How is ArsTechnica being taken in so easily "Apple Marketing"?

[Alan Baker]

How????????

'What Apple needed was a chip that took the lessons learned from years
of refining mobile systems-on-a-chip for iPhones, iPads, and other
products then added on all sorts of additional functionality in order to
address the expanded needs of a laptop or desktop computer.

"During the pre-silicon, when we even designed the architecture or
defined the features," Srouji recalled, "Craig and I sit in the same
room and we say, 'OK, here's what we want to design. Here are the things
that matter.'”

When Apple first announced its plans to launch the first Apple Silicon
Mac this year, onlookers speculated that the iPad Pro's A12X or A12Z
chips were a blueprint and that the new Mac chip would be something like
an A14X—a beefed-up variant of the chips that shipped in the iPhone 12
this year.

Not exactly so, said Federighi:

"The M1 is essentially a superset, if you want to think of it relative
to A14. Because as we set out to build a Mac chip, there were many
differences from what we otherwise would have had in a corresponding,
say, A14X or something.

We had done lots of analysis of Mac application workloads, the kinds of
graphic/GPU capabilities that were required to run a typical Mac
workload, the kinds of texture formats that were required, support for
different kinds of GPU compute and things that were available on the
Mac… just even the number of cores, the ability to drive Mac-sized
displays, support for virtualization and Thunderbolt.

There are many, many capabilities we engineered into M1 that were
requirements for the Mac, but those are all superset capabilities
relative to what an app that was compiled for the iPhone would expect."'

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/we-are-giddy-interviewing-apple-about-its-mac-silicon-revolution/>

How in the world was ArsTechnica so easily fooled???

'Srouji expanded on the point:

The foundation of many of the IPs that we have built and that became
foundations for M1 to go build on top of it… started over a decade ago.
As you may know, we started with our own CPU, then graphics and ISP and
Neural Engine.

So we've been building these great technologies over a decade, and then
several years back, we said, "Now it's time to use what we call the
scalable architecture." Because we had the foundation of these great
IPs, and the architecture is scalable with UMA.

Then we said, "Now it's time to go build a custom chip for the Mac,"
which is M1. It's not like some iPhone chip that is on steroids. It's a
whole different custom chip, but we do use the foundation of many of
these great IPs.'

[Paul]

That happens to not be how you design a processor.

But when it comes to a billion dollar marketing campaign,
you expect hyperbole at many levels. If an executive
tries to use the reality distortion field, stuff like
that happens. Doing lines of coke off coffee tables,
that's what executives do. Engineers live in much
more austere environments. A cup of coffee, and smelly
carpeting with too much formaldehyde in it. That's
where engineering is done.

You need to find an article here (subscription based).
As there isn't as much free-lance interest in processor arch
as there once was.

https://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/about_report.php

A good part of hardware design now, comes from software people.
They know the compiler. The compiler is a long lead-time item
of some importance (it takes around ten years to make
a good one from scratch). Preparing a processor architecture requires
spotting patterns where both the compiler and the hardware
could be modified. You're staring at workload traces, but with
an eye to your favorite pet theory. You're not staring at
lines of coke on a glass coffee table.

As for "where do ideas come from", see Intel. Their innovation
came from hiring a team in Israel. Folsom didn't save them,
Israel did. In the case of Apple, I believe they may have
made a bulk purchase of some CPU people, but I don't sit
around tracking bumpf like that. Knowing which company that
was, would tell you why the processor looks the way it does.

I'm kinda curious how so many functional units can be put in
parallel, because it isn't "normal" for exceptionally high
retirement rates on the same clock tick. Four functional units
would be pushing it, as maybe you could arrange three functional
units to retire on the same tick, but squeezing a fourth into
the model is tough (that means, using a fourth functional
unit, that actually gets used occasionally). This is a measure
of "how much parallelism exists in normal code". And that
situation has been stagnant for some time. The AMD Zen3 made
a small move in that direction.

And this is where a journal that specializes in that sort of
analysis, would shred whatever PR campaign was ongoing.

As for Anandtech, one of the web pages mentions "we used what we had",
which means they weren't able to apply their normal benchmark suite.

You know, Anand left Anandtech years ago, to work at Apple.
Anandtech was bought by a magazine company, and that magazine
company also bought Tomshardware (and probably a few others).

Another good supply of analysis used to come from the Russians (ixbt.com).
They knew some things about the Pentium P4 that nobody else knew
(how hyperthreading worked and how the first hyperthreading
had a bug in its recirculator). Some of their analysis was
from first principles. They could write code and demonstrate
that an idea they had, was real. But they're not around any more,
so scratch another source of analysis potential.

I'm sorry, but if you're expecting any sort of reasoned
(non-NDA) analysis these days, you pretty well have to pay for
it. The kiddies can only regurgitate what they're given.
But there are some people with the chops to do the analysis.

You couldn't even visit comp.arch any more and expect anything
cogent. I think that was spammed out of existence at some point
and the people left.

*******

One thing I've learned over the years, is hardware is useless
without good software. And then the question is, is the software
for a product, what an individual user wants or not. That's
where my interest in the M1 trails right off... The ability
of poorly written software, to squander tiny improvements in
hardware, is legendary. This is why today, you can hardly have
a web browser that isn't railed and non-responding. An M1
won't fix that. Most of the time, my processor components
sit there unused - but that's software for you.

This is also the reason I'm not interested in owning anything
with an NVMe in it. Fine fine hardware. Rendered useless by
software.

Just yesterday, I did an experiment with a ramdisk, where
the file copy rate was 1.8MB/sec. Now think about that for
a moment, just how pathetic that is. A "device" with a 5GB/sec
sequential benchmark, that in a real life test situation,
can only manage 1.8MB/sec performance. (That's the NTFS fuse
file system on a recent Linux distro.) This is why "dreams of M1"
would be tempered with reality, and that reality is
the bloated software we used today. That software is... everywhere.

This is the Year of the Container, as containers and virtualization
threaten to ruin multiple ecosystems at the same time. Try loading
a Snap and see how long it takes before your application is
ready (20 seconds). Does Apple use containers ? Does Apple use
virtualization ? Of course they do. I don't even need to check,
because there's plenty of copying and "me too" in the software
industry, even if critical analysis would tell them the idea
was wrong.

This is why I no longer get excited about "whizzy hardware".
A software guy will always find a way to ruin it.

Paul

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-11-20 20:03, Paul wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:

>> The foundation of many of the IPs that we have built and that became
>> foundations for M1 to go build on top of it… started over a decade
>> ago. As you may know, we started with our own CPU, then graphics and
>> ISP and Neural Engine.
>>
>> So we've been building these great technologies over a decade, and
>> then several years back, we said, "Now it's time to use what we call
>> the scalable architecture." Because we had the foundation of these
>> great IPs, and the architecture is scalable with UMA.
>>
>> Then we said, "Now it's time to go build a custom chip for the Mac,"
>> which is M1. It's not like some iPhone chip that is on steroids. It's
>> a whole different custom chip, but we do use the foundation of many of
>> these great IPs.'
>
> That happens to not be how you design a processor.

But it is how Apple have gone about it. A 10 year evolution to this
point is how they've gone about it.

>
> But when it comes to a billion dollar marketing campaign,
> you expect hyperbole at many levels. If an executive
> tries to use the reality distortion field, stuff like
> that happens. Doing lines of coke off coffee tables,
> that's what executives do. Engineers live in much

I don't see Apple execs as the coke types. More likely weed and magic
mushrooms in micro doses - if at all.

> more austere environments. A cup of coffee, and smelly
> carpeting with too much formaldehyde in it. That's
> where engineering is done.

At Apple I doubt there is much smelly carpeting. Coffee? Oodles.

>
> You need to find an article here (subscription based).
> As there isn't as much free-lance interest in processor arch
> as there once was.
>
> https://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/about_report.php
>
> A good part of hardware design now, comes from software people.
> They know the compiler. The compiler is a long lead-time item
> of some importance (it takes around ten years to make
> a good one from scratch). Preparing a processor architecture requires
> spotting patterns where both the compiler and the hardware
> could be modified. You're staring at workload traces, but with
> an eye to your favorite pet theory. You're not staring at
> lines of coke on a glass coffee table.

Take your meds please. The M1 didn't suddenly emerge from a group
engineering orgy. It is the result of a decade of Apple's evolution of
the iPhone/iPad/Watch/TV architectures with a final adaptation to the GP
computer which is only at its starting line.

Apple is a s/w and h/w company. Very integrated. The M1 is designed to
offload a lot from the OS (so informed by the s/w side to do so - so at
least you have a fingerhold on that...)

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

[Alan Baker]

And what processors did you design?

>
> But when it comes to a billion dollar marketing campaign,
> you expect hyperbole at many levels. If an executive
> tries to use the reality distortion field, stuff like
> that happens. Doing lines of coke off coffee tables,
> that's what executives do. Engineers live in much
> more austere environments. A cup of coffee, and smelly
> carpeting with too much formaldehyde in it. That's
> where engineering is done.
>
> You need to find an article here (subscription based).
> As there isn't as much free-lance interest in processor arch
> as there once was.
>
> https://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/about_report.php
>
> A good part of hardware design now, comes from software people.
> They know the compiler. The compiler is a long lead-time item
> of some importance (it takes around ten years to make
> a good one from scratch). Preparing a processor architecture requires
> spotting patterns where both the compiler and the hardware
> could be modified. You're staring at workload traces, but with
> an eye to your favorite pet theory. You're not staring at
> lines of coke on a glass coffee table.

And you know how long compiler design takes because...

>
> As for "where do ideas come from", see Intel. Their innovation
> came from hiring a team in Israel. Folsom didn't save them,
> Israel did. In the case of Apple, I believe they may have
> made a bulk purchase of some CPU people, but I don't sit
> around tracking bumpf like that. Knowing which company that
> was, would tell you why the processor looks the way it does.

Pretty much every knowledgeable source on the internet acknowledges that
Apple has built a first-class team to design its processors...

...and that the processors themselves lead the industry in processing
power per watt.

>
> I'm kinda curious how so many functional units can be put in
> parallel, because it isn't "normal" for exceptionally high
> retirement rates on the same clock tick. Four functional units
> would be pushing it, as maybe you could arrange three functional
> units to retire on the same tick, but squeezing a fourth into
> the model is tough (that means, using a fourth functional
> unit, that actually gets used occasionally). This is a measure
> of "how much parallelism exists in normal code". And that
> situation has been stagnant for some time. The AMD Zen3 made
> a small move in that direction.

The M1 has 8 functional units in its CPU—4 performance cores and 4
low-power cores—as well as a 16 unit neural engine.

Not to mention the 7 or 8 core gpu.

>
> And this is where a journal that specializes in that sort of
> analysis, would shred whatever PR campaign was ongoing.

Please go ahead and point out such a journal and then show us the shredding.

>
> As for Anandtech, one of the web pages mentions "we used what we had",
> which means they weren't able to apply their normal benchmark suite.

And?

>
> You know, Anand left Anandtech years ago, to work at Apple.
> Anandtech was bought by a magazine company, and that magazine
> company also bought Tomshardware (and probably a few others).

And?

>
> Another good supply of analysis used to come from the Russians (ixbt.com).
> They knew some things about the Pentium P4 that nobody else knew
> (how hyperthreading worked and how the first hyperthreading
> had a bug in its recirculator). Some of their analysis was
> from first principles. They could write code and demonstrate
> that an idea they had, was real. But they're not around any more,
> so scratch another source of analysis potential.
>
> I'm sorry, but if you're expecting any sort of reasoned
> (non-NDA) analysis these days, you pretty well have to pay for
> it. The kiddies can only regurgitate what they're given.
> But there are some people with the chops to do the analysis.

Riiiiiiight.

>
> You couldn't even visit comp.arch any more and expect anything
> cogent. I think that was spammed out of existence at some point
> and the people left.
>
> *******
>
> One thing I've learned over the years, is hardware is useless
> without good software. And then the question is, is the software
> for a product, what an individual user wants or not. That's
> where my interest in the M1 trails right off... The ability
> of poorly written software, to squander tiny improvements in
> hardware, is legendary. This is why today, you can hardly have
> a web browser that isn't railed and non-responding. An M1
> won't fix that. Most of the time, my processor components
> sit there unused - but that's software for you.
>
> This is also the reason I'm not interested in owning anything
> with an NVMe in it. Fine fine hardware. Rendered useless by
> software.
>
> Just yesterday, I did an experiment with a ramdisk, where
> the file copy rate was 1.8MB/sec. Now think about that for
> a moment, just how pathetic that is. A "device" with a 5GB/sec
> sequential benchmark, that in a real life test situation,
> can only manage 1.8MB/sec performance. (That's the NTFS fuse
> file system on a recent Linux distro.) This is why "dreams of M1"
> would be tempered with reality, and that reality is
> the bloated software we used today. That software is... everywhere.

Except that in reality, the M1 Macs are running Rosetta-translated Intel
software faster than the machines they're replacing.

>
> This is the Year of the Container, as containers and virtualization
> threaten to ruin multiple ecosystems at the same time. Try loading
> a Snap and see how long it takes before your application is
> ready (20 seconds). Does Apple use containers ? Does Apple use
> virtualization ? Of course they do. I don't even need to check,
> because there's plenty of copying and "me too" in the software
> industry, even if critical analysis would tell them the idea
> was wrong.

Try watching a few videos of how fast software loads on the new M1 Macs...

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:43:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Try watching a few videos of how fast software loads on the new M1 Macs...

To Paul, (below is a well-thought out explanation for all adults)

I've astutely studied these Apple cultists on Usenet for many years
o Alan Baker, like all Type III apologists, effuses without understanding.

This moron of about a 40 or 50 IQ (my estimate) Alan Baker is the classic
Type III Apple Apologist, and hence, is like a flat earth cultist, or a Jim
Jones' religious cultist, who has been wholly "fed" by Apple MARKETING.

These Type III apologists will _only_ spew what Apple MARKETING fed them!
o Much like a child fed Santa Clause, they have no comprehension of facts.

If you tell them "Santa Claus is make believe", they will _prove_ he exists
o By feeding you _more_ (and more) of the MARKETING that says otherwise.

Notice all his responses to Paul's facts are of the infantile sort
o "*bu...bbuu.....bbbut ..but Apple glossy brochures are sooo pretty!*".

These Type III apologists (Lewis, Jolly Roger, et al.) literally associate
their self identity with Apple MARKETING hype - their entire feelings of
self worth are identical to what Apple hypes.

This is why this particular Type III apologist is literally just copying
entire Apple-provided shills (which Paul explained quite intelligently so).

These Type III apologists can't separate fact from MARKETING hype.
o Just as flat earthers and religious zealots can't ever see facts.

Nothing from Alan Baker will _ever_ be anything other than him telling us
that he is blown over by how "pretty" those Apple MARKETING shills are.

FACT:
1. Apple has to "spin" their decision to go TSMC Silicon & ARM technology
(and Apple is damn good at spin, only ever telling the truth in court).
2. While Apple has the lowest R&D spend in all of high tech, Apple has one
of the finest (if not the finest) MARKETING orgs on this planet!
So Apple knows _exactly_ how to wow Type III apologists - which are,
let's face it, the cultists who most love everything Apple says.
3. The Type III cultists (e.g., Alan Baker, and elsewhere, Jolly Roger)
are literally effusing by _repeating_ (without understanding)
everything they self-identify with on glossy Apple MARKETING promos!

Anyway, that's for _adults_ to comprehend as to _why_ these utter morons
are simply posting anything and everything they can possibly find that
Apple MARKETING fed to publication outfits as their worthless shills.

To clarify, these Type III apologists are not like normal adults, where,
for example, we Windows & Android users don't ever fall for the Jim Jones'
punch when it comes to Microsoft or Google shills. For some reason, known
very well to Apple MARKETING, these Apple cultists self identify with Apple
MARKETING glossy brochures and videos.

The difference between Type III apologists and the other types is huge:
o Type I (e.g., nospam);
o Type II (e.g., Steve Scharf, aka sms);
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Lewis, Joerg Lorenz, et al.).

They're almost always fact free, but for different reasons...
o Type I know most of the facts but they always defend & parrot MARKETING;
o Type II are people who aren't scientific; hence they never check facts;
o Type III literally gain _all_ their self worth from Apple MARKETING.

They're all almost always wrong on facts, but for different reasons...
o Type I are wrong because they will defend Apple decisions at all cost;
o Type II are wrong because they believe MARKETING sans fact checking;
o Type III literally believe every single thing MARKETING has fed them.

On their belief systems, you have to handle each differently:
o Type I, when proved wrong, will retort as a child would when caught;
o Type II will go silent when proved wrong & will not contest the facts;
o Type III will be utterly immune to facts; they simply repeat the shills!

Bearing in mind you're dealing with Alan Baker, the canonical Type III
apologists, you're only going to get from him his utter awe at the glossy
MARKETING shills, absolutely zero understanding of the facts, no
comprehension whatsoever of the drawbacks (which MARKETING never feeds
them, of course), and no actual _comprehension_ of anything whatsoever.

He'll simply throw back at any fact _more_ Apple MARKETING shills.
o Just watch.
--
Someone has to tell the TRUTH on the child-like Apple newsgroups
(which is why they hate me - because they have no defense to facts).

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-23 9:08 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:43:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Try watching a few videos of how fast software loads on the new M1 Macs...
>
> To Paul,

Notice how Arlen doesn't actually address a single point that was made.

[Ken Blake]

Notice that you should never reply to trolls.


--
Ken

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:45:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> Notice that you should never reply to trolls.

And yet, my post was _filled_ to the brim with facts!
o Every fact I claim is backed up by well-cited public reports, in fact!

FACTS:
Facts are what intelligent adults use to form their belief systems
o Not purely bullshit (but verrrry pretttty) MARKETING shills!

Adults don't believe in Santa Claus, because adults comprehend facts
o Children believe in him because they can't separate facts from MARKETING

FACTS:

Apple licensed ARM technology & fabs on TSMC Silicon for good business
reasons; yet not for the reasons they will endlessly shill in brochures.

These Apple apologists will be completely immune to _why_ Apple needs to
spin this cost-cutting production-control timing-based decision to switch.

Luckily we covered, in gory detail _why_ Apple has to spin this decision:
o Apple Plans to Announce Move to Its Own Mac Chips at WWDC [ARM, TSMC, 5nm, A14]
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/iN5nqHcaZmM>

Remember the Apple spin of "you're holding it wrong" or "it's courageous"
to remove functionality so that the customer has to later buy it back?

Just as Apple had to spin their decision to take away the functionality and
then tell you to buy it back for the basic headphone jack, which 99.95% of
all Android devices have today (simply because of the fact it _is_ basic
functionality).
o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/ZjnD2kAf-mI>

Or Apple's spin on taking away basic functionality (again, so that the
consumer has to buy it back) as being "green" to remove basic accessories?
o Which recent 2019 & 2020 Android phones do NOT come with a charger in the box (that are in the price range of an iPhone)?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/-FSFIHYbs3o>

Or Apple's spin on why they had huge hurdles to independent repairs:
o iPhone 12 Anti Repair Design - Teardown and Repair Assessment, by badgolferman
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/HiS3wmZEIPY>
o iFixit reports major repair issues essentially rendering iPhone 12 camera repair almost unusable
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/QdyTJ8ZVbkM>

Or, Apple's spin on _why_ they throttle almost every iPhone alive today?
o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems) like Apple consistently does?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/xK0qCYaagRw>

Just as Apple had to spin their decision to secretly permanently and
drsatically reduce the life if iPhones by throttling CPUs in half after
about a year, which Apple only recently told the truth in court, where they
lost three separate (and quite different) court cases on three counts:
1. Their purposeful goal was actually to _reduce_ the life if iPhones
2. They caused consumers to purchase more product from them by doing so
3. They secretly changed their release notes well _after_ the fact.

The three threads below provide details on the three summaries above:
(Notice Apple only tells the truth when forced to tell the truth, in court!)
o Everything MARKETING claimed about iPhone life turned out to be a lie.

1. Apple forced to publicly admit the $25M crime of intentionally lowering iPhone lifespan
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/l6gAjvW6aqQ>
2. Apple agrees to settle class action in US over throttling- $500M by Alan Browne
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/BR4edQQisYg>
3. Apple forced to pay $113M penalty for lying on their release notes
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/esbnfB6OSmc/m/hqk5XFaVAgAJ>

Note: I haven't heard from JF Mezei the status of the Canadian lawsuit
o (In court is the key place Apple is finally forced to tell the truth.)

o Quebec class action goes ahead (battery gate), by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/jmDdZewelrk>
--
Nobody on Linux, Android, or Windows newsgroups is swayed by MARKETING like
the Apple apologists are (which is why Apple makes ungodly profits off
them). We simply use Linux, Android, and Windows because it works for us
but it's not even close to perfect, and we don't think Redhat/Canonical,
Google, or Microsoft are (in any way whatsoever) perfect either - in fact -
we abhor a lot of what they do - but the operating system works for us
which is why we use it).

Contrast that simple adult logic based on facts... with everything these
Type III apologists claim about Apple and their belief in its MARKETING.

[Alan Baker]

Oh, come on!

It's fun!

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-23 9:59 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:45:59 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> Notice that you should never reply to trolls.
>
> And yet, my post was _filled_ to the brim with facts!
> o Every fact I claim is backed up by well-cited public reports, in fact!
>
> FACTS:
> Facts are what intelligent adults use to form their belief systems
> o Not purely bullshit (but verrrry pretttty) MARKETING shills!
>
> Adults don't believe in Santa Claus, because adults comprehend facts
> o Children believe in him because they can't separate facts from MARKETING
>
> FACTS:
>
> Apple licensed ARM technology & fabs on TSMC Silicon for good business
> reasons; yet not for the reasons they will endlessly shill in brochures.

Fact: Apple licensed the ARM ISA (instruction set architecture) and
designs its own chips to use it.

>
> These Apple apologists will be completely immune to _why_ Apple needs to
> spin this cost-cutting production-control timing-based decision to switch.
>
> Luckily we covered, in gory detail _why_ Apple has to spin this decision:
> o Apple Plans to Announce Move to Its Own Mac Chips at WWDC [ARM, TSMC, 5nm, A14]
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/iN5nqHcaZmM>

Which only supports that Apple designs its own chips.

>
> Remember the Apple spin of "you're holding it wrong" or "it's courageous"
> to remove functionality so that the customer has to later buy it back?

Even if "facts", how are they germane to this decision?

>
> Just as Apple had to spin their decision to take away the functionality and
> then tell you to buy it back for the basic headphone jack, which 99.95% of
> all Android devices have today (simply because of the fact it _is_ basic
> functionality).
> o How many of the existing Android phones lack headphone jack basic hardware functionality?
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/ZjnD2kAf-mI>

And you've never addressed how many CURRENTLY PRODUCED Android phones
have removed headphone jack.

Why is that?

>
> Or Apple's spin on taking away basic functionality (again, so that the
> consumer has to buy it back) as being "green" to remove basic accessories?
> o Which recent 2019 & 2020 Android phones do NOT come with a charger in the box (that are in the price range of an iPhone)?
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/-FSFIHYbs3o>

Again: how is this germane to whether or not Apple designs its own chips?

<snip>

And so on.

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:03:01 -0500, Paul wrote:

> This is why I no longer get excited about "whizzy hardware".

Keywords: *costs will be reduced*

The only time Apple tells the truth, is in court (AFAICT).
o And this question isn't likely to make it into court.

However, rational people do discern between MARKETING bullshit
o And logical business acumen (i.e., directed toward pure profit)

Apple has both in huge quantities:
a. Marketing bullshit (Apple has the lowest R&D in all high tech!)
b. Stellar business acumen (Apple makes ungodly profit off gullibles)

See this thread for clues as to _why_ Apple is now making TSMC-Silicon
using ARM licensed technology (and see this specific post on the topic):
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/ElvAtPCgr6I/m/LXPrho3lAgAJ>

Reproduced below...

"Apple's introduction to ARM in the Mac was the T1 coprocessor chip
in the 2016 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar."

o *Ten years of Apple technology shifts made the ARM Mac possible*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/12/ten-years-of-apple-technology-shifts-made-the-arm-mac-possible>

In that article, Apple Insider lays out the prior groundwork:
o Xcode
o OpenGL and Metal
o Swift
o System Integrity Protection
o Apple T-series chips and Secure Boot
o Death of 32-bit apps
o Catalyst

"Apple apparently believes this shift to be important, and not just
because of Intel's recent hiccups. With much more minute control
over the entire hardware and software stack of its devices,
*costs will be reduced*..."

More in the article...
--
Bringing adult TRUTH to the child-like Apple newsgroups, fact by fact.

[Alan Barker]

Alan Baker wrote:

> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10


You might wonder why Alan is cross-posting to multiple off-topic groups.

Alan is trying to outdo Arlen in ECP trolling. Alan's ambition is to be
recognized as a bigger ECP troll than Arlen.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-23 4:39 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:03:01 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
>> This is why I no longer get excited about "whizzy hardware".
>
> Keywords: *costs will be reduced*

And that is a bad thing... ...why, exactly?

>
> The only time Apple tells the truth, is in court (AFAICT).
> o And this question isn't likely to make it into court.
>
> However, rational people do discern between MARKETING bullshit
> o And logical business acumen (i.e., directed toward pure profit)
>
> Apple has both in huge quantities:
> a. Marketing bullshit (Apple has the lowest R&D in all high tech!)
> b. Stellar business acumen (Apple makes ungodly profit off gullibles)
>
> See this thread for clues as to _why_ Apple is now making TSMC-Silicon
> using ARM licensed technology (and see this specific post on the topic):
> o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs, by JF Mezei
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/ElvAtPCgr6I/m/LXPrho3lAgAJ>

Citing JF Mezei does NOT help your credibility.

>
> Reproduced below...
>
> "Apple's introduction to ARM in the Mac was the T1 coprocessor chip
> in the 2016 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar."

Incorrect. Apple had been using ARM ISA CPUs in the iPhone from the very
first iPhone.

The first that Apple designed was the A4...

...and that was in 2010.

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

It wasn't until the A6 that Apple stopped using a processor core
licensed from ARM.

'Apple's A6 is the next step in the company's evolution. Although it
continues to license graphics IP from Imagination Technologies (PowerVR
SGX 543MP3) and it licenses the ARMv7 instruction set from ARM, it is
the first SoC to feature Apple designed CPU cores.

...

Chipworks was first to point out that Apple's custom CPU cores appeared
to be largely laid out by hand vs. using automated tools. Not using
automated layout for all parts of a CPU isn't unusual (Intel does it all
the time), but it is unusual to see in an ARM based mobile SoC. Shortly
after the iPhone 5's launch we confirmed that the A6 SoC featured
Apple's first internally designed ARM CPU cores. As a recap there are
two types of ARM licensees: architecture and processor. A processor
license gives you the right to take an ARM designed CPU core and
integrate it into your SoC. Apple licensed ARM's Cortex A9 design in the
A5/A5X SoCs for example. An architecture license gives you the right to
design your own core that implements an ARM instruction set. Marvell and
Qualcomm are both examples of ARM architecture licensees.

For years it's been rumored that Apple has held an ARM architecture
license. With the A6 we now have conclusive proof. The question is, what
does Apple's first custom ARM CPU core look like? Based on Apple's
performance claims we know it's more than a Cortex A9. But to find out
what the architecture looks like at a high level we had to do a lot of
digging.'

<https://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/the-iphone-5-review/4>

And to be clear, that was written by Anand Lal Shimpi.

:-)

See what I told you about citing JF?

You lose... ...again.

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

Apple is...all about... *Much ado about nothing...*

Just so you know, what happened in this thread is two things that _always_
happen in Apple newsgroups (because of the oddities of Apple cultists like
Alan Baker clearly is and Apple apologists like nospam always is).

1. Apple makes what is really a minor technical change (in that designing
with ARM and fab'ing with TSMC Silicon is no big deal whatsoever
technically)...

2. And yet the Apple cultists are bowled over... by the sheer MARKETING of
it all.

Other than to Intel, and maybe not to even them, this is a non event.
o It's _only_ a huge deal to the Apple cultists who are wowed by bullshit.

There are facts that need to be realized, one of which is that Apple is
almost all MARKETING and the lowest R&D spend in the entire tech industry.

Another fact that needs to be realized is that Apple has _never_ in its
entire history _ever_ made a best-in-class CPU (nobody can find an Apple
design that they tout which _also_ isn't so badly flawed that it must be
throttled in a year or that it has huge unpatchable egregious holes).

Don't even get me started on how everyone proved Apple has _never_ in the
entire history of the Mac or iOS ever sufficiently tested the OS (Google,
for example, _proved_ beyond doubt, the code couldn't possibly have been
tested for the many (many) many (many) many areas they found lacking. (Such
that hackers won't even _accept_ Apple zero-day bugs as they have too many
already.)

In summary, Apple choosing ARM over Intel is no big deal technically, nor
is choosing to make TSMC Silicon a big deal; but wow can they make a big
deal out of nothing.

The fact remains Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class CPU; so what makes
the apologists & cultists think this will be any different?

Much ado about nothing...
--
o Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than _anyone_ in tech?
companies?<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>

o Which Apple CPUs, bootroms, & SEP secure enclave coprocessors do NOT
already have well-known unpatchable fatal design flaws?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6WKS9KpSyJA>

o Did Apple (yet again) fail in chip design (just like they did with
modems) this time with graphics chips?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/Bz7wouZhKcU>

o Why zero day Android exploits cost far more than zero day iOS exploits
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/9koS-SuRqgw>

o Google proved Apple couldn't possibly have tested their code for even
basic security/privacy for over two years
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/gM5ioMg9m8w/m/7U2rz7emAwAJ>

o Every Apple CPU gets performance throttling software added after about a
year
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/MowwVxafiaQ/m/SQt5aHKXCQAJ>

And the list goes on and on and on and on...

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:03:45 -0800, Alan Barker wrote:

Ed Pawloski sniffs my ass crack all over the Internet, much like
Alan Baker does & Snit did, where what strikes me is how creepy they are.

Adults on this newsgroup will note Ed's header is the exact same header
that has ruined many a newsgroup, most recently alt.home.repair:

> Path: doubletreewisp!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Alan Barker <noton...@no.no.no.no>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.android,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: How is ArsTechnica being taken in so easily "Apple Marketing"?
> References: <rp8ujg$j5q$1...@dont-email.me>
> Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> In-Reply-To: <rp8ujg$j5q$1...@dont-email.me>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <1c2vH.42851$%m67....@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 07:00:13 UTC
> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:03:45 -0800
> X-Received-Bytes: 1142
> X-Received-Body-CRC: 3994957184
> Xref: doubletrewisp comp.sys.mac.advocacy:56859 comp.mobile.android:70163 comp.sys.mac.system:85534 alt.comp.os.windows-10:129172
--
These are just some of the always infantile group of Ed Pawlowski socks:
o From: Arlene...@gmail.com
o From: ArleneB...@gmail.com
o From: holden...@arlen.net
o From: "angelica...@yahoo.com" <angelica...@yahoo.com>
o From: Andy <an...@roto-reuters.news>
o From: Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.net>
o From: "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <lbone@go usarmy.com>
o From: "Gimme that ol time ACF." <b7r...@gmail.com>
o From: "STD.COM ish jew kike paedophile BARRY Z. SHEIN 700 Washington St B'righton Mass" <inge23...@aol.c0m>
o From: "Tekkie©" <Tek...@comcast.net>
o From: Anonymous <anon...@anonymo.us>
o From: Bill <WhoK...@newsguy.net>
o From: Bob <b...@bob.cob>
o From: Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out>
o From: Carlos Peraza <carlos...@monterrey.acceso.mx>
o From: Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
o From: Charlie+ <cha...@xxx.net>
o From: chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
o From: Cleanup in Isle 3 <cleanup@isle.3>
o From: Dan <notg...@guesswho.com>
o From: Duke Nukem <duke....@off.grid>
o From: Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx>
o From: "E. Coast Lib" <e.coa...@naugatuck.guv>
o From: Gary Dingle <garyd...@adam.com.au>
o From: gray_wolf <g_wolf@howling_mad.com>
o From: Greg Carr <gregca...@gmail.com>
o From: Grumpy Old White Guy <gru...@old-white-guy.network>
o From: hub...@ccanoemail.ca
o From: Jeff Hickling <"1st Apostolic"@ats/world.com>
o From: Jenny Telia <jnyt...@gmail.com>
o From: Jim H <inv...@invalid.invalid>
o From: Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
o From: Jim S <j...@jimYscott.co.uk>
o From: Jimmy Kauffenhak <ji...@kauffenhak.llc>
o From: jlov...@gmail.com
o From: Joe Beijing <j...@PresidentEject.dnc>
o From: Joe Bidet <j...@butt-wipe.dnc>
o From: Joey Bidet <joey....@prison.mail>
o From: Joseph Bidett <j...@bidett.flush>
o From: Joel <joel...@gmail.com>
o From: Jonesy <Jon...@myspamitmail.org>
o From: Knut Sveinssen <kss@arbitrage.>
o From: Mark <mark.sc...@mgoblow.edu>
o From: Mark Lloyd <n...@mail.invalid>
o From: Monty <mo...@home.invalid>
o From: nilsson <nil...@toesnullmail.org>
o From: Oscar Mayor <oscar...@hot.dog>
o From: Pabst Blue Ribbon <pa...@blue.ribbon>
o From: Pratt <pr...@g.mail>
o From: Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
o From: Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net>
o From: Raven <ra...@invalid.invalid>
o From: Robert Marshall <sp...@capuchin.co.uk>
o From: Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home>
o From: Shadow <S...@dow.br>
o From: Ted <t...@prodigy.aol>
o From: Tekkie© <Tek...@comcast.net>
o From: Traitor_Joe <traitor.joe@#2-big-guy.ccp>
o From: The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
o From: The Sidhe <Ancient...@Heaven.Net>
o From: ti...@tibia.com
o From: vallor <val...@cultnix.org>
o From: Voltarin <v-la...@live.com.invalid>

Ed Pawlowski is just the one name I give them of the above.
o I could have chosen any sock and they'd all be one & the same

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-25 8:34 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Apple is...all about... *Much ado about nothing...*
>
> Just so you know, what happened in this thread is two things that_always_
> happen in Apple newsgroups (because of the oddities of Apple cultists like
> Alan Baker clearly is and Apple apologists like nospam always is).
>
> 1. Apple makes what is really a minor technical change (in that designing
> with ARM and fab'ing with TSMC Silicon is no big deal whatsoever
> technically)...

Until you're prepared to stop lying about this stuff, Arlen, there is no
point in holding a discussion with you.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-11-25 9:46 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:03:45 -0800, Alan Barker wrote:
>
> Ed Pawloski sniffs my ass crack all over the Internet, much like
> Alan Baker does & Snit did, where what strikes me is how creepy they are.
>
> Adults on this newsgroup will note Ed's header is the exact same header
> that has ruined many a newsgroup, most recently alt.home.repair:

Except you've claimed that such headers are easily forged...

...when you wanted to pretend you weren't using a News client.

:-)