Apple continues to lead in CPUs

[Alan]

And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
Apple's intellectual property.

'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.

Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
together for all-new heights of power.

Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
performance.'

<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>

'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
is very exciting.'

[Nic]

For the iPhone 12 Pro, the most expensive chip is the Qualcomm modem.
https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/

$90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
$70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
$40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU

[Alan Browne]

Not sure where those costs come from, but I'd bet Apple pay far, far
less than any list price or BOM cost anywhere that is publicly available
or leaked.

When an Asian electronics product lands in the US, it's a reasonable
rule of thumb to estimate the manufacturing cost (material, labour,
packaging (box)) to be about 25% of MSRP. This yields the manufacturer
about 10 - 20% margin out of which the profit is slim.

With Apple ... faggedaboutit ... whole different calculation - and
they're not telling. And the profit (not margin) is up in the > 30% range.

(Why they can afford the RD&E that produces these chips).

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-08 5:14 p.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-08 19:33, Nic wrote:
>> For the iPhone 12 Pro, the most expensive chip is the Qualcomm modem.
>> https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/
>>
>> $90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
>> $70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
>> $40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU
>
> Not sure where those costs come from, but I'd bet Apple pay far, far
> less than any list price or BOM cost anywhere that is publicly available
> or leaked.
>
> When an Asian electronics product lands in the US, it's a reasonable
> rule of thumb to estimate the manufacturing cost (material, labour,
> packaging (box)) to be about 25% of MSRP.  This yields the manufacturer
> about 10 - 20% margin out of which the profit is slim.
>
> With Apple ... faggedaboutit ... whole different calculation - and
> they're not telling.  And the profit (not margin) is up in the > 30% range.
>
> (Why they can afford the RD&E that produces these chips).
>

Just wait for Arlen to come along and point out that as a percentage of
revenues (or profits), Apple's R&D spending isn't the most in the world...

...while ignoring that they are making so much money that they don't
have to spend as large a percentage.

:-)

[sms]

Which is why Apple is working so diligently on developing their own 5G
modem, targeted for the iPhone 15. The iPhone 14 will have the Qualcomm
X60 modem and the A16 Bionic which should help it catch up to the
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (see
<https://www.tomsguide.com/face-off/samsung-galaxy-s22-ultra-vs-apple-iphone-13-pro-max>.

Of course Apple having their own modem is not going to be have zero
cost, it will likely cost at least as much as the A17 to fabricate and
package, plus there will still be royalties to pay to Qualcomm and
others so don't expect that a few dollars less in component costs is
going to result in any kind of a price cut. Apple wants their own 5G
modem, but a big reason is that by the iPhone 17 they hope to be able to
do what Qualcomm does with Snapdragon and integrate the 5G modem into
their A19 Bionic which will be a big cost savings.

Samsung is thought to be paying around $130 for the SnapDragon with an
integrated X60 modem so Apple's cost of Bionic ($40) + Qualcomm modem
($90) is the same total.

[sms]

On 3/8/2022 5:14 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-08 19:33, Nic wrote:
>> For the iPhone 12 Pro, the most expensive chip is the Qualcomm modem.
>> https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/
>>
>> $90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
>> $70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
>> $40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU
>
> Not sure where those costs come from, but I'd bet Apple pay far, far
> less than any list price or BOM cost anywhere that is publicly available
> or leaked.

Those prices are about the same as what Samsung pays Qualcomm for an
integrated modem/CPU.

There is no list price for the X55 modem since it is not normally sold
standalone.

Qualcomm uses the oil company law of supply and demand as popularized by
Robert Klein <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFeD8svMzw&t=1353s>.

[RJH]

On 9 Mar 2022 at 2:11:14 AM, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Which is why Apple is working so diligently on developing their own 5G
> modem, targeted for the iPhone 15. The iPhone 14 will have the Qualcomm
> X60 modem and the A16 Bionic which should help it catch up to the
> Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (see
> <https://www.tomsguide.com/face-off/samsung-galaxy-s22-ultra-vs-apple-iphone-13-pro-max>.

I hope Apple hurries up with the integrated modem into the CPU as I don't
like having to pay $160 to Qualcomm and Samsung when I'm buying from Apple.
--
Cheers, Rob

[Nic]

Alan Browne wrote:

>> For the iPhone 12 Pro, the most expensive chip is the Qualcomm modem.
>> https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/
>>
>> $90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
>> $70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
>> $40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU
>
> Not sure where those costs come from, but I'd bet Apple pay far, far
> less than any list price or BOM cost anywhere that is publicly available
> or leaked.
>
> When an Asian electronics product lands in the US, it's a reasonable
> rule of thumb to estimate the manufacturing cost (material, labour,
> packaging (box)) to be about 25% of MSRP. This yields the manufacturer
> about 10 - 20% margin out of which the profit is slim.
>
> With Apple ... faggedaboutit ... whole different calculation - and
> they're not telling. And the profit (not margin) is up in the > 30% range.
>
> (Why they can afford the RD&E that produces these chips).

If the report is correct that $406 is how much the parts cost, then the
final price of the iPhone is around double the costs of the parts.
https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/

They break it down for us.

$90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
$70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
$40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU

$19.20 per unit of Samsung flash memory
$12.80 per unit of SK Hynix DRAM
$7.40 to $7.90 per unit of Sony CMOS sensors

There is also a pie chart of where the parts come from.
26.7% from South Korea
21.9% from the United States
12.9% from Europe & others
13.6% from Japan
11.1% from Taiwan
4.6% from China

At the end of that news story, they compared the iPhone $406 parts cost to
the $549 Samsung Galaxy parts cost, which were even more expensive.
https://wccftech.com/galaxy-note-20-ultra-5g-costs-549-to-make/
Chargers, cables, and other accessories mount to $11 more for each Galaxy.

Apple got a good deal at iPhone parts costing $150 less than that Samsung.

[nospam]

In article <t0ah97$1bqu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Nic <N...@none.net> wrote:

>
> If the report is correct that $406 is how much the parts cost,

it isn't.

all of the 'parts breakdowns' are highly inaccurate, regardless of
manufacturer or product.

as far as apple products go, nobody outside of a small group at apple
knows what prices they paid for various parts, some of which were
contracted long ago and bought in bulk in anticipation of a (then)
future price increase. in the ipod days, apple bought several *years*
of memory chips.

also, apple buys in significant volumes, especially for iphones, and
can get very good deals other companies cannot.

it also ignores the r&d that went into the design of the iphone as well
as the tooling for the factories to manufacture it, which also must be
recovered.

in other words, the price of parts today is completely meaningless.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 09.03.22 um 16:11 schrieb RJH:

OT and totally Troll-style.

[Alan Browne]

"have to"? They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).

Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-09 10:31, Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> For the iPhone 12 Pro, the most expensive chip is the Qualcomm modem.
>>> https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/
>>>
>>> $90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
>>> $70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
>>> $40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU
>>
>> Not sure where those costs come from, but I'd bet Apple pay far, far
>> less than any list price or BOM cost anywhere that is publicly available
>> or leaked.
>>
>> When an Asian electronics product lands in the US, it's a reasonable
>> rule of thumb to estimate the manufacturing cost (material, labour,
>> packaging (box)) to be about 25% of MSRP. This yields the manufacturer
>> about 10 - 20% margin out of which the profit is slim.
>>
>> With Apple ... faggedaboutit ... whole different calculation - and
>> they're not telling. And the profit (not margin) is up in the > 30% range.
>>
>> (Why they can afford the RD&E that produces these chips).
>
> If the report is correct that $406 is how much the parts cost, then the

The report is correct only in that that is the information available to
whoever wrote the report. And Apple is not publishing its negotiated
costs to anyone anywhere.

> final price of the iPhone is around double the costs of the parts.
> https://wccftech.com/iphone-12-pro-costs-406-to-make/
>
> They break it down for us.
> $90 for the

You've missed the point that that list is not what _Apple_ pay. You can
be sure that they have whittled it down considerably due to volume
(millions of components of the same kind). Even the means by which
delivery occurs impacts the landed and manufacturing cost basis just due
to sheer volume.

[Nic]

Alan Browne wrote:

> You've missed the point that that list is not what _Apple_ pay.

The largest percentage of iPhone parts come from Samsung's home country.

26.7% from South Korea
21.9% from the United States

Even with a Samsung advantage, Apple negotiates better prices than Samsung.
$406 Apple parts
$549 Samsung parts

[Lewis]

In message <t0ah97$1bqu$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Nic <N...@none.net> wrote:
> They break it down for us.
> $90 for the Snapdragon X55 5G modem running in all iPhone 12 models
> $70 per OLED panel display sourced from Samsung
> $40 for Apple's A14 Bionic CPU

This number, at the very least, is entirely fabrication. No one but
Apple knows how much an A14 costs. This number is certainly not
accounting for the cost of developing the chip over the last half
decade.

> Apple got a good deal at iPhone parts costing $150 less than that Samsung.

Based on made-up numbers for one of the most critical components, and
the one component that no one else can buy, ad is far more powerful than
any similar product available to others.

--
Yeah, Nick. Nick's the kinda guy you can trust. Nick's your buddy
Nick's the kinda guy you drink beers with. The kinda guy that
doesn't care if you puke in his car. Nick.

[Your Name]

Although Apple doesn't manufacture it themselves, they do design and
own the rights to the CPU, which in itself would be a saving. Same will
be happening with the 5G modem at some point.

[Nic]

Alan Browne wrote:

> "have to"? They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).

What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?

> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).

How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?

[Nic]

Lewis wrote:

>> Apple got a good deal at iPhone parts costing $150 less than that Samsung.
>
> Based on made-up numbers for one of the most critical components, and
> the one component that no one else can buy, ad is far more powerful than
> any similar product available to others.

We may not know everything but it was widely reported for the iPhone 11 that
Apple used worse components than Samsung did, which turns into Apple profit.

[sms]

You have to remember that the iPhone typically lags Samsung flagships in
terms of features by 1-2 years.

Saying "worse" components is not really accurate. Nothing wrong with the
components in the iPhone 11, but of course Samsung used newer, more
up-to-date, components in their competing models.

The iPhone 11 and the Samsung Galaxy S20 were the same generation

Screen
------
iPhone 11: 6.1", 1792 x 828‑pixel resolution @326 ppi, 60Hz, LCD
Galaxy S20: 6.2", 1440 x 3200 pixels, @563 ppi, 120Hz, AMOLED

Modem
-----
iPhone 11: Intel 4G LTE
Galaxy S20: Qualcomm X55 5G

Storage
-------
iPhone 11: No MicroSD Card Slot
Galaxy S20: MicroSD Card Slot

It is true that the Bionic CPU usually scores higher on synthetic
benchmark tests that the Qualcomm processor of the same generation,
though neither results in any application lag.

[nospam]

In article <t0e2ab$f9i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Nic <N...@none.net> wrote:

>
> We may not know everything

some people don't know anything.

> but it was widely reported for the iPhone 11 that
> Apple used worse components than Samsung did, which turns into Apple profit.

widely reported where? at the same outlets which continue to claim that
trump is still president?

[nospam]

In article <t0e3k3$o83$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> You have to remember that the iPhone typically lags Samsung flagships in
> terms of features by 1-2 years.

it's the other way around, something which samsung has openly admitted.

samsung's strategy is to copy what other companies do, and do a
half-assed job too.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> but it was widely reported for the iPhone 11 that
>> Apple used worse components than Samsung did, which turns into Apple profit.
>
> widely reported where?

You ignorant iKooks are like the Russians in that you're ignorant of what
everyone else knows, nospam.
*The iPhone 12 is built using cheap components.*

Don't you ever read the news, nospam?
a. Either you're ignorant of the cheaper battery technology,
b. Or, you lied.
(Pick one.)

Always the iKooks are dead wrong in _everything_ they claim.

We covered the shitty iPhone components in the past, nospam.
a. Your memory is short.
b. Or, you think we're stupid. (Which I consider an insult.)
(Pick one.)

Unlike you uneducated low-IQ iKooks, my memory is just fine, and it's not
just the battery where Apple fucked the customer with crappy components.

*Phone 12 to Use Smaller, Cheaper Battery*
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery
"Apple to offset costly 5G iPhone components with cheaper battery tech"

*Apple to offset costly 5G iPhone components with cheaper battery tech*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>

*Apple will use cheaper iPhone battery technology to offset cost of adding 5G*
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-to-skimp-on-battery-tech-for-5g-iPhones-says-Kuo_id126708>

What is no longer shocking is you iKooks can't even remember that we covered
this in detail, so your brazen lies to the contrary won't work with
_intelligent_ people (it works only with you ignorant iKooks, nospam).
--
I don't care that iKooks are child-like with a low-IQ & no education & low
self esteem; but due to that, they're so confident in being so very wrong.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-10 6:13 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> but it was widely reported for the iPhone 11 that
>>> Apple used worse components than Samsung did, which turns into Apple
>>> profit.
>>
>> widely reported where?
>
> You ignorant iKooks are like the Russians in that you're ignorant of what
> everyone else knows, nospam.
>  *The iPhone 12 is built using cheap components.*
>
> Don't you ever read the news, nospam?
> a. Either you're ignorant of the cheaper battery technology, b. Or, you
> lied.
>   (Pick one.)
>
> Always the iKooks are dead wrong in _everything_ they claim.
>
> We covered the shitty iPhone components in the past, nospam.
> a. Your memory is short.
> b. Or, you think we're stupid. (Which I consider an insult.)
>   (Pick one.)
>
> Unlike you uneducated low-IQ iKooks, my memory is just fine, and it's not
> just the battery where Apple fucked the customer with crappy components.
>
>  *Phone 12 to Use Smaller, Cheaper Battery*
> <https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery
>  "Apple to offset costly 5G iPhone components with cheaper battery tech"

"That's the prediction of well-known Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo."

Do you know what a "prediction" is?

Can you show this one panned out?

>
> *Apple to offset costly 5G iPhone components with cheaper battery tech*
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>

Same prediction from the same source.

>
>
> *Apple will use cheaper iPhone battery technology to offset cost of
> adding 5G*
> <https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-to-skimp-on-battery-tech-for-5g-iPhones-says-Kuo_id126708>

Same prediction from the same source.

Got any actual facts that it actually came true?

>
>
> What is no longer shocking is you iKooks can't even remember that we
> covered
> this in detail, so your brazen lies to the contrary won't work with
> _intelligent_ people (it works only with you ignorant iKooks, nospam).

What's not shocking is that you can't stand you were wrong about Apple
developing it's own processors

[Alan]

"Widely reported"... ...where?

[Your Name]

By the multiple voices in his head.

[Andy Burnelli]

Your Name wrote:

> By the multiple voices in his head.

These uneducated low-IQ iKooks only believe Apple marketing propaganda.

*Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 for profit*
<https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21394985/apple-iphone-12-battery-cost-5g-kuo>
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>
<https://www.maticstoday.com/2020/08/21/why-apple-is-using-cheap-battery-parts-in-iphone-12/>
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/>
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery>
<https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/kuo-iphone-12-battery-board/>
<https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/apple-opting-for-cheaper-battery-parts-to-cut-costs-on-5g-iphone-12-analyst-ming-chi-kuo/640657>
<https://techlog360.com/apple-will-use-cheaper-parts-in-the-iphone-12/>
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-to-skimp-on-battery-tech-for-5g-iPhones-says-Kuo_id126708>

[Andy Burnelli]

Your Name wrote:

> Although Apple doesn't manufacture it themselves, they do design and
> own the rights to the CPU, which in itself would be a saving. Same will
> be happening with the 5G modem at some point.

These low-IQ uneducated iKooks only believe propaganda: not facts.

*Never forget nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in R&D*
*Nobody*

As a result, Apple will _never_ ship a best-in-class Apple-designed modem
integrated with an Apple-designed CPU simply because Apple can't do it.

Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in their entire history.
Hell, Apple can't even _integrate_ an existing modem for Christs sake.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 3:56 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Although Apple doesn't manufacture it themselves, they do design and
>> own the rights to the CPU, which in itself would be a saving. Same
>> will be happening with the 5G modem at some point.
>
> These low-IQ uneducated iKooks only believe propaganda: not facts.
>
>  *Never forget nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in R&D*
>                     *Nobody*
>
> As a result, Apple will _never_ ship a best-in-class Apple-designed modem
> integrated with an Apple-designed CPU simply because Apple can't do it.

Funny how you've changed your claim.

>
> Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in their entire history.
> Hell, Apple can't even _integrate_ an existing modem for Christs sake.

Other that the best-in-class Apple Silicon CPUs

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 3:46 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> By the multiple voices in his head.
>
> These uneducated low-IQ iKooks only believe Apple marketing propaganda.
>
> *Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 for profit*
> <https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21394985/apple-iphone-12-battery-cost-5g-kuo>
>
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>
>
> <https://www.maticstoday.com/2020/08/21/why-apple-is-using-cheap-battery-parts-in-iphone-12/>
>
> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/>
> <https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery>
>
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/kuo-iphone-12-battery-board/>
> <https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/apple-opting-for-cheaper-battery-parts-to-cut-costs-on-5g-iphone-12-analyst-ming-chi-kuo/640657>
>
> <https://techlog360.com/apple-will-use-cheaper-parts-in-the-iphone-12/>
> <https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-to-skimp-on-battery-tech-for-5g-iPhones-says-Kuo_id126708>
>

You're using the wrong tense.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-10 18:36, Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> "have to"? They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
>> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
>> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).
>
> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?

Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
compared to "the others" in these terms.

>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>
> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?

Download the annual report like anyone else does.

[Nic]

Alan Browne wrote:

>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>
> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
> compared to "the others" in these terms.

I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.

>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>
>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>
> Download the annual report like anyone else does.

They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.

But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

[Alan]

Wrong:

<https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/innovation1000.html>

And wrong:

<https://spendmenot.com/blog/top-rd-spenders/>

And wrong:

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/265645/ranking-of-the-20-companies-with-the-highest-spending-on-research-and-development/>

>
> But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

Oh, look!

It's another "Arlen" sockpuppet!

[lew]

On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
> Apple's intellectual property.
>
> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>
> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
> together for all-new heights of power.
>
> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
> performance.'
>
><https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>
> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
> is very exciting.'

Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
bicyles.

[Alan]

In what way does the OS sandboxing prevent an app from utilizing greater
processor speeds and additional cores?

Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.

[Andy Burnelli]

lew wrote:

> If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
> bicyles.

What I find hilarious is the iKooks tout that the M1 is "TSMC Silicon" as if
it's a big deal when Intel has been making "Intel Silicon" since forever,
and it's actually fab'd by Intel, not by TSMC.

Nobody in the Windows world needs to care who fabs the chip in order to
maintain their personal sense of self esteem. Only the iKooks do that.

As for the iOS apps not getting out of the sandbox, it's even worse.

Android has tons of apps that don't even exist on iOS, where there isn't
anything the other way around that doesn't already exist on even a five year
old Android device.

Your comparison becomes...
"A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, AND a portable spaceship, etc, are faster

than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the supermarket

faster than me unless they break the law and the portable spaceship
doesn't even exist on the iOS platform".

BTW, it's important to note _why_ iOS is crippled in terms of apps.

The answer is devilishly simple but it's not hardware related.
Apple's hardware is only somewhat substandard to Android hardware.

The difference is the ecosystem since the MARKET creates the apps.
Not Google. Not Apple.

The market creates the apps that people want.
But iOS doesn't allow the market to put those apps on the App Store.

Hence, the real reason iOS is so crippled compared to Android is simply
*Apple _restricts_ what the apps can do; Google can't.*

[nospam]

In article <t0gc24$nur$1...@dont-email.me>, lew

you're confusing bottlenecks with sandboxes, that apple silicon is less
bottlenecked than other platforms and that other operating systems are
also sandboxed.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> that apple silicon is

Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

But otherwise, just call it the M1 (like we used to use the word "Pentium").

It's amazing that only the low-self-esteem iKooks feel the need to promote
meaningless marketing terms which imply that Apple makes the silicon.

Nobody on Windows uses "Intel Inside" in every sentence about their PCs just
because Intel thinks it's a big deal that they fab'd the CPU they designed.

The fact you even use that idiotic term speaks volumes about the _control_
Apple marketing moves (admittedly brilliantly executed) over your mindset.
--
When I buy gas at Costco, I don't go around touting "techron inside" even as
I'm well aware polyetheramines are the same level as they are at Chevron.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 2:46 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> lew wrote:
>
>>  If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
>> then access/running speed is ZERO.  A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
>> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
>> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
>> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
>> bicyles.
>
> What I find hilarious is the iKooks tout that the M1 is "TSMC Silicon"
> as if

No one touts that.

TSMC is a chip foundry that makes chips for many companies.

What is touted is that APPLE designs the chips.

> it's a big deal when Intel has been making "Intel Silicon" since forever,
> and it's actually fab'd by Intel, not by TSMC.

Oops!

Wrong again!

<https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/tsmc-to-build-3nm-fab-for-intel-chips/>

>
> Nobody in the Windows world needs to care who fabs the chip in order to
> maintain their personal sense of self esteem. Only the iKooks do that.

Apple DESIGNS chips.

>
> As for the iOS apps not getting out of the sandbox, it's even worse.
>

Is it really?

> Android has tons of apps that don't even exist on iOS, where there isn't
> anything the other way around that doesn't already exist on even a five
> year
> old Android device.

LOL

>
> Your comparison becomes...  "A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, AND a portable
> spaceship, etc, are faster
>   than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the supermarket
>   faster than me unless they break the law and the portable spaceship
> doesn't even exist on the iOS platform".
>
> BTW, it's important to note _why_ iOS is crippled in terms of apps.

It isn't.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 3:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that apple silicon is
>
> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

It's Apple Silicon...

...because Apple designs it.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-11 12:51, Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>
>> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>
> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.

I could care less about the percentage that Apple invest in RD&E for
reasons mentioned earlier: they couldn't spend more than they do if they
tried.

As Charlie Munger observed: "Apple is an ungodly well managed company."

IOW, where and how they invest is extremely disciplined and focused.

And that's how they've taken Apple Silicon so far and so audaciously.

>>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>>
>>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>>
>> Download the annual report like anyone else does.
>
> They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
> What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.
>
> But you not knowing anything didn't stop you from saying they were high.

I never, ever said it was high in percentage. It is still a high amount
of dollars. And it gets results as Apple's growing sales and cash pile
attest to.

Really, you don't even understand what you're writing.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-11 15:39, lew wrote:
> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>
>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>
>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>
>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>> performance.'
>>
>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>
>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>> is very exciting.'
>
> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,

The Max and Ultra are for the Mac.

Thanks for playing.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 4:13 p.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 12:51, Nic wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant.  That is the point of the paragraph above.  Apple cannot be
>>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>>
>> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very
>> low.
>> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.
>
> I could care less about the percentage that Apple invest in RD&E for
> reasons mentioned earlier: they couldn't spend more than they do if they
> tried.
>
> As Charlie Munger observed: "Apple is an ungodly well managed company."
>
> IOW, where and how they invest is extremely disciplined and focused.
>
> And that's how they've taken Apple Silicon so far and so audaciously.

Didn't you read:

Arlen knows that Apple Silicon is actually TMSC Silicon.

(where's the smirk emoji hiding?)

😏

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> different people value different features.

There's more to "valuing" different features, nospam.
There's this little thing called "intelligent selection".

Meaning not selection by pure marketing gimmickry (as you always propose).
But selection using knowledge of what the feature actually does for you.

To that point, I find it interesting that most (if not all) Apple users fall
for the marketing ploy that iPhones are said (by Apple) to be often updated.

So, to back fill their fears, Apple owners would buy an iPhone SE 3 over an
iPhone 11 just because Apple will summarily drop support later for the SE.

Yet, if Apple owners really cared about software support, they'd go Android.
As iOS is mostly updated because every fix requires an entire new release.

Worse, Apple summarily stops updating the iPhone after a short time period.

Apple owners don't realize Android now updates most of the OS forever.
(Forever here meaning there is no end of life date that is published.)

Even the most obvious layers that most people think about are updated in
some cases for five years now, which includes the Qualcomm drivers.

The rest is updated forever over the Google Play {Services,System,Store}.
--
REFERENCE:
*Google just surrendered its update authority to Samsung*
<https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-vs-google-updates-3104089/>

*How long does GOOGLE say they'll update the two dozen core modules in project mainline?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/_ZUiLVtLbsg/m/q7-iaUiwBgAJ>

[Alan]

On 2022-03-11 4:33 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> different people value different features.
>
> There's more to "valuing" different features, nospam.
> There's this little thing called "intelligent selection".
>
> Meaning not selection by pure marketing gimmickry (as you always propose).
> But selection using knowledge of what the feature actually does for you.
>
> To that point, I find it interesting that most (if not all) Apple users
> fall
> for the marketing ploy that iPhones are said (by Apple) to be often
> updated.
>
> So, to back fill their fears, Apple owners would buy an iPhone SE 3 over an
> iPhone 11 just because Apple will summarily drop support later for the SE.
>
> Yet, if Apple owners really cared about software support, they'd go
> Android.
> As iOS is mostly updated because every fix requires an entire new release.
>
> Worse, Apple summarily stops updating the iPhone after a short time period.
>
> Apple owners don't realize Android now updates most of the OS forever.
> (Forever here meaning there is no end of life date that is published.)
>
> Even the most obvious layers that most people think about are updated in
> some cases for five years now, which includes the Qualcomm drivers.
>
> The rest is updated forever over the Google Play {Services,System,Store}.

Apple phones that still received the last iOS:

Everything from the iPhone 6s forward.

The 6s was released more than 6 years ago.

[Lewis]

Sorry, Dipshit Troll is immune to facts.

If Apple's chips were actually TSMC's, they would be selling them. they
are not because they cannot, the design is Apple's, the IP is Apple's,
and Apple pays TSMC to manufacture their chips to their specs, just like
they pay Foxconn to assemble their phones.

Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

--
'I thought dwarfs didn't believe in devils and demons and stuff like that.'
'That's true, but... we're not sure if they know.'

[gtr]

On 2022-03-12 12:25:27 +0000, Lewis said:

> Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

I think his idea is this herd doesn't understand how marketing works.

[sms]

On 3/9/2022 7:11 AM, RJH wrote:

<snip>

> I hope Apple hurries up with the integrated modem into the CPU as I don't
> like having to pay $160 to Qualcomm and Samsung when I'm buying from Apple.

Unlike Samsung, Apple is unlikely to start producing their own screens
and DRAM, so you're going to be paying some money to Samsung unless
other screen manufacturers catch up to Samsung.

When Apple has their own modem, either discrete or integrated, there
will still be royalties that will be paid to Qualcomm (and others).

Integrating the modem with the CPU has drawbacks as well as benefits.
It's more difficult to manage thermals when you combine two high-power
components into one, and the more complex a device the lower the yield
from the fab.

I recall in the early days of Apple when Steve Jobs was insisting on
custom silicon for Macs. The NRE expenses paid to other companies and
the higher costs for low-volume devices, were driving up the BOM cost
significantly. Custom silicon was seen as a way to prevent Mac clones.
After the move to Intel CPUs you had a few people building
"Hackintoshes" but it really wasn't much of a problem. In-house
chip-design, higher volumes, and being able to leverage similar CPUs
across different product lines, has made a difference that Jobs couldn't
have foreseen back when he moved from PowerPC to Intel for the Mac.

[nospam]

In article <t0ik2l$3ss$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Integrating the modem with the CPU has drawbacks as well as benefits.

yep. it also has almost effect on the final product. people do not
choose one phone over another because of the number of chips inside and
how they're designed.

> It's more difficult to manage thermals when you combine two high-power
> components into one,

apple's chips are more power-efficient than samsung, making that not an
issue.

> and the more complex a device the lower the yield
> from the fab.

true, but apple is designing far, far more complex chips than anything
going into a phone, so also not an issue

> I recall in the early days of Apple when Steve Jobs was insisting on
> custom silicon for Macs. The NRE expenses paid to other companies and
> the higher costs for low-volume devices, were driving up the BOM cost
> significantly. Custom silicon was seen as a way to prevent Mac clones.

you recall wrong.

apple's custom parts go back to the apple ii days and were to simplify
the design, not to prevent mac clones.

the classic macs put a large part of the operating system in rom (using
off the shelf parts), and being copyrighted, other companies were
prevented from using it without permission. some companies asked the
users to procure their own roms, leaving any infringement to the user,
not the company making the clone.

at one point, apple did license clones, but that turned out to be a
huge mistake.

> After the move to Intel CPUs you had a few people building
> "Hackintoshes" but it really wasn't much of a problem. In-house
> chip-design, higher volumes, and being able to leverage similar CPUs
> across different product lines, has made a difference that Jobs couldn't
> have foreseen back when he moved from PowerPC to Intel for the Mac.

also wrong.

[sms]

On 3/9/2022 7:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> "have to"?  They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).

True.

The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
percentage, goes down.

If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
would go up from the current 8% or so.

[RJH]

On 12 Mar 2022 at 5:08:36 PM, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Integrating the modem with the CPU has drawbacks as well as benefits.

What other smart phone manufactures don't have any integrated modems today?

> When Apple has their own modem, either discrete or integrated, there
> will still be royalties that will be paid to Qualcomm (and others).

When do you think Apple will ship their own integrated competitive modem?
--
Cheers, Rob

[Alan Browne]

Closer to 6%. Prior year 7%.

However, $3B MORE than 2020 and $5B more than 2019!
Which illustrates why the % v. other companies is absolutely meaningless.

The classic CW from the Wall Street types is: "If you're not investing
it in RD&E, and you're not acquiring other businesses, then issue more
dividends or buy back our stock!"

This based on the CW that good stocks should earn north of 7% at
minimum, and the cash hoard is earning only 2% or so at best. So the
stock owners feel cheated. Not taking the "whole" view is a weakness.

(They really don't like Apple's cash hoard - $134B (less than prev.
year). per the annual report Apple sinks a lot of that into
non-business related investments).

About 10 years ago, maybe less, Tim Cook told a hedge fund manager at
the annual shareholders meeting: "If you're not happy with how we manage
this company, then do the right thing and sell your shares. Don't
worry, plenty of people want to buy them."[1]

This is an attitude that only companies with stellar performance and a
very high stock price can get away with. Not like Carl Ichans can swoop
in, buy enough stock to get significant board rep. and then pull an
asset strip.

That said, Apple then began doing more share buybacks to reduce the
hoard and of course pump up the stock value even more ...

[1] Apple: "ungodly well managed."
__ Charlie Munger, Feb 2022.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> apple's chips are more power-efficient

If Apple designs such great "power efficient" chips, why does Apple feel so
desperately the need to secretly throttle billions of them?

[sms]

The experts say that the 2023 iPhone 15 will have a discrete
Apple-designed modem (and Qualcomm believes this).

As to when (and if) Apple combines the Axx Bionic and the modem into one
package, who knows? Probably not sooner than the 2025 iPhone 17.

There may not be a lot of upside in integrating the modem with the CPU.
It could save a little in packaging cost to have all the silicon in one
device but it won't reduce royalties, it will reduce yields, and it will
make it harder to manage thermals without throttling.

Qualcomm integrated the modem into their Snapdragon chips partly for
marketing reasons. They really don't want to sell the 5G modems
separately to phone manufacturers, they want phone manufacturers to buy
both the CPU and the modem from them.

[nospam]

In article <t0in72$bjq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
wrote:

>
> What other smart phone manufactures don't have any integrated modems today?

nearly all 5g phones do not have an integrated modem, nor does it
matter to the end user.

> When do you think Apple will ship their own integrated competitive modem?

it's expected in 2023, not that it makes a difference, except to those
who have nothing better to do than find *something* to criticize apple
because apple's processors are well ahead of anything qualcomm or
samsung can do.

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
> percentage, goes down.
>
> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
> would go up from the current 8% or so.

Do none of you realize it's not just the dismality' of the percentage.

It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget.

Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> apple's processors are well ahead of anything qualcomm or
> samsung can do.

How is a processor "well ahead" when Apple feels the desperate need to
secretly throttle it by the billions (and then backdate release notes)?

Last we checked _all_ iOS releases added the throttling software, even
_years_ after Apple got caught covering up their atrocious power designs.

[Andy Burnelli]

Alan Browne wrote:

> [1] Apple: "ungodly well managed."

Given Apple has lower total R&D costs than many tech companies, it's isn't
so much that Apple is ungodly managed as their R&D expense is laughable.

Apple doesn't waste any money in R&D is what you mean by "well managed".
Apple puts _almost all_ of it's expenditure into MARKETING, not into R&D.

If you understood what I know, it's Apple's customer who is "well managed".

[nospam]

In article <t0iq7e$1k6l$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> If you understood what I know

which is absolutely nothing

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> If you understood what I know
>
> which is absolutely nothing

And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
*is dismal*

Not a single one of you iKooks knew that before I told it to you.

And uneducated ignorant morons like Alan Browne are still desperately
struggling to figure out child-like rationales to explain it away.

Yet, *Apple's MARKETING budget is stupendous*

What I know, none of you iKooks will ever know, which is...
*It's not Apple who is well managed - it's Apple's customer.*
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

[Alan]

Nope.

You're either ignorant or lying...

...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.

From the most current figures I can find, there are only 6 companies
in the entire world that spend more than Apple on R&D:

1. Amazon $42.74 billion (not really a similar company at all)

2. Alphabet $27.57 billion (also not really that similar)

3. Huawei $22.04 billion (similar in some areas)

4. Microsoft $19.27 billion (also similar)

5. Apple $18.75 billion

That was report on June 21, 2021.

<https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>

So there are really only two similar companies that spend more than Apple...

...and really not by all that much.

You lose, Arlen.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-12 11:29 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> If you understood what I know
>>
>> which is absolutely nothing
>
> And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
> count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
>  *is dismal*
>

<https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-12 16:27, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:

>>

>> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget. [AA] <---

>>
>> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.
>
> Nope.
>
> You're either ignorant or lying...
>
> ...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.

You can add a long list of negatives to that, actually.

>
> From the most current figures I can find, there are  only 6 companies

You mean 4 more, I think?

> in the entire world that spend more than Apple on R&D:
>
> 1. Amazon     $42.74 billion (not really a similar company at all)
>
> 2. Alphabet   $27.57 billion (also not really that similar)
>
> 3. Huawei     $22.04 billion (similar in some areas)
>
> 4. Microsoft  $19.27 billion (also similar)
>
> 5. Apple      $18.75 billion

Quibble (and yes not the exact same time ref as your source):

Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.

When you consider the narrowness of their products and service base
compared to the others above, it's quite high.

And I see "it" reference Apple's marketing budget above.[AA]

To that I'd say the shareholders approve very much. Because Apple can't
realistically spend more on R&D, so might as well use that sloshing
bucket of cash for more marketing. That leads to more brand awareness,
sales and profits. The shareholders can only approve.

Well done Apple. Sounds like an "ungodly well managed™" company to me.

(™ "ungodly well managed" is a trademark of Charlie Munger, Vice
Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway).

[Alan]

On 2022-03-12 1:42 p.m., Alan Browne wrote:

> On 2022-03-12 16:27, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing
>>> budget. [AA] <---
>>>
>>> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You're either ignorant or lying...
>>
>> ...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.
>
> You can add a long list of negatives to that, actually.
>
>>
>>  From the most current figures I can find, there are  only 6 companies
>
> You mean 4 more, I think?
>

Sorry, yes.

I started writing this with one reference and then found a more current one.

[Andy Burnelli]

Alan Browne wrote:

> Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.

Little tiny Huawei spent about 118% of what behemoth Apple spent on R&D.

Which is not only more dollars than Apple but it's clearly a _much higher_
percentage of their revenue.

Everyone knows Apple doesn't spend proportionately on R&D.
All intelligent people have known that for years.

Even Steve Jobs was forced, repeatedly, to justify his paltry R&D spend.
The fact you don't know that is more proof you don't understand Apple.

I (think I) do.

Apple doesn't spend on R&D because Apple spends it on MARKETING instead.
*Look up the MARKETING budget, for example, of Apple vs Huawei*

HINT: You'll be shocked.
DOUBLEHINT: But only because you're ignorant.
--
The Apple iKooks only know what Apple MARKETING has fed them to believe.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-12 1:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.
>
> Little tiny Huawei spent about 118% of what behemoth Apple spent on R&D.

"Little tiny Huawei"? Really?

In 2020, Huawei's revenue was 891.3 billion Yuan.

That's $141.2 billion.

That's not tiny by any measure.

>
> Which is not only more dollars than Apple but it's clearly a _much higher_
> percentage of their revenue.

And so what?

R&D isn't a proportional kind of expenditure.

And isn't it interesting how you've suddenly removed your earlier claim...

...which wasn't about proportionality at all:

'And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to

count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)

*is dismal*'

Spending the 5th most total dollars on R&D is not "dismal".

>
> Everyone knows Apple doesn't spend proportionately on R&D.
> All intelligent people have known that for years.
>
> Even Steve Jobs was forced, repeatedly, to justify his paltry R&D spend.
> The fact you don't know that is more proof you don't understand Apple.
>
> I (think I) do.
>
> Apple doesn't spend on R&D because Apple spends it on MARKETING instead.
> *Look up the MARKETING budget, for example, of Apple vs Huawei*
>
> HINT: You'll be shocked. DOUBLEHINT: But only because you're ignorant.

Apple is building the best CPUs in the world for smartphones, tablets,
laptops and soon enough all other personal computers.

I'd say they spend enough on R&D

[Your Name]

On 2022-03-12 22:02:25 +0000, Alan said:

> On 2022-03-12 1:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.
>>
>> Little tiny Huawei spent about 118% of what behemoth Apple spent on R&D.
>
> "Little tiny Huawei"? Really?
>
> In 2020, Huawei's revenue was 891.3 billion Yuan.
>
> That's $141.2 billion.
>
> That's not tiny by any measure.

In terms of consumer products it *might* be considered a small player,
but it also very big in the main telecoms industry. Quite a bit of the
world's telecoms equipment comes from Huawei, although with recent
decisions in some countries to ban their products that may well change
over time.

>> Which is not only more dollars than Apple but it's clearly a _much higher_
>> percentage of their revenue.
>
> And so what?
>
> R&D isn't a proportional kind of expenditure.
>
> And isn't it interesting how you've suddenly removed your earlier claim...
>
> ...which wasn't about proportionality at all:
>
> 'And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
> count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
> *is dismal*'
>
> Spending the 5th most total dollars on R&D is not "dismal".
>
>> Everyone knows Apple doesn't spend proportionately on R&D.
>> All intelligent people have known that for years.
>>
>> Even Steve Jobs was forced, repeatedly, to justify his paltry R&D spend.
>> The fact you don't know that is more proof you don't understand Apple.
>>
>> I (think I) do.
>>
>> Apple doesn't spend on R&D because Apple spends it on MARKETING instead.
>> *Look up the MARKETING budget, for example, of Apple vs Huawei*
>>
>> HINT: You'll be shocked. DOUBLEHINT: But only because you're ignorant.
>
> Apple is building the best CPUs in the world for smartphones, tablets,
> laptops and soon enough all other personal computers.

Although Apple does currently still sell a couple of Intel-based old
models, the only remaining Apple computer to yet make the switch-over
is the Mac Pro, due some stage this year (possibly the Developer's
Conference). All the others are already M1-variants.

> I'd say they spend enough on R&D

Quite a bit of Appel's R&D never even makes into a selling product and
is just a patent.

[Your Name]

According to that list, Samsung spends the exact same amount. Samsung
is probably the most similar company you get to Apple in terms of
consumer electronic devices, but Samsung also make refrigerators,
dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, televisions, ovens, etc. so
their R&D budget must be extremely "dismal".

It's probably not possible to find out, but Apple's R&D amounts on such
lists may not even include some projects yet (if ever) to be revealed.
The Apple Car for example may well be a separate entity, partly to keep
it more secret, or simply listed under a different financial report
heading such as "Special Projects" rather than included in "R&D".

[sms]

On 3/12/2022 1:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> To that I'd say the shareholders approve very much. Because Apple can't
> realistically spend more on R&D, so might as well use that sloshing
> bucket of cash for more marketing.  That leads to more brand awareness,
> sales and profits.  The shareholders can only approve.
>
> Well done Apple.  Sounds like an "ungodly well managed™" company to me.
>
> (™ "ungodly well managed" is a trademark of Charlie Munger, Vice
> Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway).

Agreed.

Tim Cook may not have charisma of Steve Jobs, but he certainly earns his
salary in terms of the management that he's put in place and the
management changes that he's made. Making the company more profitable,
creating continuous demand for upgraded products, dropping products that
don't provide sufficient margins, and not going after market-share at
any cost, takes discipline.

Spending more on R&D, just to meet some arbitrary percentage of spending
that some critic proposes, would not be responsible. Especially since
they are spending a lot on R&D, especially on the silicon side of things.

What _really_ impressed me was the return of ports on the Macbook
<https://www.wired.com/story/apple-macbook-ports-rave/>. This had to be
a management decision to reverse years of removing ports and requiring
users to buy dongles to gain back the lost functionality. This seemed to
coincide with the departure of one executive in 2019. Whoever the
designers and marketing people were that thought users preferred buying
a collection of dongles in order to gain back functionality that was
removed, in exchange for a losing a few millimeters of thickness, were
obviously over-ruled.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-03-13 11:01, sms wrote:

> Spending more on R&D, just to meet some arbitrary percentage of spending
> that some critic proposes, would not be responsible. Especially since
> they are spending a lot on R&D, especially on the silicon side of things.

And of course companies like Samsung have a much wider product base, so
their R&D is spread thinner. And gets thin results in each area.

Surprise. So they are dependent on others do design microprocessors and
have to hope that they will be great.

Apple simply make the silicon great to their exact spec and needs.
(Look up Samsung silicon and you get an assortment of silicone cases
for phone and tablets ...)

> What _really_ impressed me was the return of ports on the Macbook
> <https://www.wired.com/story/apple-macbook-ports-rave/>. This had to be
> a management decision to reverse years of removing ports and requiring
> users to buy dongles to gain back the lost functionality. This seemed to
> coincide with the departure of one executive in 2019. Whoever the
> designers and marketing people were that thought users preferred buying
> a collection of dongles in order to gain back functionality that was
> removed, in exchange for a losing a few millimeters of thickness, were
> obviously over-ruled.

In a product like the MBA, meant for mobility and light travel, I like
the slimness and tolerate the need for the odd dongle. (On the new MBA
(M1) it's just 2 ports. Deal with it. It's physically smaller than our
previous home MBA, but has the same screen size with higher res.).

In an NoteBook, one wants a balance between mobility and connectivity,
(usually) it's not that much benefit to be too thin - more ports please!

In a product like my 2012 iMac with the ridiculously thin edges because
Johnny Ive was obsessed, it's a completely useless design goal - and
makes repairs 30 - 45 minutes longer just to battle the glue pad.

[sms]

On 3/13/2022 10:27 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> Surprise.  So they are dependent on others do design microprocessors and
> have to hope that they will be great.

Samsung tried, and failed (so far), in their most recent attempt at
doing their own high-end chipset for the Galaxy S22. See
<https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/330495-samsung-delays-exynos-chip-with-amd-graphics-as-rumors-of-heat-issues-persist>.
Samsung doesn't want to be dependent on Qualcomm any more than Apple does.

It's always thermals. Combining a leading-edge graphics chip and a
flagship CPU in one package was bound to cause thermal issues,
especially when you're trying to run it at clock speeds fast enough to
compete against Qualcomm's chipsets and Apple's Bionic CPU. I presume
that the 5G modem was also in that Samsung chip so you'd have three
high-power sub-systems all in the same chip. So far only Qualcomm and
Mediatek have managed to do this, and there are almost certainly some
cases where things are throttled due to heat.

<snip>

> In a product like my 2012 iMac with the ridiculously thin edges because
> Johnny Ive was obsessed, it's a completely useless design goal - and
> makes repairs 30 - 45 minutes longer just to battle the glue pad.

Jony Ive leaving was a plus for Apple in some regards. The obsession
with thinness was not benefiting users, especially in laptops.

[nospam]

In article <t0leea$d39$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's always thermals.

it's much more than just that.

> Combining a leading-edge graphics chip and a
> flagship CPU in one package was bound to cause thermal issues,
> especially when you're trying to run it at clock speeds fast enough to
> compete against Qualcomm's chipsets and Apple's Bionic CPU.

that hasn't been an issue for apple, whose chipsets are more
power-efficient and more capable, with 2 year old versions besting
qualcomm's latest chipsets.

over on the mac side, the m* family is matching and even exceeding
intel's top chips at a tiny fraction of the power.

[Andy Burnelli]

Your Name wrote:

> In terms of consumer products it *might* be considered a small player,
> but it also very big in the main telecoms industry.

Everyone knows Apple's R&D spending has _always_ been very low.

Apple is a MARKETING powerhouse - not an R&D one.

For example...
Name a single company similar to Apple that has _less_ R&D spending.

HINT: You can't.

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

> they are spending a lot on R&D, especially on the silicon side of things.

Name a single company similar to Apple that has _less_ R&D spending.

HINT: You can't.

Name a single company similar to Apple that has _more_ MARKETING spending.

Hint: You can't.

[Andy Burnelli]

Alan Browne wrote:

> Apple simply make the silicon great to their exact spec and needs.

Someone needs to inform these illiterate iKooks that Apple does not make the
Silicon.

It's like saying Intel made a DELL PC just because your Dell laptop has a
sticker on the outside saying "Intel inside".

That's how illiterate these iKooks are.
They fall for every marketing trick in the book.

Why?
I don't know why.

All I know is they are of low IQ and low self esteem and none of them have
even so much as an undergraduate education, so, I suspect that's why.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> that hasn't been an issue for apple, whose chipsets are more
> power-efficient and more capable

Why is it only Apple that has had to not only _secretly_ throttle their CPUs
due to their crappy stability but also to secretly backdate the release
notes?

HINT: It's not a good design if it only works well for one year, nospam.

[Andy Burnelli]

Your Name wrote:

> According to that list, Samsung spends the exact same amount. Samsung
> is probably the most similar company you get to Apple in terms of
> consumer electronic devices

Find a company similar to Apple that spends _less_ in R&D than does Apple.
HINT: You can't.

Find a company similar to Apple that spends _more_ in Marketing than Apple?
HINT: You can't.

Apple is a marketing powerhouse - not an R&D powerhouse.
Hell, Apple can't even _integrate_ an existing modem, let alone design one.

At least Samsung can do both.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-13 7:34 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> they are spending a lot on R&D, especially on the silicon side of things.
>
> Name a single company similar to Apple that has _less_ R&D spending.
>
> HINT: You can't.
>

According to:

<https://www.fdiintelligence.com/article/79672>

for 2020:

Samsung

Microsoft

Intel

> Name a single company similar to Apple that has _more_ MARKETING spending.
>
> Hint: You can't.

You show that Apple spends the most.

Hint: you can't.

[Alan]

Already done.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-13 7:37 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Apple simply make the silicon great to their exact spec and needs.
>
> Someone needs to inform these illiterate iKooks that Apple does not make
> the
> Silicon.

Apple doesn't manufacture it...

...they just design it and have it made by a chip foundry.

[Alan]

HINT: that was YEARS ago.

The technology world moves fast.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-13 7:48 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> According to that list, Samsung spends the exact same amount. Samsung
>> is probably the most similar company you get to Apple in terms of
>> consumer electronic devices
>
> Find a company similar to Apple that spends _less_ in R&D than does Apple.
> HINT: You can't.

Already done.

>
> Find a company similar to Apple that spends _more_ in Marketing than Apple?
> HINT: You can't.

You can't show that Apple spends the most.

[John Doe]

Alan wrote:

> that was YEARS ago.

Tim Cook is a pedophile & then covered it up by murdering billions of kids.

But that was years ago so it's ok.

[lew]

On 2022-03-11, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 12:39 p.m., lew wrote:
>> On 2022-03-08, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> And no one but a few kooks try to claim that these are anything but
>>> Apple's intellectual property.
>>>
>>> 'The Apple M1 Ultra is Apple's latest piece of bespoke silicon, and it's
>>> the most powerful M1 chip the company has ever made.
>>>
>>> Unveiled during the March 2022 Apple Event, the M1 Ultra is an
>>> incredibly powerful SoC (system-on-chip). It's basically two M1 Max
>>> chips paired together, using a heretofore "hidden feature" of the Max:
>>> special die-to-die interconnection tech that lets two Max chips work
>>> together for all-new heights of power.
>>>
>>> Apple calls this interconnection technology "UltraFusion", and it
>>> appears to be enabling Apple silicon to reach unprecedented levels of
>>> performance.'
>>>
>>> <https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-m1-ultra-everything-we-know-so-far>
>>>
>>> 'We were expecting to see an all-new M2 chip unveiled early in 2022, not
>>> a new top-end M1 chip like the Ultra, but you won't catch me
>>> complaining; given that the M1 Max blew my expectations out of the water
>>> in 2021, the prospect of a new chip that's effectively twice as powerful
>>> is very exciting.'
>>
>> Doesn't matter. If apple's ios apps cannot get out of the sandbox,
>> then access/running speed is ZERO. A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, etc
>> are faster than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the
>> supermarket faster than me unless they break the law by ignoring
>> the traffic lights, stop signs & school zones as well as pedestrians &
>> bicyles.
>
> In what way does the OS sandboxing prevent an app from utilizing greater
> processor speeds and additional cores?
>
> Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.

I downloaded the ipad user guide from apple store.
The "speed increase" did not let me use my app of choice,
MapleReader SE, to read the ipad user guide; in fact the
"faster" cpu did not let me even access or know where the
ipad is located on the ipad.

[Alan]

That wasn't the question I asked.

[Lewis]

In message <t0qq3a$ila$1...@dont-email.me> lew <citrus...@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
> I downloaded the ipad user guide from apple store.
> The "speed increase" did not let me use my app of choice,
> MapleReader SE, to read the ipad user guide

Makes sense, the user guide is in iBook format which is fine since the
Books app is part of iOS so every iOS or iPadOS user has it.

> in fact the "faster" cpu did not let me even access or know where the
> ipad is located on the ipad.

I cannot parse that.


--
'My strength is like the strength of ten because my heart is pure,'
said Carrot. 'Really? Well, there's eleven of them.' --Jingo

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that apple silicon is
>
> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

It's Apple Silicon, just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products
manufactured by TSMC are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership
over the products is factually incorrect.

If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to your
design, does it belong to the carpenter?

[Alan]

Amazing from a "man" who regularly claims that no one has ever caught
him in a factual error...

...isn't it?

:-)

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
>

> It's Apple Silicon...

No it's not.
It's TSMC Silicon.

At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker on.

And yet nobody acts like a moron and joyfully claims "Intel Inside" like you
iKooks do (which is how I know you all have phenomenally low self esteem).

If you even use those words, it's a clear indication of either a low IQ or a
low self esteem (most likely both in your case and that of Alan Baker).

> just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products
> manufactured by TSMC are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership
> over the products is factually incorrect.

You don't understand how marketing works.
You think Apple marketing called it that by accident?

Apple Silicon is all marketing and almost no R&D.

> If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to your
> design, does it belong to the carpenter?

Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D to speak of.
Apple MARKETING is trying to fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

And they did.

[Why must Arlen lie?]

On 2022-03-16 10:24 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it
>>> doesn't. It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_
>>> use any term.
>>
>> It's Apple Silicon...
>
> No it's not. It's TSMC Silicon.
>
> At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker
> on.

Fact: Intel has some of its CPUs built by TSMC

<https://wccftech.com/tsmc-wins-intel-order-for-two-3nm-cpus-to-regain-market-share-lost-to-amd/>

>
> And yet nobody acts like a moron and joyfully claims "Intel Inside"
> like you iKooks do (which is how I know you all have phenomenally low
> self esteem).
>
> If you even use those words, it's a clear indication of either a low
> IQ or a low self esteem (most likely both in your case and that of
> Alan Baker).
>
>> just like AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, etc products manufactured by TSMC
>> are theirs. To suggest that TSMC has any ownership over the
>> products is factually incorrect.
>
> You don't understand how marketing works. You think Apple marketing
> called it that by accident?

How does that address the point he made?

Do you call AMD chips manufactured by TSMC, "TSMC Silicon"?

Same question for nVidia, Broadcom...

...and also Qualcomm (you remember Qualcomm, right?)...

...and Intel.

'TSMC, is the world’s largest contract manufacturer of the semiconductor
chips—otherwise known as integrated circuits, or just chips—that power
our phones, laptops, cars, watches, refrigerators and more. Its clients
include Apple, Intel, Qualcomm, AMD and Nvidia.'

<https://time.com/6102879/semiconductor-chip-shortage-tsmc/>

>
> Apple Silicon is all marketing and almost no R&D.

Yet you cannot find a single source in the tech reporting business that
agrees with you.

>
>> If you hired and paid a carpenter to make you a kitchen unit to
>> your design, does it belong to the carpenter?
>
> Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D to speak of. Apple MARKETING
> is trying to fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

Apple spends more on R&D that all but a handful of companies.

[nospam]

In article <t0t6g7$udv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
> >> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
> >
> > It's Apple Silicon...
>
> No it's not.
> It's TSMC Silicon.

it's apple silicon. full stop.

> At least Intel makes the CPUs when it puts the "Intel Inside" sticker on.

intel will be using tsmc to fab chips, largely because their own fabs
are very much behind the curve.

<https://www.eetimes.com/intel-will-rely-on-tsmc-for-its-rebound/>
California-based Intel will join Apple to order the world零 first
3-nm chips from TSMC as the Taiwan chip foundry ramps up its
newest process this year, according to three analysts surveyed. Intel
and Apple are likely to be the only two TSMC customers at that
most-advanced node during the ramp-up, according to the analysts.

<https://www.tweaktown.com/news/83986/tsmc-to-build-intels-new-3nm-cpus-
at-site-in-northern-taiwan/index.html>
TSMC will be making Intel's next-gen processors in the coming years,
with new reports suggesting TSMC will be building the bleeding edge
chips at its latest facility in Baoshan, north of Hsinchu.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> it's apple silicon. full stop.

It TSMC Silicon.
It's Apple marketing bullshit.

If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
It's a marketing gimmick.

It works on you low IQ low self esteem iKooks.
Apple can't make any high quality chips.

Apple never has.
Apple never will.

Apple can't.
Nobody in high tech has _lower_ R&D expenses than does Apple.

Nor higher marketing.

Hell, Apple can't even integrate an _existing_ modem IC for Christs sake.
Everyone but Apple did that long ago.

Full stop.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-16 11:45 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it's apple silicon. full stop.
>
> It TSMC Silicon.
> It's Apple marketing bullshit.

It's Apple Silicon.

Apple designs it

TSMC just builds it under contract...

...just like they do for AMD, nVidia, Broadcom, Qualcomm...

...and Intel.

>
> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
> It's a marketing gimmick.
>
> It works on you low IQ low self esteem iKooks.
> Apple can't make any high quality chips.

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apples-m1-is-a-fast-cpu-but-m1-macs-feel-even-faster-due-to-qos/>

>
> Apple never has.
> Apple never will.
>
> Apple can't.
> Nobody in high tech has _lower_ R&D expenses than does Apple.

Apple spends more on R&D than all but a handful of companies.

[Lewis]

In message <160320221344112725%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t0t6g7$udv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>> >> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> >> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.
>> >
>> > It's Apple Silicon...
>>
>> No it's not.
>> It's TSMC Silicon.

> it's apple silicon. full stop.

We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
manufacturing works. Apple designs the chips, they pay TSMC to
manufacture them. Apple owns the designs and TSMC doesn't own the chips
they make, they belong to Apple.

I suppose Arlen is so dumb he thinks publishers write the books they
publish. Dumbasses will be Dumbasses.

--
'Are you Death?' IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE
SCYTHE.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it's apple silicon. full stop.
>
> It TSMC Silicon.
> It's Apple marketing bullshit.
>
> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
> It's a marketing gimmick.

Only if it's iGold.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> fool people with rather low IQs like you have.

You always attack the messenger when you are incapable of an answer, don't
you? It's a giveaway.

[Andy Burnelli]

Lewis wrote:

> We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
> manufacturing works.

"Dipshit Troll Lewis" doesn't realize I worked in Silicon Valley startups
for decades so I'm well aware of how chips are designed and manufactured.

It's Lewis who doesn't understand why Apple trademarked "Apple Silicon".
Anyone who says "Apple Silicon" is an idiot because they fell for a gimmick.

It's _not_ Apple Silicon.
It's MARKETING attempting to make TSMC Silicon "sound" special (to idiots).

*Apple wants you to "think" it's something special and yet it's not.*
That "Apple Silicon" crap is no different than anyone else's TSMC Silicon.

Apple MARKETING wants you to "think" it's special. Super Duper. Oh so Apple.
And yet, it's not.

It's no different than anyone else's TSMS Silicon.
The fact you can't comprehend that means you don't understand what it is.

It's like Chevron calls plain old polyetheramines "Techron" as if "Techron"
is something special when it's not. It's just plain old "soap for gas".

Likewise, Apple Silicon is just plain old TSMC Silicon.
Just as Techron is plain old polyetheramines.

The fact you don't know this means you don't own adult cognitive skills.
Full stop.

[Alan]

On 2022-03-16 1:22 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> We've already established the dipshit troll does not understand how
>> manufacturing works.
>
> "Dipshit Troll Lewis" doesn't realize I worked in Silicon Valley startups
> for decades so I'm well aware of how chips are designed and manufactured.

There is no proof of this.

>
> It's Lewis who doesn't understand why Apple trademarked "Apple Silicon".
> Anyone who says "Apple Silicon" is an idiot because they fell for a
> gimmick.
>
> It's _not_ Apple Silicon.
> It's MARKETING attempting to make TSMC Silicon "sound" special (to idiots).

Apple designs the chips and then just pays TSMC to build them...

...as do half a dozen other companies.

>
> *Apple wants you to "think" it's something special and yet it's not.*
> That "Apple Silicon" crap is no different than anyone else's TSMC Silicon.

It's faster... ...and uses less power.

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>> If Apple said the iPhone was made out of pure gold, you'd believe them.
>> It's a marketing gimmick.
>
> Only if it's iGold.

From that joke I hope you're indicating that you understand the gimmick.
If Apple used "iGold" to imply it was gold, it would be an Apple lie.

Just as "Apple Silicon" is an Apple lie.

Apple is _desperate_ to differentiate their IP from everyone else.
Apple can't do that on performance or functionality alone.

So Apple resorts to an _expensive_ marketing campaign.
Instead of spending money on R&D, Apple spends it on marketing bullshit.

"Apple Silicon" is a classic example of Apple wasting money on bullshit.
Every dollar Apple wastes touting that their chips are not what they are is
a dollar _not_ spent in R&D (which is why Apple sucks at SOC design).

The fact remains Apple can't even _integrate_ an _existing_ modem for Gods
sake, and yet, Apple lies to people like you that they make the silicon.

It's TSMC Silicon.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the koolaid from Marketing.

[Alan]

Everyone in the industry and everyone who is reporting on the industry
agrees that Apple's silicon chips have been design by Apple since the A4:

'The Apple A4 is a PoP SoC manufactured by Samsung, the first SoC Apple
designed in-house.'

<https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303912104575164112770784290?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular>

Which forces me to ask the question:

Are you ignorant...

...or lying?

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

> You always attack the messenger when you are incapable of an answer, don't
> you? It's a giveaway.

The _reason_ you fall for all the marketing tricks is that you have the
confluence of three fundamental traits that _makes_ you the iKook you are:
a. Low IQ
b. No education
c. Low self esteem

You need all three to be an iKook (e.g., Steve isn't an iKook).

If you only had one or two of those traits you wouldn't be an iKook.
You _need_ the low self esteem, for example, to gloat over Apple profits.

And you need the lack of education to fall for all the marketing tricks.
The low IQ also means you can't separate marketing from facts.

It's why you fall for Apple Silicon marketing tricks.
It's not Apple Silicon.
That's a lie

It's plain old TSMC Silicon.
Just like everyone else's TSMC Silicon is.

Apple is _desperate_ to lie to you.
And you fall for it.

Why?
See above why.

[Alan]

Really?

You're claiming that TSMC is responsible for the design of all the chips
it makes for AMD, Broadcom, Intel, nVidia...

...and Qualcomm?