than the [roughly] $5 [royalty payment] assumption we
had been making,¡ Arcuri wrote."

That means Apple literally *surrendered* their money.
o Someone is going to have to pay this huge amount.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:21:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And why do you contend that one should trust Matthew Ramsay's estimate?

Hi Alan Baker,

Your posts, as are all post from apologists, are not normal.
o And, your denial of _multiple_ trusted sources puts apologists into
Dunning-Kruger territory where you feel your personal armchair assessment
of facts is far better than _multiple_ trusted industry sources.

*It's a very common trait you own, Alan Baker, common to apologists.*

As you know, I've studied you apologists because you apologists are
decidedly _different_ from normal people in stark and obvious ways.

For one, apologists' belief systems are almost wholly imaginary...
o Which is why, I suspect, you can't stand facts.

Hence, you spend _all_ your time _refuting_ obvious facts.
o Just like the DK lemon-juice bank robber did.

Most adults process the facts to form belief systems _based_ on facts.
o *But you apologists spend _all_ your energy brazenly denying facts.*

It's almost as if mere facts DESTROY your belief system, in seconds.

It's like telling a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist
o The entire time the child is stammering "but Santa exists!"

That's what you apologists sound like when you brazenly deny facts.
o You sound like a child who tells someone to shut the closet door

Because the child believes that the monsters can't get at them that way.
o You would dispute that fact that the monsters don't actually exist
o And, even if they did, a closet door isn't going to stop them.

What you want, in the case of the closet, is to _feel_ safe.
o And what you own, in the case of Santa, is an imaginary belief system.

Back to your denial of facts...

Since I was following the simple "name just one" challenge, I didn't bother
to note that _others_ also said that Apple, in their abject surrender to
Qualcomm out of desperation, was forced to pay even _higher_ amounts than
what Matthew Ramsay estimated.

Since I care about facts, I purposefully provided you _low_ estimates.
o I could have given you the higher estimates than the 5 billion dollars.

Do you even remember how much Qualcomm _said_ the missing payments were?

o Qualcomm says Apple $7 billion behind in royalty payments
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-idUSKCN1N102D>

It appears they settled for somewhere between 5 billion & 7 billion.

o Apple paid $6 billion, agreed to higher royalty per iPhone to end Qualcomm battle
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/18/apple-qualcomm-settlement-royalty/>

"UBS analyst Timothy Arcuri said that it is likely Apple paid
between $5 billion and $6 billion as part of the settlement"

In short Alan Baker, Apple _surrendered_ their money to Qualcomm.

The terms of the surrender were stark, Alan Baker:

o Apple is forced to pay about 113% _more_ in royalties per phone, and,

o Apple is forced to pay back 5 to 6 billion in "catch-up" royalties.

You apologists don't like facts but that doesn't change the facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-23 12:40 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>> Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
>> probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
>> were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would have.
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> First, all people have to fact the facts.
> o *Apple _surrendered_ so you _know_ the bill is going to be huge.*

That's not a fact. It's a conclusion based on your biased opinion of Apple.

>
> This is a verbatim quote from CNBC:
> o *"Apple paid a high price to end the litigation."*
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/apple-paid-5-billion-to-6-billion-to-settle-with-qualcomm-ubs.html>

What you left out:

"Apple could have paid Qualcomm between $5 and $6 billion to settle the
two companies’ bitter legal battle, according to a new estimate."

Two words: "could have", and one more: "estimate"

What it doesn't say at all is what the royalty payments Qualcomm was
demanding before the settlement were going to be.

>
> The fact is that Apple was so desperate for 5G technology now, that they
> basically endured an embarrassingly stark Paulus-style surrender to Zhukov.
>
> I think facts show rather clearly this surrender cost Apple dearly:
> o Apple is forced to pay about 113% _more_ in royalties per phone, and,

That isn't a fact.

> o Apple is forced to pay back 5 to 6 billion in "catch-up" payments.

You mean Apple is paying some amount of royalties that is probably less
than Qualcomm was asking for.

>
> In short:
> o Apple lost big on the royalty fight when they surrendered to Qualcomm
> o But, Apple won about 1.5 billion dollars in unpaid catch-up royalties.
>
> You're correct that Qualcomm said it was over 7 billion last year, where
> there almost certainly are interest and penalties assessed in the contract.
> o Qualcomm says Apple $7 billion behind in royalty payments
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-idUSKCN1N102D>

So then Apple won back $1 billion to $2 billion.

>
> 9to5Mac said, recently that it likely grew to about 7.5 billion:
> o Apple paid $6 billion, agreed to higher royalty per iPhone to end Qualcomm battle
> <https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/18/apple-qualcomm-settlement-royalty/>
> "Both Apple and its suppliers were withholding royalty payments
> to the chipmaker, and most recent estimates valued that
> withholding at around $7.5 billion."

So by that estimate, make it $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion.

>
> Most estimates I've seen run from five billion to six billion:
>
> *FIVE BILLION:*
> "Apple agreed to make a lump-sum payment to Qualcomm
> to cover unpaid royalties over the past nine quarters.
> Cowen analyst Matthew Ramsay estimates the catch-up
> payment is worth about $5 billion to Qualcomm."
> <https://www.laohu8.com/news/1904978294>
>
> *SIX BILLION:*
> "Apple paid up to $6 billion to settle with Qualcomm"
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/apple-paid-5-billion-to-6-billion-to-settle-with-qualcomm-ubs.html>
>
> In addition, Apple was forced in their surrender terms to pay about 113%
> _HIGHER_ royalties per phone, than they were paying previously!

You have a real problem with basic arithmetic.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-23 12:47 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:21:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And why do you contend that one should trust Matthew Ramsay's estimate?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Your posts, as are all post from apologists, are not normal.
> o And, your denial of _multiple_ trusted sources puts apologists into
> Dunning-Kruger territory where you feel your personal armchair assessment
> of facts is far better than _multiple_ trusted industry sources.

You didn't present multiple sources or show any reason that your one
source should be trusted.

[Lewis]

In message <q9mhej$1nfd$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
> You have a real problem with basic arithmetic.

He has a real problem with basic thought.

There has not been a *single* source on the terms of the Apple-Qualcomm
settlement. Not one.

People making up stories, guessing on how much money is involved, or
constructing narratives of what they imagine happened are not sources,
they are fiction writers.

--
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-04-23 04:49, Lewis wrote:
> In message <q9mhej$1nfd$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz> wrote:
>> You have a real problem with basic arithmetic.
>
> He has a real problem with basic thought.
>
> There has not been a *single* source on the terms of the Apple-Qualcomm
> settlement. Not one.
>
> People making up stories, guessing on how much money is involved, or
> constructing narratives of what they imagine happened are not sources,
> they are fiction writers.

A plausible fiction: It occurs to me that Qualcomm would accept a far
lower "settlement" anticipating that any agreement at any price with
Apple would see TI diminished to the point of withdrawing from the market...

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <q9mhg5$1nfd$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):

Yes. This guy really is a troll.

--
Beedle

[sms]

On 4/23/2019 12:40 AM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>> Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
>> probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
>> were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would have.
>
> Hi Steve,
>

<snip>

"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying, contract manufacturers
were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone, translating into $12 to $20
per device"
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/14/heres-how-much-apple-was-paying-qualcomm-in-royalt.aspx>.

UBS estimates that the terms of the new agreement show an average
royalty of between $8 and $9
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/18/apple-payment-to-qualcomm-estimated-at-6-billion-with-9-per-iphone-sold-in-royalties>.

If those two statements are accurate then that's a big _decrease_ in
royalties per unit.

Remember that the core issue was that Qualcomm was basing the royalty on
the value of the complete product. So the same modem would be sold at
wildly different prices based on which phone it went into. The
percentage of sale price structure might have made sense when a flagship
phone cost $500, but it wasn't sustainable as flagship prices increased.

The settlement is a win-win for Apple and Qualcomm. Apple is able to
release a 5G iPhone in a timely manner and pay less per phone in
royalties than before and Qualcomm gets to sell modems to Apple again.
Respected Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo stated that a 5G iPhone in 2020
will have a big impact on sales
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/22/iphone-5g-in-late-2020-will-drive-200-million-sales-says-ming-chi-kuo>.

One loser is the Android makers that thought they'd have no 5G
competition from Apple until 2021: "the Open Handset Alliance of Android
phone makers is the bigger casualty of the deal, because they're losing
the strongest marketing point they've had to rival iPhones in ten years:
exclusive access to Qualcomm's leading 5G modem chips"
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/17/editorial-the-big-loser-in-the-apple---qualcomm-settlement-isnt-intel-its-android>.

Another loser is the other 5G modem makers that thought they had a
chance at the Apple business as long as the Qualcomm dispute continued,
though they probably never had much of a chance at all.

[nospam]

In article <q9nbv3$b55$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Remember that the core issue was that Qualcomm was basing the royalty on
> the value of the complete product. So the same modem would be sold at
> wildly different prices based on which phone it went into. The
> percentage of sale price structure might have made sense when a flagship
> phone cost $500, but it wasn't sustainable as flagship prices increased.

it never made sense.

[sms]

On 4/23/2019 4:01 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> A plausible fiction: It occurs to me that Qualcomm would accept a far
> lower "settlement" anticipating that any agreement at any price with
> Apple would see TI diminished to the point of withdrawing from the
> market...

TI was never in the 5G modem market.

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote

(in article <q9mhej$1nfd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2019-04-23 12:40 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:
> >
> > > Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
> > > probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
> > > were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would have.
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > First, all people have to fact the facts.
> > o *Apple _surrendered_ so you _know_ the bill is going to be huge.*
>
> That's not a fact. It's a conclusion based on your biased opinion of Apple.

This guy is without clue.
--
Beedle

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, arlen holder wrote
(in article <q9mfuf$9v9$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:21:52 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > And why do you contend that one should trust Matthew Ramsay's estimate?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Your posts, as are all post from apologists, are not normal.

Take that Apple chip off your shoulder and buy a clue.

--
Beedle

[Alan Baker]

It's always sad to see someone so full of hate.

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote

(in article <q9oet0$f70$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

Hey, don’t look in the mirror.

--
Beedle

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote

(in article <q9oet0$f70$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

Sorry about that.

--
Beedle

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote

(in article <q9oet0$f70$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

Seems to have a bug up his ass for Apple.

--
Beedle

[sms]

Well to be fair, Matthew Ramsay is highly respected analyst in the
semiconductor market. While there's no guarantee that his estimate is
the exact amount, the knee-jerk response questioning his estimate has no
basis, it's just the typical response that poster uses when he has no
evidence to support any other position.

Cowen (Ramsay) estimated $5 billion.
UBS estimated $6 billion.

In October 2018 Qualcomm said that unpaid royalties were $7 billion, so
by now they must be $8-9 billion. Apple negotiated a good deal if they
only had to pay $5-6 billion, along with lower royalties per device in
the future. For the future, Apple can always develop their own 5G modem,
but there will still be patent royalties to Qualcomm since some of their
patents will still apply.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-23 6:49 p.m., Beedle wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
> (in article <q9oet0$f70$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>
>> On 2019-04-23 6:20 p.m., Beedle wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
>>> (in article <q9mhej$1nfd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>>
>>>> On 2019-04-23 12:40 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
>>>>>> probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
>>>>>> were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> First, all people have to fact the facts.
>>>>> o *Apple _surrendered_ so you _know_ the bill is going to be huge.*
>>>>
>>>> That's not a fact. It's a conclusion based on your biased opinion of Apple.
>>>
>>> This guy is without clue.
>>
>> It's always sad to see someone so full of hate.
>
> Hey, don’t look in the mirror.
>

Heh.

;-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-23 6:49 p.m., Beedle wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
> (in article <q9oet0$f70$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>
>> On 2019-04-23 6:20 p.m., Beedle wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 2019, Alan Baker wrote
>>> (in article <q9mhej$1nfd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>>
>>>> On 2019-04-23 12:40 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:07 -0700, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. Whatever they paid Qualcomm, and we don't know that, it's
>>>>>> probably less than the full uncollected royalties demanded by Qualcomm
>>>>>> were. So in that sense it's costing them less than it otherwise would
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> First, all people have to fact the facts.
>>>>> o *Apple _surrendered_ so you _know_ the bill is going to be huge.*
>>>>
>>>> That's not a fact. It's a conclusion based on your biased opinion of Apple.
>>>
>>> This guy is without clue.
>>
>> It's always sad to see someone so full of hate.
>
> Sorry about that.
>

Don't worry about it...

[Beedle]

On Apr 23, 2019, sms wrote
(in article <q9og7p$qcq$1...@dont-email.me>):

Patent trolls.

--
Beedle

[sms]

On 4/23/2019 8:23 PM, Beedle wrote:

<snip>

>> In October 2018 Qualcomm said that unpaid royalties were $7 billion, so
>> by now they must be $8-9 billion. Apple negotiated a good deal if they
>> only had to pay $5-6 billion, along with lower royalties per device in
>> the future. For the future, Apple can always develop their own 5G modem,
>> but there will still be patent royalties to Qualcomm since some of their
>> patents will still apply.
>
> Patent trolls.

On average, Qualcomm got 5% of the profit (not of revenue) on every 3G
phone declining to 3.2% on every LTE phone. Despite LG having more LTE
patents than Qualcomm (23% versus 21%), in terms of patent quality,
Qualcomm remains far ahead and gets the most revenue by far.

For 5G it's a very different picture in terms of who owns the most IP.
Samsung is first, Huawei is second, ZTE is third, Ericsson is fourth,
and Qualcomm is fifth, followed by LG, Intel, and Sharp. Again that's in
terms of quantities of patents, it's not yet known how the revenue will
play out. Remember that on an all-in-one 5G modem there is still 2G, 3G,
and 4G, so Qualcomm will still get significant revenue even though their
percentage of total IP is lower.

As 2G and 3G are removed from modems some of the royalties due to
Qualcomm for those CDMA-based technologies will go away.

It is estimated that royalties average 16% of phonemakers' profits and
3.3% of revenues.

Do you think that the companies that invented the technology behind
cellular communications should be giving away their IP for free?

[Alan Browne]

Doh. Meant intel.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:04:40 -0700, sms wrote:

> Apple negotiated a good deal if they
> only had to pay $5-6 billion, along with lower royalties per device in
> the future. For the future, Apple can always develop their own 5G modem,
> but there will still be patent royalties to Qualcomm since some of their
> patents will still apply.

Hi Steve,

I agree that Apple save a few billion on the "catch-up" payments...

I appreciate that you don't dispute facts simply because you don't like
them, as the apologists consistently do - where I only ask for
clarification on my inference based on the implications of your statement
that Apple's deal with Qualcomm allows lower royalties in the future.

As far as I know at this point, Apple's deal locks in much HIGHER royalties
per device, than they were paying prior to the deal.

I'm not doubting your assessment of lower royalties in the future, if you
have a factual basis for that statement.

Can you help me understand where, in the reports we have seen so far
analyzing the Qualcomm deal, _lower_ royalties per device are implied?

Thanks!

[sms]

On 4/19/2019 10:41 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> Where else are a large number of people so very extremely unhappy with
> their iPhones that, as in the case of the iPhone 8 I cited in the prior
> post, which long ago sparked this observation by the way, they quickly lose
> *half* the value of the almost brand new phone, just to ditch it in favor
> of the iPhone X, in only a short period of time.

They are not unhappy. They just want the latest and greatest iPhone.
They can afford it and it's how they choose to spend their discretionary
income. Good for them.

I know several people, who are otherwise perfectly rational when it
comes to money, that just want to have the newest iPhone as soon as it
comes out and they stand in line to get it. But they generally don't
trade in or sell their previous phone, it gets passed on to a spouse,
child, or other relative.

I don't rush out and buy a complex product as soon as it hits the
market. This comes from long experience in the semiconductor and
electronic products industries. There are always revs to the chips and
revs to the final product that makes waiting six months a wiser approach
(and sometimes spectacular failures like the Samsung Galaxy Note 7).

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:57:53 -0400, nospam wrote:

> it never made sense.

Hi nospam,

It never made sense to "them", nospam?
o Or did it never make any sense to _you_, nospam?

Facts first; then rational adult logic, nospam.
o Your statement reeks of classic lack of logic of the Apple Apologists.

You say "it never made sense", right?
o And yet, multiple rational companies _agreed_ to the contract terms.

For you to claim that it "never made sense", is preposterous.
o *It certainly made sense to those companies when they signed the contracts*

In fact, that was Qualcomm's main point in court.
o They signed, of their own free will, a binding contract.

For you to claim that "it never made sense" to _them_, is preposterous.
o Or do you simply mean to imply that it made no sense "to you"?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:21:30 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> Take that Apple chip off your shoulder and buy a clue.

Hi Beedle,

FACTs first; then rational LOGIC.
o Your assumption that anyone who speaks facts hates Apple - is wrong.

I don't think you comprehend yet what I am all about on this newsgroup.
o I employ a consistent strategy & various tactics befitting that strategy.

The main tactics are to use FACTS on this newsgroup, & rational LOGIC.
o The reason is that I feel most posters on this ng sorely lack both.

When you contrast the posts from the apologists, you'll find the opposite:
o People like Alan Baker rarely, if ever, write of FACTS & rational LOGIC

My strategy is clearly to knock some sense into the posters on this ng.
o To a great degree, I've done that successfully - but it took effort

Each time the apologists spewed their wholly imaginary belief system
o I simply responded with FACT & LOGIC.

For example, many of the apologists no longer dare to play their silly
childish apologists's games with me, for example, Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK,
Chris, Joe, and even Savageduck ... are now afraid to post in response to
FACTS simply because they never have any FACTS.

So they _always_ fail the simple "name just one" rule.
o There are really very few apologists left who attempt to spar with fact

And for that accomplishment, you should be thanking me, IMHO.
o What's left are adults using FACTS to form logical assessments.

You're welcome.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:09:52 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> Can you help me understand where, in the reports we have seen so far
> analyzing the Qualcomm deal, _lower_ royalties per device are implied?

Hi Steve,
I apologize for not having read your supporting facts, as my Usenet scripts
collapsed recently, & so had to be re-built, such that I didn't see your
response already where you make a logical assessment based on facts.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ>

I also appreciate that you responded to Beedle since we both know Alan
Baker is basically impervious to facts, where I simply utilize Alan Baker,
as I used to do with Jolly Roger, to easily prove my point that the typical
apologists spend all their time refuting facts that don't fit into their
imaginary belief system such that they never form rational adult logic.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/TQHQqdXBDAAJ>

I want to get this apology out quickly so that you don't waste your
valuable time on re-proving to me what you wrote here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ

As always, I'll read what you wrote and assess it logically.
Thanks.

[nospam]

In article <q9q1vf$a2k$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't rush out and buy a complex product as soon as it hits the
> market. This comes from long experience in the semiconductor and
> electronic products industries. There are always revs to the chips and
> revs to the final product that makes waiting six months a wiser approach
> (and sometimes spectacular failures like the Samsung Galaxy Note 7).

another reason to wait on 5g phones.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:13:32 -0700, sms wrote:

> They are not unhappy. They just want the latest and greatest iPhone.
> They can afford it and it's how they choose to spend their discretionary
> income. Good for them.

Hi Steve,
I don't disagree with your logical assessment of the facts, as provided:
o Adults are funny that way when it comes to accepting rational logic.

The facts are, clearly, that a surprisingly high number of iPhone 8 owners
ditched their rather new iPhone 8 in a shockingly short period of time for
the newer iPhone X, losing about _half_ the value of the iPhone 8 in that
process.

Facts first; then logic.
o The logic is that they _wanted_ that iPhone X.

I agree with you on your logic.
o Adults are funny that way when it comes to assessing other's opinions.

However, _another_ way to rationalize the same fact is how I put it:
o They lined up outside the store because they couldn't wait to _ditch_ it.

Both are true in some way, where we must be clear that we're trying to
figure out the logic of a person who does something that neither you nor I
presumably would do.

For example, rest assured:
o You'd never see me lined up outside a store just to _ditch_ my new phone
o Just as I'd never line up outside a store to replace my old phone.

I'd take my sweet time to _assess_ whether the new phone is worth what
they're asking, e.g., is it throttled in just about a year, for example.

And, if I finally bought that new phone, I'd pay the lowest price possible.
o Like I did with my $130 Android phone which has _many_ functionalities
not on its five-times-more-expensive iPhone 7 Plus nearest equivalent

In short, both these statements are true to some degree, I agree:
o People lined up outside the store are desirous of the new phone
o Those same people, most likely, are ditching their old phone
o That "old" phone is, in some well-documented cases, shockingly new indeed

> I know several people, who are otherwise perfectly rational when it
> comes to money, that just want to have the newest iPhone as soon as it
> comes out and they stand in line to get it. But they generally don't
> trade in or sell their previous phone, it gets passed on to a spouse,
> child, or other relative.

Hi Steve,

I don't disagree that the old phone gets handed down in many cases, as my
own relatives have been the beneficiary of a free iPhone 6, as you know, in
the past, which replaced the gift Nexus 5 that I then inherited.

Adults are funny that way in that we don't waste our time agreeing on the
obvious.

> I don't rush out and buy a complex product as soon as it hits the
> market. This comes from long experience in the semiconductor and
> electronic products industries. There are always revs to the chips and
> revs to the final product that makes waiting six months a wiser approach
> (and sometimes spectacular failures like the Samsung Galaxy Note 7).

Hi Steve,
I agree with your logic based on your facts, as I'm the same as you are.
o Adults are funny that way with logic deduced from facts.

We don't need to waste our time like the apologists do
o We can move the logical ball forward by assessing facts

[Beedle]

On Apr 24, 2019, sms wrote
(in article <q9pd3e$b96$1...@dont-email.me>):

No, I don’t think they should give it away, nor do I think they should get
nothing for their efforts. I actually have but one single complaint. That
they wanted a percentage of the phone retail sales as a few, and (sorry that
makes two) that if someone pays a royalty to them to make the chip, then in
my opinion, that chip can be sold as is meaning the royalty has already been
paid. If Apple is paying a royalty, then the manufacturer shouldn’t have to
pay. If the manufacturer is paying the royalty, then Apple should not have to
pay. And I am completely open to having my mind changed on this. Just tell me
why that should not be the case because I don’t understand why both parties
pay. Doesn’t seem right to me.

--
Beedle

[Beedle]

On Apr 24, 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote
(in article <q9q319$5nr$3...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:21:30 -0700, Beedle wrote:
>
> > Take that Apple chip off your shoulder and buy a clue.
>
> Hi Beedle,
>
> FACTs first; then rational LOGIC.
> o Your assumption that anyone who speaks facts hates Apple - is wrong.
>
> I don't think you comprehend yet what I am all about on this newsgroup.
> o I employ a consistent strategy & various tactics befitting that strategy.

Arlen,

I don’t know you so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. That being
said, I’m not really here to defat what Apple pays Qualcomm. I actually
like Qualcomm much more than intel. I like Apple products, I like to talk
about Apple products. I like using Apple products. There are a few tings that
bug me about Apple, mostly the keyboard issue that we all face. I’m not
saying they are perfect, nor am I here to apologize and sugarcoat their
failures.

That all being said, you sir seem to have an agenda. Your use of words like,
surrender, appear to me to be designed to twist the knife. And you appear to
love this. Don’t know what your beef is with Apple. And honestly, I don’t
really care. You don’t have to use Macs or iPhones. There is a world of
choice out there. It’s very likely you’ll continue your little crusade
and it’s very likely I will put you in the kill filter. You won’t care,
since you can keep posting, and I won’t care since I don’t see your
posts. We’ll both be happy.

Ok then... Have a great life.

--
Beedle

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:31:36 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:57:53 -0400, nospam wrote:
>

<clip crap>

How many times are we going to filter you away? Just leave.

[Lewis]

Nothing about Qulacomm's dealing is right, which is why they are being
sued by several countries.


--
On a scale of one to ten, it sucked.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:03:59 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> I don┤ know you so I▍l give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hi Beedle,

I find it rather humorous (and telling) that you're threatening me with
plonking, simply because you don't like facts.

We're different, Beedle.
o Very different.

It's not so much that I'm highly educated, at least of average intelligence
(if that), and that I form a belief system based on actual facts, Beedle.

The main thing you need to know about me is that my facts are never wrong(1).
o And my logic is deduced from those facts.

The next thing you need to know about me is that I'm allergic to bullshit.
o That's why I challenge bullshit with the "name just one" rule every time.

The apologists bullshit like there's no tomorrow - they have no credibility
o My credibility is stellar, Beedle ... because I don't bullshit.

> That being
> said, I▌ not really here to defat what Apple pays Qualcomm.

Yet this thread is expressly about how much Apple paid Qualcomm.

> I actually
> like Qualcomm much more than intel. I like Apple products, I like to talk
> about Apple products. I like using Apple products. There are a few tings that

> bug me about Apple, mostly the keyboard issue that we all face. I▌ not

> saying they are perfect, nor am I here to apologize and sugarcoat their
> failures.

Hi Beedle,
I have _plenty_ of Apple products too.

Just because I speak facts about Apple doesn't mean I don't own their
stuff.

What the apologists consistently think is that you can only speak
sugar-coated bullshit about Apple producdts that Apple Marketing would
approve.

I don't think that way, Beedle.
o I speak the facts about Apple products

Those facts insense the hell out of the Apple apologist bullshitters
o I can list the people who can't stand facts about Apple, Beedle.

Here is the main list of Apple Apologist bullshitters, Beedle:
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
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 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.

All have proven to own the mind of a child, Beedle
o Their entire belief system is threatened by facts

You know why, Beedle?
o HINT: Their belief system is purely imaginary

> That all being said, you sir seem to have an agenda.

Hi Beedle,
Have you found a _single_ fact I've stated to be wrong?
o Or is your belief system as stated above purely imaginary also?

What _fact_ have I stated, about Apple, that you found wrong Beedle?
o Name just one.

HINT: If you fail that simplest of simple tests, then the fact is that your
belief system is NOT based on a single fact. Think about that, Beedle.

> Your use of words like,
> surrender, appear to me to be designed to twist the knife.

Hi Beedle,
You just proved how your mind works, which is of that of a child, Beedle.
o Do you even _know_ where the word "surrender" came from in this context?

You don't?

Really?
o You're _that_ ignorant, Beedle?

Seriously.

Beedle ... if you have no clue where that word "surrender" came from, then
you can't possibly state that "I" use the word, since it wasn't me who used
it in the context that I took it from. I cited the source, Beedle, long
ago, since Alan Baker, who also owns the mind of a child, said essentially
the same thing as you do.

I don't mind you not liking me becuase I speak facts about Apple.
O I don't even mind that you appear to own completely imaginary beliefs.

What I mind is you not comprehending the least why I used that word
o And then stating it was a perjorative word that "I" use

When the fact is that the media said it all over the freaking place.

Beedle ... I am allergic to bullshit.
o And your belief system is purely based on bullshit.

The problem with people like you Beedle, is that you don't even likely
realize that your _entire_ belief system is DESTROYED with a simple fact.

All I want you to do, Beedle, is think about that fact.
o If your belief system has 0 underlying facts, is it not that of a child?

HINT: Children believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny,
etc., which has nary a single fact underlying that belief system, Beedle.

All your statements about me, Beedle, have 0 basis in fact
o If they do, then I welcome your answer to these two adult questions

1. Where have you found _any_ of my facts about Apple not to be correct?
2. Where do you think the word "surrender" came from in this context?

HINT: If you can't answer those two adult questions...
o Then what does that tell us, logically, about your belief system, Beedle?

HINT: It's bullshit Beedle. Your mind gravitates to bullshit.
o You can't even answer those two simplest of the simplest of questions

Your belief system Beedle, is based on exact 0 supportable facts.
o If it's not, you can prove me wrong in a single statement, Beedle.

Have you found any facts I've statd about Apple that were wrong, Beedle?
o If so, "name just one".


< And you appear to
> love this. Don┤ know what your beef is with Apple.

Hi Beedle,
I own _plenty_ of Apple products Beedle.
o And I've continually said how much I admire Apple MARKETING's methods.

You missed all that ... you know why Beedle?
o I do.

Yet, you sensed I have a "beef" with Apple, didn't you Beedle?
o My beef with Apple is that they don't tell the truth, Beedle.

Apple has been caught in numerous lies recently, Beedle:
o And yes, that statement is based on logic deduced from facts, Beedle.

Do you need me to cite some of the lies Beedle?
o Hint: They informed customers of the secret throttling, Beedle?
o Hint: The throttling on the iPhone X isn't "as" necessary, Beedle?
o Hint: The facial recognition isn't being done "in" the stores, Beedle?
etc.

> And honestly, I don┤
> really care.

Hi Beedle,
Do you see what you're telling us?
o HINT: You probably don't even comprehend what you just said.

On one hand, you tell us that you don't care how much Apple paid Qualcomm
o And yet, you tell that to us in a thread about how much Apple paid Qualcomm

Nobody forced you to post to this thread, Beedle
o But if you do post, then I'll use adult logic on what you post.

Remember Beedle ... I'm allergic to bullshit.

> You don┤ have to use Macs or iPhones. There is a world of
> choice out there.

WTF?

Do you realize Beedle, that this is a _classic_ Apple Apologists' response?
o It's akin to "if you don't like this country, then leave".

It's no different than saying any racist remark, Beedle:
o If you're Black & you don't like how things are, then go back to Africa.

It's like saying:
o Instead of speaking facts about the USA, just go back to Africa.

Beedle ... I don't think you'll comprehend anything I'm saying.
o But rest assured, I can easily tell how your mind works.

You know why?
o Your mind is no different than the average apologists' mind, Beedle.

If you don't have something good to say about Apple, then don't say it.
o That's how your mind works, Beedle.

Guess what Beedle?
o Despite the fact you don't like facts, they're _still_ facts, Beedle.

> It┬ very likely you▍l continue your little crusade
> and it┬ very likely I will put you in the kill filter.

Hi Beedle,
You are welcome to killfile me for speaking facts about Apple.
o Certainly you wouldn't be the first, nor the last.

The Apple Apologists _hate_ facts.
o You know why, Beedle?

I do.

> You won┤ care,
> since you can keep posting, and I won┤ care since I don┤ see your
> posts. We▍l both be happy.

>
> Ok then... Have a great life.

Your "final word" Beedle, was, IMHO, that of a child, Beedle.
O What's really irking you, Beedle ... is that you don't like facts.

Your opinion is clearly that if there isn't something "good" to say about
Apple, then don't say it.

I understand you Beedle.
o You're apparently no different than any of the other Apologists

See this thread for a summary of Apologist's psychology:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

--
(1) I'm human, so, I must have once or twice in many thousands of posts,
misstated a material fact, especially as Usenet is casual, but nobody can
find any material fact I've stated that was wrong (trust me, they've
tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible for factual
credibility on Usenet.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 01:12:36 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Nothing about Qulacomm's dealing is right, which is why they are being
> sued by several countries.

What I _love_ about when Lewis (or Jolly Roger, or Alan Baker, et al.)
post, is that they _prove_ how their mind works.

Since Apple complained that they signed a contract whose terms Apple much
later grew to dislike, then it must be Qualcomm whose "dealing" is wrong.

And yet, the simple fact that _every_ company (numerous ones, mind you),
who signed that contract with Qualcomm, did so willingly on their own
volition.

It get it that these companies _much later_ grew to dislike the terms of
that contract, but rest assured they _all_ had good lawyers and business
people who _signed_ that contract.

I realize this is all lost on the apologists like Lewis...
o Where I simply note that Lewis always proves my point for me.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 04:19:00 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> Those facts insense the hell out of the Apple apologist bullshitters
> o I can list the people who can't stand facts about Apple, Beedle.

incense

Apologies for the typo...

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:52:17 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> I want to get this apology out quickly so that you don't waste your
> valuable time on re-proving to me what you wrote here:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ
>
> As always, I'll read what you wrote and assess it logically.

Hi Steve,
As you know, all I care are about the facts.
o This thread is about how much Apple is paying Qualcomm

Notice that the facts aren't as simple as you make it out to be.
o In that Qualcomm _rebates_ some of the costs you're claiming.

This difference you and I have with the numbers has happened before
o For example, when you claimed resale value without taking into account
the full costs

Same thing here...
o The Qualcomm _rebate_ changes your numbers, perhaps appreciably.

You didn't seem to take those rebates into account, Steve.
o I apologize that the facts are complex - but it's what they are

People like Alan Baker & nospam can't comprehend this rebate
o But I would expect all sentient adults to comprehend the math

a. Manufacturers pay Qualcomm
b. Apple re-imburses the manufacturers
c. Qualcomm rebates "some" of that money back to Apple.

The real question is what is the math:
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. But how much did Qualcomm _rebate_ back to Apple, Steve?

I am now just getting to reading your supporting facts:
"UBS estimates that the terms of the new agreement show
an average royalty of between $8 and $9"
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/18/apple-payment-to-qualcomm-estimated-at-6-billion-with-9-per-iphone-sold-in-royalties>.

As you know, I'm aware of that cost, where I previously had "averaged" it
to $8.50 per device when I claimed that, as far as I knew from what I read
of what was reported in the media, Apple was paying 113% more in royalties,
so I'm very interested in how you arrived at Apple paying less.

Particularly since Apple's bargaining position sucked, by all accounts,
where your own reference above called Apple's pre-bargaining position a
"tough position" to be in.

So we can easily agree that Apple is paying about $8.50 per phone
o Adults don't waste time agreeing on obvious facts

Moving to your next point...
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying,
contract manufacturers were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone,
translating into $12 to $20 per device"
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/14/heres-how-much-apple-was-paying-qualcomm-in-royalt.aspx>

This article says Apple was paying Qualcomm a billion dollars a year.
o CNET reported it was $7.50 per device in royalties
o Apple wanted it to be $1.50 per device
o The contract Apple signed was based on the value of the entire device

Those are facts all adults but the apologists can agree on, right?

Moving on...
o Apple would _love_ a "direct license" to Apple - but that's not gonna happen

The way it works is what nospam & Alan Baker can't seem to comprehend, which is:
o Qualcomm licenses it's IP to the (4?) contract manufacturers
o Those (4?) contract manufacturers pay Qualcomm that royalty
o Apple then reimburses those contract manufacturers
o In addition, there's a _rebate_ that

Presumably those contract manufacturers have good lawyers and business
people, so they _signed_ this contract with Qualcomm (and with Apple).

Likewise, we know Apple has the best lawyers on the planet, and the best
business people, who _also_ signed this contract with Qualcomm.

Are those not all facts?
o I trust that all adults agree that these are basic obvious facts.

Here comes that key sentence which is news to me, Steve, thanks to you:
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying, contract manufacturers
were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone, translating into $12 to
$20 per device."

The next sentence, Steve, gives us the _missing_ rebate amount:
"Qualcomm used to give Apple rebates that effectively reduced its
royalty burden. Those rebates brought the per-device royalty down
to $7.50."

So there is the old math right there, Steve:
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. Qualcomm rebates Apple to an end result of about $7.50 per device

Steve ... as you know, I'm all about facts & logic deduced from those
facts.
o You claim Apple's royalites went _down_
o I had claimed the facts showed they went _up_

This appears to be the math:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device

That sure sounds like _up_ to me.
o Why does that sound like _down_ to you?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:52:17 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> I want to get this apology out quickly so that you don't waste your
> valuable time on re-proving to me what you wrote here:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ
>
> As always, I'll read what you wrote and assess it logically.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:29:49 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> No, I don¢t think they should give it away, nor do I think they should get
> nothing for their efforts. I actually have but one single complaint. That
> they wanted a percentage of the phone retail sales as a few, and (sorry that
> makes two) that if someone pays a royalty to them to make the chip, then in
> my opinion, that chip can be sold as is meaning the royalty has already been
> paid. If Apple is paying a royalty, then the manufacturer shouldn¢t have to
> pay. If the manufacturer is paying the royalty, then Apple should not have to
> pay. And I am completely open to having my mind changed on this. Just tell me
> why that should not be the case because I don¢t understand why both parties
> pay. Doesn¢t seem right to me.

Hi Beedle,
By now, you know two things about how I respond to posts:
1. I base my belief system on facts
2. I then logically deduce "things" from those facts

In this case, the fact is that multiple companies with very good lawyers
and business people _signed_ that contract with Qualcomm.

Now they want to _change_ the terms of that contract that they signed.
o Is that your understanding of the facts?

My question arises because adults generally don't waste time disputing facts.
o Adults spend their time discussing the logical implications of those facts

My fundamental question of your belief system is this trivially simple:
o Did those companies willingly & freely _sign_ that contract with Qualcomm?
(Please choose "Yes", or "No".)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:12:05 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> How many times are we going to filter you away? Just leave.

The facts are that this appears to be the math that Steve cited:

o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device

I'm not sure why Steve feels this is _down_
o Where, to me, and to logical adults, this sure looks like _up_

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:45:37 -0700, sms wrote:

> If those two statements are accurate then that's a big _decrease_ in
> royalties per unit.

Hi Steve,

All I care about are the facts, Steve.
o You must admit, facts are my forte.

That's why the apologists hate me so much.
o They don't know how to deal with facts.

But I expect _you_, Steve, to comprehend basic mathematical facts.

I'm likely the _only_ person on this ng who comprehends the math.
o So let me know what you think of my assessment of your own cites

Bear in mind what nospam & Alan Baker can't seem to ever comprehend:
a. There is a "royalty"
b. Then there is a "reimbursement"
c. Then, there is a "rebate"

I've been trying to get the apologists like Alan Baker & nospam to
comprehend this 3-step process for quite some time now, but it's just too
complex for them to comprehend, apparently.

But I expect _you_ to comprehend the three-step process.
o The final number is a + b + c (you're only quoting a + b).

You can't ignore c, Steve.
o You did this when you claimed iPhones had high resale value Steve.

You can't logically do the math without actually doing the math.
o You must add up a plus b plus c, Steve.

You just have to.

As you are aware, it's a 3-step process that they use:
a. Manufacturers pay Qualcomm royalty fees
b. Apple reimburses the manufacturers' royalty fees

c. Qualcomm rebates "some" of that money back to Apple.

The real question is what is the math:
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount

c. The question is only of how much Qualcomm rebates Apple

Given your cites, we can easily agree that Apple is paying about $8.50 per
phone now, so all we need to figure out is how much Apple was effectively
paying before, right?

Your own cite said CNET reported it was $7.50 per device in royalties when
the _rebate_ from Qualcomm was factored in (which _must_ be factored in, or
the math is missing an entire term, Steve).

So there is all the math right there, Steve:

a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. Qualcomm rebates Apple to an end result of about $7.50 per device

This appears to be the fundamental logical math, Steve, is it not?

o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:24:35 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> We don't need to waste our time like the apologists do
> o We can move the logical ball forward by assessing facts

Hi Steve,

Did I do the math wrongly?
o Or did you?

As you know, I'm all about facts & logic deduced from those facts.
o You provided cites; so I dutifully read those cites when I had the chance

I actually _comprehended_ what those cites said, Steve
o Which is, from experience, not what the apologists _think_ they say.

I'm likely the only person who comprehended your cites, on this ng.
o It doesn't seem, for example, that _you_ comprehended your own cite.

The net of the math of (a) plus (b) plus (c), is simple
o Apple is now paying about $1 _more_ per device ... than they were before.

*You can claim that's "down"; but I claim that's "_up_", Steve.*

Given that this is the model that they all agreed to:
1. Manufacturer pay royalties to Apple
2. Apple reimburses those manufacturers (presumably the full amount)
3. Qualcomm rebates "some" of that money back to Apple

Given that's the math that I've been claiming for quite some time now
(which apologists like Alan Baker, for example, flatly denied but which
your own cites support), this appears to be the math based on your own
cites, Steve:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device before the settlement
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device after the settlement

As always, I'm only about facts and logic deduced from those facts.
o I need you to explain why you think an _extra_ dollar per device is "less".

Did I do the math wrongly?
o Or did you?

--
I'm an adult, so if I did the math wrongly, just let me know and I'll
apologize. Adults care about coming to the correct logical deduction.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:49:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> He has a real problem with basic thought.
>
> There has not been a *single* source on the terms of the Apple-Qualcomm
> settlement. Not one.
>
> People making up stories, guessing on how much money is involved, or
> constructing narratives of what they imagine happened are not sources,
> they are fiction writers.

Hi Lewis,

What I find illustrative, is how _clueless_ the apologists like Lewis are.
o Apologists like Lewis _always_ prove my point whenever they speak

The entire belief system of the apologists is based on exactly 0 facts
o In fact, facts instantly DESTORY the belief system of apologists

The facts on the royalty are simple:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device to Qualcomm before
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device to Qualcomm now

Given that this is the simple 3-step process specified in the contracts:
a. Manufacturers pay royalties directly to Qualcomm
b. Apple reimburses those manufacturers (presumably the whole amount)
c. Qualcomm rebates 'some' of those costs back to Apple

The Qualcom-to-Apple rebate is contingent on Apple following strict
guidelines, which we don't need to go into here since you apologists likely
don't even comprehend the simple math, let alone the guidelines agreed to.

As for the rebate, Apple owed Qualcomm somewhere over 7 billion dollars,
which accrued, over time, to something like a billion or two more than
that, and where the final arrears payment was about five to six billion
dollars by most accounts.

What's interesting is intelligent adults comprehend these simple facts.
o And yet, the apologists like Lewis, continue to remain befuddled.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:50:25 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> Seems to have a bug up his ass for Apple.

Hi Beedle,

The "bug up his ass" is for facts, and rational logic, Beedle.

For example, Steve, who generally isn't an Apple apologist, but who, in the
past, failed to comprehend simple math about resale value, again failed to
comprehend simple math, apparently, just now, when he claimed that Apple
negotiated a _lower_ overall royalty fee for the iPhone.

To his credit, Steve, unlike most apologists, provided a cite, which,
unfortunately for Steve, didn't say what Steve _thought_ it said.

Steve failed to comprehend what I comprehended, Beedle, which is that the
payment is structured in _three_ steps, not two steps.

The result was, apparently, that Steve skipped a crucial step, which made
Steve's math completely wrong (as far as I can tell).

Now you, Beedle, can fault me for likely being the _only_ person on this
entire newsgroup (as far as we know) who actually _comprehended_ what
Steve's own cite said ...

But ... the fact you don't like facts doesn't make facts not facts.

In short, yes, I have a "bug up my ass" for facts.
o And, rest assured, my facts have _never_ been materially wrong, Beedle.

You don't have to like facts Beedle...
o But the fact you don't like facts doesn't change that they're still facts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-24 10:44 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 08:49:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> He has a real problem with basic thought.
>>
>> There has not been a *single* source on the terms of the Apple-Qualcomm
>> settlement. Not one.
>>
>> People making up stories, guessing on how much money is involved, or
>> constructing narratives of what they imagine happened are not sources,
>> they are fiction writers.
>
> Hi Lewis,
>
> What I find illustrative, is how _clueless_ the apologists like Lewis are.
> o Apologists like Lewis _always_ prove my point whenever they speak
>
> The entire belief system of the apologists is based on exactly 0 facts
> o In fact, facts instantly DESTORY the belief system of apologists
>
> The facts on the royalty are simple:
> o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device to Qualcomm before
> o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device to Qualcomm now

Without sources, those are merely assertions...

...not facts.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 22:49:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Without sources, those are merely assertions...

Hi Alan Baker,

I posit that I'm the _only_ one on this newsgroup, who showed any
comprehension of the cites that Steve kindly supplied for us to read.

Why is it that I can 'find' Steve's sources in his post, but you can't?
o What's so very _different_ about you, Alan Baker, from me?

Moving on, Steve has a proven tendency to do only half the math (witness a
similar math error in his iPhone cost of ownership calculations in the
past), which, even though he's not an Apple apologist, is a trait common to
all the Apple apologists to ignore the math.

Specifically, it appears that Steve simply forgot to factor in a _huge_
rebate that was the entire focus of the legal cases, which is surprising
since it's such a fundamental component of the math that Steve apparently
forgot to factor in.

Rest assured if I made a mistake in the math, I'd be an adult and
apologize, and agree to the corrected math.

Let's see how Steve responds, where I note that he never acted like an
adult when he was similarly missing a key component in the overall
ownership cost math, so, I will be interested to see if he can act like an
adult when he comprehends that the math includes three components:

a. Manufacturers pay royalties directly to Qualcomm
b. Apple reimburses those manufacturers (presumably the whole amount)
c. Qualcomm rebates 'some' of those costs back to Apple

The end result was clear as day in Steve's own cites:

o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device to Qualcomm before
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device to Qualcomm now

I don't expect any of the apologists to comprehend the math...
o But I do expect sentient adults to comprehend this simple math.

NOTE: If the math is wrong - simply let me know what numbers you derive.

[nospam]

In article <q9rgrp$as2$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Did I do the math wrongly?

yes

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-24 11:02 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 22:49:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Without sources, those are merely assertions...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I posit that I'm the _only_ one on this newsgroup, who showed any
> comprehension of the cites that Steve kindly supplied for us to read.

I don't recall seeing any such cites.

Please reproduce the links here.

Anything other than a post that contains the links and text quoted from
them (in addition to all of the text of this posted reply-quoted) will
be treated as your complete agreement that you're a lying asshole.

:-)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:00:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Please reproduce the links here.

Hi Alan Baker,

Facts first; then logic.

I'm happy to provide facts to you so you can discuss rational deductions.
o Facts first; then logical deductions based on those facts.

The fact is that Steve posted these links in this very thread:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ>

I responded with a step-by-step analysis based on those facts Steve cited:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/LA2k7dyjBwAJ>

Note the 3 fundamental steps are the same 3 steps as what I had a month
ago, on March 16th, already very painstakingly explained to you
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/ZezTAMxEBQAJ>

Note that those who speak facts can easily find multiple cites supporting
all their statements, while, those, like nospam, who brazenly deny facts
simply because he doesn't like the facts, can almost never support their
statements with facts since their belief system almost always proves to be
almost completely imaginary:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/O9xURAW0BwAJ>

Adults comprehend facts first; then they form rational beliefs based on
those facts. Children form belief systems based wholly on imagination.

[Alan Baker]

None of that satisfies my stricture:

'Anything other than a post that contains the links and text quoted from

them (in addition to all of the text of this posted reply-quoted) will

be treated as your complete agreement that you're a lying asshole. '

So we're both in agreement now:

You are a lying asshole.

:-)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:00:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You are a lying asshole.

Hi Alan Baker,

Thank you for that response.

You asked for facts, even though they were obvious to adults.
o I provided those facts, even though they were obvious to adults.

You then call the provider of facts, a "lying asshole".
o I must thank you, Alan Baker, for proving my point about apologists.

I don't even need to prove apologists are utterly immune to facts
o All I need to do is point to your words - which prove it for me.

The main problem with apologists is that they can't comprehend facts
o Which results in apologists forming wholly imaginary belief systems

You see, Alan Baker, I likely comprehend your brain better than you do. :)

[Alan Baker]

You DO realize I'll just keep putting the full context back, right?

'I don't recall seeing any such cites.

Please reproduce the links here.

Anything other than a post that contains the links and text quoted from
them (in addition to all of the text of this posted reply-quoted) will
be treated as your complete agreement that you're a lying asshole. '

And you've now admitted by your actions that you're a lying asshole.


:-)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:54:19 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And you've now admitted by your actions that you're a lying asshole.

Hi Alan Baker,

Thank you for proving my point about the mind of the Apple Apologist.

Your brain, like that of all the apologists...
o Can't comprehend facts (you're about 100% intuitive, and 0% facts)
o Hence you form belief systems which have zero basis in facts.

This inability to comprehend facts is a trait all the apologists own.
o I simply point to your posts as the proof

It doesn't matter how many times I point apologists to the facts
o Their brains are wired such that they can't comprehend facts

It's _why_ they gravitate to the highly marketed Apple ecosystem
o They gravitate to products which are more illusion than functionality

The fact is, Alan Baker, Apologists _never_ comprehend the facts.

Even though the facts were cited by Steve, and pointed to by me
o After a handful of posts, you _still_ can't find the obvious

Hence, I thank you sincerely, for being a perfect example!

Apple Apologists...
o Can't comprehend facts, and, therefore...
o Forms belief systems devoid of facts...
such that those belief systems always prove to be entirely imaginary.

It's who you are, Alan Baker ... it's what Apologists are.
o I simply point to your own posts as my proof of concept.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-04-26 4:46 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:54:19 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And you've now admitted by your actions that you're a lying asshole.
>

> Hi Alan Baker...

You DO realize I'll just keep putting the full context back, right?

'I don't recall seeing any such cites.

Please reproduce the links here.

Anything other than a post that contains the links and text quoted from
them (in addition to all of the text of this posted reply-quoted) will

be treated as your complete agreement that you're a lying asshole. '

And you've now doubled-down admitting by your actions that you're a
lying asshole.

:-)