info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon with licensed ARM technology
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
Jun 27, 2020, 6:45:19 PM6/27/20
to
Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon with licensed ARM
technology in the upcoming Mac ARM products?
JF Mezei, normally not an apologist, is apparently bamboozled by MARKETING:
o Explore the new system architectire [sic] of Apple Silicon Macs [sic]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
Apple licensing the technology from ARM & pays TSMC to fab the silicon.
o Apple MARKETING's job is to bamboozle users into thinking otherwise.
It works great, but just be advised, when I see Apple Silicon...
o I'm gonna remind _adults_ that it's TSMC silicon & ARM technology
--
Apple users' brains are led by a ring in their nose put in by MARKETING.
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon with licensed ARM
technology in the upcoming Mac ARM products?
JF Mezei, normally not an apologist, is apparently bamboozled by MARKETING:
o Explore the new system architectire [sic] of Apple Silicon Macs [sic]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
Just to be clear since Apple users tend to be bamboozled by MARKETING...
o It's not "Apple Silicon" in the Mac ARM so much as ARM TSMC silicon.
Apple licensing the technology from ARM & pays TSMC to fab the silicon.
o Apple MARKETING's job is to bamboozle users into thinking otherwise.
It works great, but just be advised, when I see Apple Silicon...
o I'm gonna remind _adults_ that it's TSMC silicon & ARM technology
--
Apple users' brains are led by a ring in their nose put in by MARKETING.
Alan Baker
Jun 27, 2020, 10:11:41 PM6/27/20
to
On 2020-06-27 3:45 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
> regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon with licensed ARM
> technology in the upcoming Mac ARM products?
Apple doesn't have a foundry...
> Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
> regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon with licensed ARM
> technology in the upcoming Mac ARM products?
...but it designs the chips.
Your Name
Jun 27, 2020, 10:24:46 PM6/27/20
to
invested large amounts of extra money into other companies that do own
such factories to improve and enlarge their capabilities, so may well
be at least a good sized shareholder in those companies.
There have been vague rumours about Apple opening it's own factory to
produce Apple CPUs, but that could simply be a misundestanding of TSMC
buidling a factory in Arizona, probably with help from Apple.
Arlen Holder
Jun 28, 2020, 6:00:27 AM6/28/20
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:24:44 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> There have been vague rumours about Apple opening it's own factory to
> produce Apple CPUs
What I find interesting is how utterly _confident_ apologists are of
> There have been vague rumours about Apple opening it's own factory to
> produce Apple CPUs
Apple's capabilities...
And yet, it's all completely imaginary.
Given Apple has never in its entire history ever created even a single
best-in-class chip, what on earth gives people the confidence that Apple
will have its own best-in-class fab?
*Apple is all MARKETING, and almost no R&D.*
(nobody has lower R&D in all of high tech!)
Apologists, like the DK bank robber, are so confident in Apple's abilities,
and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
Apple.
--
And no, a system that needs to be throttled and a CPU design has opened
wide almost all iPhones to hacking is _not_ even close to best in class.
Alan Baker
Jun 28, 2020, 1:06:00 PM6/28/20
to
On 2020-06-28 3:00 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:24:44 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> There have been vague rumours about Apple opening it's own factory to
>> produce Apple CPUs
>
> What I find interesting is how utterly _confident_ apologists are of
> Apple's capabilities...
>
> And yet, it's all completely imaginary.
>
> Given Apple has never in its entire history ever created even a single
> best-in-class chip, what on earth gives people the confidence that Apple
> will have its own best-in-class fab?
Note the goalpost shift...
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:24:44 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> There have been vague rumours about Apple opening it's own factory to
>> produce Apple CPUs
>
> What I find interesting is how utterly _confident_ apologists are of
> Apple's capabilities...
>
> And yet, it's all completely imaginary.
>
> Given Apple has never in its entire history ever created even a single
> best-in-class chip, what on earth gives people the confidence that Apple
> will have its own best-in-class fab?
>
> *Apple is all MARKETING, and almost no R&D.*
> (nobody has lower R&D in all of high tech!)
>
> Apologists, like the DK bank robber, are so confident in Apple's abilities,
> and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
> Apple.
2.1 Apple A4
2.2 Apple A5
2.3 Apple A5X
2.4 Apple A6
2.5 Apple A6X
2.6 Apple A7
2.7 Apple A8
2.8 Apple A8X
2.9 Apple A9
2.10 Apple A9X
2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
2.17 Apple A13 Bionic
Done.
nospam
Jun 28, 2020, 1:35:13 PM6/28/20
to
In article <rdailk$53m$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
chip, as was the entire industry.
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> > Apologists, like the DK bank robber, are so confident in Apple's abilities,
> > and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
> > Apple.
>
> 2 A series
>
> 2.1 Apple A4
> 2.2 Apple A5
> 2.3 Apple A5X
> 2.4 Apple A6
> 2.5 Apple A6X
> 2.6 Apple A7
> 2.7 Apple A8
> 2.8 Apple A8X
> 2.9 Apple A9
> 2.10 Apple A9X
> 2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
> 2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
> 2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
> 2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
> 2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
> 2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
> 2.17 Apple A13 Bionic
>
> Done.
don't forget the h, w, u, s and t series chips, as well as additional
> > Apologists, like the DK bank robber, are so confident in Apple's abilities,
> > and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
> > Apple.
>
> 2 A series
>
> 2.1 Apple A4
> 2.2 Apple A5
> 2.3 Apple A5X
> 2.4 Apple A6
> 2.5 Apple A6X
> 2.6 Apple A7
> 2.7 Apple A8
> 2.8 Apple A8X
> 2.9 Apple A9
> 2.10 Apple A9X
> 2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
> 2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
> 2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
> 2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
> 2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
> 2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
> 2.17 Apple A13 Bionic
>
> Done.
support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
chip, as was the entire industry.
Arlen Holder
Jun 28, 2020, 3:57:53 PM6/28/20
to
On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:35:10 -0400, nospam wrote:
> don't forget the h, w, u, s and t series chips, as well as additional
> support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
>
> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> chip, as was the entire industry.
Apple has the finest MARKETING organization on this planet money can buy
> don't forget the h, w, u, s and t series chips, as well as additional
> support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
>
> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> chip, as was the entire industry.
o And yet, nobody can find a high tech company with lower R&D % than Apple!
Hence, it's no wonder you apologists own purely imaginary belief systems
If the "vaunted" Axx design is so great - why does it need to be throttled?
o Why are almost all iPhone CPUs fatally compromised with unfixable flaws?
And don't even get us started on how Apple had to give up on its GPUs.
o Apologists _hate_ that Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip ever.
--
All you apologists know is the imaginary belief system Apple feeds you.
Alan Baker
Jun 28, 2020, 4:52:03 PM6/28/20
to
On 2020-06-28 12:57 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:35:10 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> don't forget the h, w, u, s and t series chips, as well as additional
>> support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
>>
>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>> chip, as was the entire industry.
>
> Apple has the finest MARKETING organization on this planet money can buy
> o And yet, nobody can find a high tech company with lower R&D % than Apple!
>
> Hence, it's no wonder you apologists own purely imaginary belief systems
>
> If the "vaunted" Axx design is so great - why does it need to be throttled?
> o Why are almost all iPhone CPUs fatally compromised with unfixable flaws?
Straw man... ...well, men.
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:35:10 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> don't forget the h, w, u, s and t series chips, as well as additional
>> support chips, such as the imac tcon and many others.
>>
>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>> chip, as was the entire industry.
>
> Apple has the finest MARKETING organization on this planet money can buy
> o And yet, nobody can find a high tech company with lower R&D % than Apple!
>
> Hence, it's no wonder you apologists own purely imaginary belief systems
>
> If the "vaunted" Axx design is so great - why does it need to be throttled?
> o Why are almost all iPhone CPUs fatally compromised with unfixable flaws?
Your Name
Jun 28, 2020, 7:57:00 PM6/28/20
to
On 2020-06-28 17:05:54 +0000, Alan Baker said:
> On 2020-06-28 3:00 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>
<snip the usual Aren Holder anti-Apple trolling crap>
> On 2020-06-28 3:00 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Apologists, like the DK bank robber, are so confident in Apple's abilities,
>> and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
>> Apple.
>
> 2 A series
>
> 2.1 Apple A4
> 2.2 Apple A5
> 2.3 Apple A5X
> 2.4 Apple A6
> 2.5 Apple A6X
> 2.6 Apple A7
> 2.7 Apple A8
> 2.8 Apple A8X
> 2.9 Apple A9
> 2.10 Apple A9X
> 2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
> 2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
> 2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
> 2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
> 2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
> 2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
> 2.17 Apple A13 Bionic
>
> Done.
Yep. Apple has been designing chip for many years. There are also the
>> and yet, not one of you can name even a _single_ best in class chip from
>> Apple.
>
> 2 A series
>
> 2.1 Apple A4
> 2.2 Apple A5
> 2.3 Apple A5X
> 2.4 Apple A6
> 2.5 Apple A6X
> 2.6 Apple A7
> 2.7 Apple A8
> 2.8 Apple A8X
> 2.9 Apple A9
> 2.10 Apple A9X
> 2.11 Apple A10 Fusion
> 2.12 Apple A10X Fusion
> 2.13 Apple A11 Bionic
> 2.14 Apple A12 Bionic
> 2.15 Apple A12X Bionic
> 2.16 Apple A12Z Bionic
> 2.17 Apple A13 Bionic
>
> Done.
T-series chips. It was also a major partner, including design, of the
PowerPC chips. Plus some other custom function chips Apple has designed.
There are only a few chip manufacturing companies, so most tech and
electonics companies do not actually build their own, almost none
design their own either.
JF Mezei
Jun 29, 2020, 4:42:48 PM6/29/20
to
On 2020-06-28 13:35, nospam wrote:
> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> chip, as was the entire industry.
Blindsighted is too strong a word. ARM is the one who released the 64
> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> chip, as was the entire industry.
bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
doing the same.
Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
designers were seriosu business.
nospam
Jun 29, 2020, 5:08:04 PM6/29/20
to
In article <9nsKG.76486$7vd....@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei
> ARM is the one who released the 64
> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
> doing the same.
to use everyone's favourite quote: *stop* *making* *things* *up*.
qualcomm wasn't working on 64 bit arm processors, and when apple
announced the 64 bit a7, they tried to claim 61 bit wasn't needed and
nothing more than a gimmick because they were *completely* caught by
surprise.
<https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-employee-64bit-apple-a7-chip-hit-gut/>
"The 64-bit Apple chip hit us in the gut," says the Qualcomm
employee. "Not just us, but everyone, really. We were slack-jawed,
and stunned, and unprepared. Itąs not that big a performance
difference right now, since most current software wonąt benefit. But
in Spinal Tap terms itąs like, 32 more, and now everyone wants it."
only *after* apple's announcement did qualcomm scramble to come up with
their own implementation, except that apple continued to advance and
widen the gap even further.
> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
> designers were seriosu business.
it completely blindsided the industry. full stop.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> > chip, as was the entire industry.
>
> Blindsighted is too strong a word.
not at all. if anything, it greatly understates what happened.
>
> > qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
> > chip, as was the entire industry.
>
> Blindsighted is too strong a word.
> ARM is the one who released the 64
> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
> doing the same.
qualcomm wasn't working on 64 bit arm processors, and when apple
announced the 64 bit a7, they tried to claim 61 bit wasn't needed and
nothing more than a gimmick because they were *completely* caught by
surprise.
<https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-employee-64bit-apple-a7-chip-hit-gut/>
"The 64-bit Apple chip hit us in the gut," says the Qualcomm
employee. "Not just us, but everyone, really. We were slack-jawed,
and stunned, and unprepared. Itąs not that big a performance
difference right now, since most current software wonąt benefit. But
in Spinal Tap terms itąs like, 32 more, and now everyone wants it."
only *after* apple's announcement did qualcomm scramble to come up with
their own implementation, except that apple continued to advance and
widen the gap even further.
> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
> designers were seriosu business.
Arlen Holder
Jun 30, 2020, 1:32:54 PM6/30/20
to
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Regarding this post by Jolly Roger against all who speak facts:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
What's consistent is the Type III apologists always claim all facts they
simply don't like, are "lies by liars".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>
Why do apologists claim all facts are lies?
o I don't know why.
I think, perhaps, facts are a threat to apologists like Jolly Roger...
o Just as facts are a threat to Cultists & to Flat Earthers.
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts, none of them adult:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM%5B1-25%5D>
--
Note: Jolly Roger sets a no-archive bit, so here's his post, in full:
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple
> Message-ID: <hm19ru...@mid.individual.net>
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
> JF Mezie, Alan Browne, and trollboi Arleen are all out of their depth -
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Regarding this post by Jolly Roger against all who speak facts:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
with licensed ARM technology
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/xKTMWDhKztk>
with licensed ARM technology
What's consistent is the Type III apologists always claim all facts they
simply don't like, are "lies by liars".
o Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they
don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4>
Why do apologists claim all facts are lies?
o I don't know why.
I think, perhaps, facts are a threat to apologists like Jolly Roger...
o Just as facts are a threat to Cultists & to Flat Earthers.
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts, none of them adult:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM%5B1-25%5D>
--
Note: Jolly Roger sets a no-archive bit, so here's his post, in full:
On 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple
MARKETING bullshit regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC
silicon with licensed ARM technology
> Date: 30 Jun 2020 17:08:14 GMT
silicon with licensed ARM technology
> Message-ID: <hm19ru...@mid.individual.net>
> all making arguments based on lies and willful ignorance.
Lewis
Jun 30, 2020, 2:14:19 PM6/30/20
to
In message <9nsKG.76486$7vd....@fx35.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-06-28 13:35, nospam wrote:
>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>> chip, as was the entire industry.
> Blindsighted is too strong a word. ARM is the one who released the 64
> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
> doing the same.
You are, again, entirely wrong. Qualcomm had no 64bit anything and
> On 2020-06-28 13:35, nospam wrote:
>> qualcomm was blindsided when apple came out with the first 64 bit arm
>> chip, as was the entire industry.
> Blindsighted is too strong a word. ARM is the one who released the 64
> bit architecture to licensees, so Qualcomm would have been working on
> implementing it on silicon it and would assume Apple and others were
> doing the same.
claimed it was unnecessary and meaningless and a waste of time.
> Apple was first to market with the new architecture. It may have been a
> surprise, but not a blindsight. But it showed that Apple's chip
> designers were seriosu business.
*blindsided* by Apple's move to 64bit.
--
If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even think about women. 'T'ain't good for your health.
Arlen Holder
Jun 30, 2020, 6:31:38 PM6/30/20
to
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:51:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.
Hi Wolffan,
*"kiddie-fiddler"*?
How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?
Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>
It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?
Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*
Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year
To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?
That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.
> Well, obviously. Except when someone has a reading comprehension problem,
> like, oh, poor old Arlen the kiddie-fiddler.
Hi Wolffan,
*"kiddie-fiddler"*?
How _old_ are you, Wolffan?
o Ten?
Regarding this thread today:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
And specifically this post by Wolffan, moments ago...
o <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/Zf0dIIgYAwAJ>
It's interesting when I brought up known _facts_ about Apple smartphone CPUs
o Appologists' only response to those facts is.... "*kiddie fiddler*"?
Is _that_ how you apologists "process" facts about Apple that you hate?
o *kiddie fiddler*
Apologists simply deny all facts, even these, which are well known facts:
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be fatally compromised
o Almost all Apple smartphone CPUs are known to be throttled in about a year
To those facts, you apologists respond....
o "*kiddie fiddler*"?
That's apologists' _best_ response to the known facts about Apple products?
*Kiddie Fiddler*
--
Apologists have only 7 responses to facts about Apple products, none adult.
Arlen Holder
Jul 3, 2020, 7:52:20 AM7/3/20
to
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:27:41 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.
Verbatim:
"Long before serious talk about Apple ditching Intel for ARM,
the Cupertino tech giant put *ARM-based silicon* into its Macs."
For the permanent Usenet record, regarding this post by Lewis just now:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
*Lewis believes anything & everything Apple MARKETING feeds him to believe.*
o Type III apologists prove to NOT own independent thought processes
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/hqzE-AeCAgAJ>
Unlike nospam, Type III apologists actually _believe_ what they claim!
o Joerg Lorenz: Only believes what's in the German media (not BBC).
o Alan Baker: Runs his own translation instead of relying on media reports.
o Jolly Roger: Still believes in the imaginary iOS WiFi debugging tools.
o Lewis: Doesn't even realize it's been called "ARM Silicon" for years!
HINT to Lewis (who is immune to facts, so this is for the adults):
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>
Notice in _that_ article, written prior to Apple's ridiculously desperate
attempt to have the ignorati focus NOT on the ARM technology they're
licensing, they repeatedly call it "ARM Silicon" & "ARM chips", etc.
"Apple's transition to Macs with *proprietary ARM chips* may soon be
officially acknowledged, but there have been clear and definite signs
of the switch for years."
"Laying the groundwork for *ARM Macs*"
"The actual start of the *transition to ARM Macs*"
"with the first of the *ARM-based Macs* due to potentially debut in 2021."
"Apple is already an *ARM chipmaking expert*, with A-series chips
powering the company's iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs."
"paving the way for an *ARM Mac* in general."
"Apple has laid the groundwork for *ARM Macs* for longer than a decade."
"Rumors of an *ARM Mac* are fairly recent*
"With a switch to *ARM-based CPUs*, there are opportunities for
even further integration"
"Apple made... the first publicly visible step toward an *ARM Mac*"
"Apple may not have specifically had an *ARM Mac* in mind when it
released Xcode"
"tentative signs that Apple may bring the IDE to *ARM-based chips*
"For *Apple-designed hardware like ARM chips*, it's... integral"
"although not a heralding of *ARM-based Mac* devices"
"Apple will apply the lessons... *to ARM Macs*."
"could also play a larger role in the transition to *ARM-based Macs*"
"There's a high possibility that Apple will market the *switch to ARM*
as a security upgrade"
"bake its features directly into an *ARM system-on-chip* (SoC)."
"One of the more major changes that *paved the way for ARM Macs* was
the death of 32-bit apps"
"For a transition to *ARM-based Macs, that's going to be an important
point"
"Apple has a clear goal and path in mind for the *switch to ARM*"
"the overall transition to *ARM-based Macs* isn't going to be a short one."
"For eagle-eyed technologists and enthusiasts, it also hinted at the
potential of *Apple's first-party ARM silicon*."
--
Apple Silicon is a frantically desperate ploy ignoring it's ARM Silicon.
> Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.
Verbatim:
"Long before serious talk about Apple ditching Intel for ARM,
the Cupertino tech giant put *ARM-based silicon* into its Macs."
For the permanent Usenet record, regarding this post by Lewis just now:
o Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
*Lewis believes anything & everything Apple MARKETING feeds him to believe.*
o Type III apologists prove to NOT own independent thought processes
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I/hqzE-AeCAgAJ>
Unlike nospam, Type III apologists actually _believe_ what they claim!
o Joerg Lorenz: Only believes what's in the German media (not BBC).
o Alan Baker: Runs his own translation instead of relying on media reports.
o Jolly Roger: Still believes in the imaginary iOS WiFi debugging tools.
o Lewis: Doesn't even realize it's been called "ARM Silicon" for years!
HINT to Lewis (who is immune to facts, so this is for the adults):
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>
Notice in _that_ article, written prior to Apple's ridiculously desperate
attempt to have the ignorati focus NOT on the ARM technology they're
licensing, they repeatedly call it "ARM Silicon" & "ARM chips", etc.
"Apple's transition to Macs with *proprietary ARM chips* may soon be
officially acknowledged, but there have been clear and definite signs
of the switch for years."
"Laying the groundwork for *ARM Macs*"
"The actual start of the *transition to ARM Macs*"
"with the first of the *ARM-based Macs* due to potentially debut in 2021."
"Apple is already an *ARM chipmaking expert*, with A-series chips
powering the company's iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs."
"paving the way for an *ARM Mac* in general."
"Apple has laid the groundwork for *ARM Macs* for longer than a decade."
"Rumors of an *ARM Mac* are fairly recent*
"With a switch to *ARM-based CPUs*, there are opportunities for
even further integration"
"Apple made... the first publicly visible step toward an *ARM Mac*"
"Apple may not have specifically had an *ARM Mac* in mind when it
released Xcode"
"tentative signs that Apple may bring the IDE to *ARM-based chips*
"For *Apple-designed hardware like ARM chips*, it's... integral"
"although not a heralding of *ARM-based Mac* devices"
"Apple will apply the lessons... *to ARM Macs*."
"could also play a larger role in the transition to *ARM-based Macs*"
"There's a high possibility that Apple will market the *switch to ARM*
as a security upgrade"
"bake its features directly into an *ARM system-on-chip* (SoC)."
"One of the more major changes that *paved the way for ARM Macs* was
the death of 32-bit apps"
"For a transition to *ARM-based Macs, that's going to be an important
point"
"Apple has a clear goal and path in mind for the *switch to ARM*"
"the overall transition to *ARM-based Macs* isn't going to be a short one."
"For eagle-eyed technologists and enthusiasts, it also hinted at the
potential of *Apple's first-party ARM silicon*."
--
Apple Silicon is a frantically desperate ploy ignoring it's ARM Silicon.
A concerned netizen
Jul 3, 2020, 12:45:32 PM7/3/20
to
On 2020-07-03 4:52 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:27:41 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.
>
> Verbatim:
>
> "Long before serious talk about Apple ditching Intel for ARM,
> the Cupertino tech giant put *ARM-based silicon* into its Macs."
Read this, Arlen. Over and over and over.
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:27:41 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
>> Apple designs it's own chips, not modifies ARM's designs.
>
> Verbatim:
>
> "Long before serious talk about Apple ditching Intel for ARM,
> the Cupertino tech giant put *ARM-based silicon* into its Macs."
"For Apple-designed hardware like ARM chips"
That is from YOUR source below.
> 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>
>
Are Apple's chips BASED on ARM? Yes. They use the ARM A-R-C-H-T-E-C-T-U-R-E.
'For several years, Apple has been steadily designing more and more of
the chips powering its iPhones, iPads, Macs and Apple Watches. This
creates a better user experience and helps trump rivals. Recently the
company got a fresh incentive to go all-in on silicon: revelations that
microprocessors with components designed by Intel Corp., Arm Holdings
Plc and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. are vulnerable to hacking.
Steve Jobs long believed Apple should own the technologies inside its
products rather than rely on mashups of components from other chip
makers, including Samsung, Intel and Imagination Technologies. In 2008,
the company made a small but significant step in that direction by
acquiring boutique chip maker P.A. Semi. Two years later, Jobs unveiled
the iPad. The world focused on the tablet’s giant touchscreen,
book-reading prowess and creativity apps. But the most ground-breaking
technology was hidden away inside: the A4, Apple’s first processor
designed in-house.'
<https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-apple-custom-chips/>
Arlen Holder
Jul 10, 2020, 10:40:41 AM7/10/20
to
UPDATE (as per "Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs")
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:04:45 -0400, Paul wrote:
> To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".
Hi Paul,
I converse with you differently than I do with the cultist Appleseeds.
Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple is all MARKETING and the lowest R&D in the high tech industry.
REFERENCE:
o *Can anyone find a high tech outfit with a _lower_ R&D spend than Apple?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
As for what we _can_ more accurately call it, that's an object of debate
where we would have the goal of accurately characterizing what it is; but
you have to realize I'm reacting to the fact that Apple is frantic for us
to NOT characterize it for what it is, but what they want their customer to
_think_ it is.
REFERENCE:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/1GSxfEdrL6k>
We can never forget how powerful Apple propaganda is on its users' minds:
o Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
> Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
> fabricated it.
>
> It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".
Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple has no intention, ever, of accurately characterizing what it sells.
They didn't use the word ARM even once in their entire ARM Mac rollout!
o Appleseeds are ruled by this (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING playbook.
Remember, it's been called ARM Silicon for Apple since, oh, since forever.
o Only now, is the word ARM banished from Apple MARKETING ARM Mac spiels!
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>
(Count the number of times they use "ARM Mac" or "ARM Silicon".
(Then count the number of times they use "Apple Silicon").
*Suddenly, ARM Silicon is now, instantly, magically, Apple Silicon!*
Why?
o Of course, any reasonable competent adult instantly knows why.
Apple is frantic we NOT think of the ARM-based Mac as what it really is!
o Remember: Apple is all MARKETING & the lowest R&D in all of high tech.
> If the SOC is constructed from IP blocks purchased on the
> open market, that doesn't say much, except that you had
> buckets of money.
Apple is all MARKETING (which, as a result, their profits are insane).
Rest assured I am fully aware why Apple MARKETING is frantic that we do not
realize what it sells, and only think the way MARKETING wants us to think.
Bear in mind, Apple not only has buckets of money, the _reason_ they have
all that money, is they spend almost nothing on R&D (nobody can find even a
single high-tech company of any import that has a lower R&D spend, and if
you don't believe that shocking result, just look here for the facts):
> An engineer at work was given such buckets
> of money once, to prepare a chip that was almost engineering-free.
Let's remember, the ARM Mac CPU is expected to be _cheaper_ than what Apple
is using today for the Intel-based Mac CPUs.
> The part is fabricated by TSMC.
Yup. It's ARM technology, fabricated by TSMC.
o I reported that to the (incredibly ignorant) AppleSeeds long ago.
o *Apple Plans to Announce ARM, TSMC, 5nm, A14 Macs*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/iN5nqHcaZmM>
And guess what?
o The incredibly ignorant Alan Baker Appleseed _disputed_ that fact!
Can you believe it?
o He's likely claiming, at this moment, it's Apple Silicon.
(I don't know as he and Snit are the only people I had to plonk!)
And yet, just before he figured out I told the facts...
o He was disputing that Apple was announcing what they eventually did.
They dispute _any_ fact they simply don't like.
o Yet, the fact they hate facts doesn't change the fact they're facts!
> But because that companies CPU doesn't have "the Apple smell",
> of course Apple couldn't use it. But it would allow a
> relatively painless ship date.
Well, to that sensible point, Paul, I speak with you as an adult,
differently than to the apologists, whom I drop down to their level.
The fact that Apple is moving the Mac CPU to ARM technology is really,
based on the reports I read to date, a move that helps Apple's bottom line.
They didn't do it to make a more powerful Mac, based on what those reports
said (see previous cites); they did it to save money.
Of course, they will MARKET the hell out of it, as Apple is all MARKETING
and the lowest R&D spend in the entire high tech industry, bar none.
And, of course, they'd be fools to ship it without _some_ performance
gains, which, let's consider, they would have had to do anyway, given each
system over the years needs to be more powerful anyway (usually).
Given they'd have a more powerful Intel-based Mac, all they need to do is
switch the "all new... more powerful" spiel from Intel-based Mac marketing
glossy literature, to the ARM-based Mac.... ooooops....
They can take the same "Intel inside" literature, and move it to "ARM
inside", only that would look like what it is, so they won't.
--
Apple is all MARKETING (with the absolute lowest R&D in all of high tech!).
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:04:45 -0400, Paul wrote:
> To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".
Hi Paul,
I converse with you differently than I do with the cultist Appleseeds.
Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple is all MARKETING and the lowest R&D in the high tech industry.
REFERENCE:
o *Can anyone find a high tech outfit with a _lower_ R&D spend than Apple?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
As for what we _can_ more accurately call it, that's an object of debate
where we would have the goal of accurately characterizing what it is; but
you have to realize I'm reacting to the fact that Apple is frantic for us
to NOT characterize it for what it is, but what they want their customer to
_think_ it is.
REFERENCE:
o Why are Apple Mac users so easily bamboozled by Apple MARKETING bullshit
regarding "Apple Silicon" which is, in fact, TSMC silicon
(using licensed ARM technology)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/1GSxfEdrL6k>
We can never forget how powerful Apple propaganda is on its users' minds:
o Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
> Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
> fabricated it.
>
> It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".
Apple MARKETING rules the minds of its (admittedly gullible) customers.
o Apple has no intention, ever, of accurately characterizing what it sells.
They didn't use the word ARM even once in their entire ARM Mac rollout!
o Appleseeds are ruled by this (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING playbook.
Remember, it's been called ARM Silicon for Apple since, oh, since forever.
o Only now, is the word ARM banished from Apple MARKETING ARM Mac spiels!
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>
(Then count the number of times they use "Apple Silicon").
*Suddenly, ARM Silicon is now, instantly, magically, Apple Silicon!*
Why?
o Of course, any reasonable competent adult instantly knows why.
Apple is frantic we NOT think of the ARM-based Mac as what it really is!
o Remember: Apple is all MARKETING & the lowest R&D in all of high tech.
> If the SOC is constructed from IP blocks purchased on the
> open market, that doesn't say much, except that you had
> buckets of money.
Apple is all MARKETING (which, as a result, their profits are insane).
Rest assured I am fully aware why Apple MARKETING is frantic that we do not
realize what it sells, and only think the way MARKETING wants us to think.
Bear in mind, Apple not only has buckets of money, the _reason_ they have
all that money, is they spend almost nothing on R&D (nobody can find even a
single high-tech company of any import that has a lower R&D spend, and if
you don't believe that shocking result, just look here for the facts):
> An engineer at work was given such buckets
> of money once, to prepare a chip that was almost engineering-free.
Let's remember, the ARM Mac CPU is expected to be _cheaper_ than what Apple
is using today for the Intel-based Mac CPUs.
> The part is fabricated by TSMC.
Yup. It's ARM technology, fabricated by TSMC.
o I reported that to the (incredibly ignorant) AppleSeeds long ago.
o *Apple Plans to Announce ARM, TSMC, 5nm, A14 Macs*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/iN5nqHcaZmM>
And guess what?
o The incredibly ignorant Alan Baker Appleseed _disputed_ that fact!
Can you believe it?
o He's likely claiming, at this moment, it's Apple Silicon.
(I don't know as he and Snit are the only people I had to plonk!)
And yet, just before he figured out I told the facts...
o He was disputing that Apple was announcing what they eventually did.
They dispute _any_ fact they simply don't like.
o Yet, the fact they hate facts doesn't change the fact they're facts!
> But because that companies CPU doesn't have "the Apple smell",
> of course Apple couldn't use it. But it would allow a
> relatively painless ship date.
Well, to that sensible point, Paul, I speak with you as an adult,
differently than to the apologists, whom I drop down to their level.
The fact that Apple is moving the Mac CPU to ARM technology is really,
based on the reports I read to date, a move that helps Apple's bottom line.
They didn't do it to make a more powerful Mac, based on what those reports
said (see previous cites); they did it to save money.
Of course, they will MARKET the hell out of it, as Apple is all MARKETING
and the lowest R&D spend in the entire high tech industry, bar none.
And, of course, they'd be fools to ship it without _some_ performance
gains, which, let's consider, they would have had to do anyway, given each
system over the years needs to be more powerful anyway (usually).
Given they'd have a more powerful Intel-based Mac, all they need to do is
switch the "all new... more powerful" spiel from Intel-based Mac marketing
glossy literature, to the ARM-based Mac.... ooooops....
They can take the same "Intel inside" literature, and move it to "ARM
inside", only that would look like what it is, so they won't.
--
Apple is all MARKETING (with the absolute lowest R&D in all of high tech!).
Arlen Holder
Jul 10, 2020, 10:41:43 AM7/10/20
to
Regarding: "Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs")
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:47:14 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> It's an Apple designed chip, so they can call it whatever they want.
To the _adults_ on this newsgroup,
o On THIS newsgroup, we should speak facts (not MARKETING bullshit).
YourName doesn't get the adult point, which isn't what Apple _calls_ it.
o The adult point is what it really and truly _is_ on this newsgroup.
Not what (brilliant) Apple MARKETING propaganda wants you to _think_ it is.
Remember, Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D (this is a fact).
o Nobody has yet found _any_ high tech company with lower R&D % spend.
Marketing is POWERFUL on gullible people like Your Name clearly is.
o MARKETING literally _rules_ the minds of AppleSeeds like Alan Baker.
But this is Usenet - we don't have to speak in bullshit MARKETING terms.
o We can discuss, as adults, what it really "is"
Not what Apple MARKETING wants us to "think" it is.
It's clear, AppleSeeds like Alan Baker & YourName are bamboozled.
o They can only parrot exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds them.
To their gullible (and feeble) brains, it _is_ whatever Apple calls it.
--
Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D so consider MARKETING powerful.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:47:14 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> It's an Apple designed chip, so they can call it whatever they want.
To the _adults_ on this newsgroup,
o On THIS newsgroup, we should speak facts (not MARKETING bullshit).
YourName doesn't get the adult point, which isn't what Apple _calls_ it.
o The adult point is what it really and truly _is_ on this newsgroup.
Not what (brilliant) Apple MARKETING propaganda wants you to _think_ it is.
Remember, Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D (this is a fact).
o Nobody has yet found _any_ high tech company with lower R&D % spend.
Marketing is POWERFUL on gullible people like Your Name clearly is.
o MARKETING literally _rules_ the minds of AppleSeeds like Alan Baker.
But this is Usenet - we don't have to speak in bullshit MARKETING terms.
o We can discuss, as adults, what it really "is"
Not what Apple MARKETING wants us to "think" it is.
It's clear, AppleSeeds like Alan Baker & YourName are bamboozled.
o They can only parrot exactly what Apple MARKETING feeds them.
To their gullible (and feeble) brains, it _is_ whatever Apple calls it.
--
Apple is all MARKETING and almost no R&D so consider MARKETING powerful.
Arlen Holder
Jul 10, 2020, 10:41:45 AM7/10/20
to
Re: "Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs")
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:27:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
>> blocks purchased on the open market".
>
> Even big companies do this now.
>
> In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
> from a third party.
>
> All it takes is money.
We long ago showed Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever!
o And no, a CPU that must be throttled isn't best in class by any test.
o And no, a CPU with huge unpatchable holes isn't best in class either.
They failed on modems (along with Intel), and they failed on GPUS.
o These are facts Apple MARKETING doesn't want us to even think about.
QUESTION:
If Apple has _never_ in its history made a best-in-class chip design...
o What makes the AppleSeeds think Apple can, now, finally, pull it off?
HINT: "M A R K E T I N G" rules their minds, e.g., "*APPLE SILICON!!!!!*"
BTW, for the AppleSeeds to ponder (adults already know the answer)...
o Whom does Apple get their critical high-tech 5G modem technology from?
--
There's a reason for ungodly Apple profits - MARKETING is powerful indeed.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/ElvAtPCgr6I>
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:27:20 -0400, Paul wrote:
>> Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
>> blocks purchased on the open market".
>
> Even big companies do this now.
>
> In the AMD chipset, the USB3 block is purchased
> from a third party.
>
> All it takes is money.
We long ago showed Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class chip... ever!
o And no, a CPU that must be throttled isn't best in class by any test.
o And no, a CPU with huge unpatchable holes isn't best in class either.
They failed on modems (along with Intel), and they failed on GPUS.
o These are facts Apple MARKETING doesn't want us to even think about.
QUESTION:
If Apple has _never_ in its history made a best-in-class chip design...
o What makes the AppleSeeds think Apple can, now, finally, pull it off?
HINT: "M A R K E T I N G" rules their minds, e.g., "*APPLE SILICON!!!!!*"
BTW, for the AppleSeeds to ponder (adults already know the answer)...
o Whom does Apple get their critical high-tech 5G modem technology from?
--
There's a reason for ungodly Apple profits - MARKETING is powerful indeed.
0 new messages