sms wrote:

> The X55 modem is estimated to cost Apple $90, which is not "hundreds."

*This post contains adult content* (which will be unfathomable to iKooks).
I estimate only two or three regulars on this newsgroup can comprehend it.

It's hard to quantify the actual cost per iPhone because when Apple
surrendered to Qualcomm, they paid enough to build and equip an entire
aircraft carrier, complete with avionics, weapons, personnel & planes.

Suffice to say the poor hapless Apple consumer is paying for all that,
since Apple profits are still in the range of ungodly per iPhone.

> Even when Apple does have their own modem the cost doesn't go to zero,
> there are still costs to fabricate the modem and there are still
> royalties to pay to Qualcomm and others.

Steve... I'm going to say something that an _adult_ would say, based on
what I know about Apple, and given you're a fellow EE, you can comprehend
(let's hope) even as the ignorant low-IQ iKooks can't ever understand.

Apple _already_ designed that 5G modem (based on the evidence I have).
It's waiting to be shipped out right now (but it can't be shipped).

Do you have any inkling of _why_ Apple can't ship that existing 5G modem?
I do.

> The bigger issue is that this delays integrating the modem into the
> Bionic chip. The other ARM chipset manufacturers like Qualcomm,
> Mediatek, and Samsung are already on their second or third generation of
> chipsets with integrated modems.

Apple will be a decade behind _all_ of them in modem integration.
But that's not the biggest problem (although it's a big problem indeed).

> It would be a big savings in both money and space to be able to
> integrate the iPhone Bionic chip and the Apple modem together. That's
> probably pushed out to the iPhone 17 or 18.

Very few people on this ng will be able to understand what I'm about to
say, which is the _reason_ Apple can't ship their existing modem (AFAIK),
is that their lawyers have told them they'd lose a battle with Qualcomm on
the _two_ most important patents which they have infringed upon.

Why do you think Apple is so _desperate_ to get those two patents anulled?

Those two patents expire in 2029, which is the date I predict Apple will
_finally_ be able to ship their own modem without worrying about donating
another aircraft carrier (complete with personnel & materiel) to Qualcomm.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
where my predictions have almost always come true because I'm not stupid.

On 2022-06-30 09:35, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> The X55 modem is estimated to cost Apple $90, which is not "hundreds."
>
> *This post contains adult content* (which will be unfathomable to iKooks).
> I estimate only two or three regulars on this newsgroup can comprehend it.
>
> It's hard to quantify the actual cost per iPhone because when Apple
> surrendered to Qualcomm, they paid enough to build and equip an entire
> aircraft carrier, complete with avionics, weapons, personnel & planes.

So it's "hard to quantify"...

....but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.

>
> Suffice to say the poor hapless Apple consumer is paying for all that,
> since Apple profits are still in the range of ungodly per iPhone.

But if they're paying as much as you say, it clearly shows how much
people want iPhones.

>
>> Even when Apple does have their own modem the cost doesn't go to zero,
>> there are still costs to fabricate the modem and there are still
>> royalties to pay to Qualcomm and others.
>
> Steve... I'm going to say something that an _adult_ would say, based on
> what I know about Apple, and given you're a fellow EE, you can comprehend
> (let's hope) even as the ignorant low-IQ iKooks can't ever understand.
>
> Apple _already_ designed that 5G modem (based on the evidence I have).
> It's waiting to be shipped out right now (but it can't be shipped).
>
> Do you have any inkling of _why_ Apple can't ship that existing 5G modem?
> I do.

Not that you'll explain it.

>
>> The bigger issue is that this delays integrating the modem into the
>> Bionic chip. The other ARM chipset manufacturers like Qualcomm,
>> Mediatek, and Samsung are already on their second or third generation
>> of chipsets with integrated modems.
>
> Apple will be a decade behind _all_ of them in modem integration.
> But that's not the biggest problem (although it's a big problem indeed).

LOL!

>
>> It would be a big savings in both money and space to be able to
>> integrate the iPhone Bionic chip and the Apple modem together. That's
>> probably pushed out to the iPhone 17 or 18.
>
> Very few people on this ng will be able to understand what I'm about to
> say, which is the _reason_ Apple can't ship their existing modem
> (AFAIK), is that their lawyers have told them they'd lose a battle with
> Qualcomm on
> the _two_ most important patents which they have infringed upon.
>
> Why do you think Apple is so _desperate_ to get those two patents anulled?
>
> Those two patents expire in 2029, which is the date I predict Apple will
> _finally_ be able to ship their own modem without worrying about donating
> another aircraft carrier (complete with personnel & materiel) to Qualcomm.

You think that understanding patents requires you to be an electrical
engineer?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 12:37:08 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-06-30 09:35, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > sms wrote:
> >
> >> The X55 modem is estimated to cost Apple $90, which is not "hundreds."
> >
> > *This post contains adult content* (which will be unfathomable to iKooks).
> > I estimate only two or three regulars on this newsgroup can comprehend it.
> >
> > It's hard to quantify the actual cost per iPhone because when Apple
> > surrendered to Qualcomm, they paid enough to build and equip an entire
> > aircraft carrier, complete with avionics, weapons, personnel & planes.
>
> So it's "hard to quantify"...
>
> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.

He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it.

The USS Gerald Ford has gotten a lot of heat for being the most expensive
carrier to date for the US ... $13B. Add fifty F35s for roughly $5B more and
then a few $B more in miscellaneous...call it $20B.

Meantime, Apple has sold over 2.2 billion iPhones to date.

Simple division ... $20B/$2.2B ... means that the modem cost is under $10/unit.

Gosh, Arlen has lowballed his *dramatic* example. oops.

-hh

-hh wrote:

>> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.
>
> He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it.

You're right about me trying to put Apple's surrender into perspective.

Remember, nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in their R&D spend, and even
in sheer dollar amounts, _plenty_ of companies spend more than does Apple.

But what Apple outspends everyone else in, by far, is propaganda.
Which is why I put the surrender cost in terms of Ford class carriers.

I'm speaking to morons like you and Alan Baker, who don't understand basic
concepts the way a normal adult would... which is why I quantify the
surrender by Apple to Qualcomm as costing as much as a completely equipped
Ford class aircraft carrier, _including_ all the sophisticated avionics,
airplanes, materiel, and personnel.

That's how much a teeny tiny 5G modem is worth to a company like Apple who
would have gone out of business if they weren't able to produce a 5G iPhone
when they did.

Apple knew that.
It's _why_ Apple surrendered to Qualcomm.

You iKooks don't own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend it though.
(All nospam can do is complain that Qualcomm can design & Apple can't.)

> The USS Gerald Ford has gotten a lot of heat for being the most expensive
> carrier to date for the US ... $13B. Add fifty F35s for roughly $5B more and
> then a few $B more in miscellaneous...call it $20B.
>
> Meantime, Apple has sold over 2.2 billion iPhones to date.

War is partly about propaganda, and always has been partly about that.
Apple is the worlds' master at propaganda.

People who can't separate fact from bullshit _believe_ what Apple says.
But people who own adult cognitive skills understand what Apple is.

Apple is about a decade behind almost everyone in terms of design.
Yet Apple is well ahead of everyone in terms of marketing propaganda.

> Simple division ... $20B/$2.2B ... means that the modem cost is under $10/unit.

Steve already showed that it's almost a hundred bucks alone for just the
X55 modem, "hh", which just proves again how _ignorant_ you iKooks really
are.

It's no longer shocking that none of you iKooks owns an IQ even remotely
close to normal, which is, after all, partly _why_ you're so strange.

You actually _believe_ Apple spends $10 per iPhone when just the one single
part is almost a hundred bucks - which proves my point about you iKooks:
a. Your IQ is incredibly low
b. None of you have any education to speak of
c. And yet, you defend Apple to the death

Why?
I think I know why.

You iKooks gain most (if not all) of your self esteem from Apple ads.
--
I may understand these low-IQ iKooks far better than they know themselves.

On 2022-07-02 04:17, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>>> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.
>>
>> He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it.
>
> You're right about me trying to put Apple's surrender into perspective.
>
> Remember, nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in their R&D spend, and even
> in sheer dollar amounts, _plenty_ of companies spend more than does Apple.

False.

In sheer dollar amounts, only a few companies that spend more than Apple.

There are two references I can find from last year, and both of them
place Apple in at least the top 7 in total R&D spending, with one
placing them top 5.

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

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

>
> But what Apple outspends everyone else in, by far, is propaganda.
> Which is why I put the surrender cost in terms of Ford class carriers.

Got any proof of that, Arlen?

>
> I'm speaking to morons like you and Alan Baker, who don't understand basic
> concepts the way a normal adult would... which is why I quantify the
> surrender by Apple to Qualcomm as costing as much as a completely equipped
> Ford class aircraft carrier, _including_ all the sophisticated avionics,
> airplanes, materiel, and personnel.
>
> That's how much a teeny tiny 5G modem is worth to a company like Apple who
> would have gone out of business if they weren't able to produce a 5G iPhone
> when they did.
>
> Apple knew that.
> It's _why_ Apple surrendered to Qualcomm.
>
> You iKooks don't own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend it though.
> (All nospam can do is complain that Qualcomm can design & Apple can't.)
>
>> The USS Gerald Ford has gotten a lot of heat for being the most expensive
>> carrier to date for the US ... $13B.   Add fifty F35s for roughly $5B
>> more and
>> then a few $B more in miscellaneous...call it $20B.
>>
>> Meantime, Apple has sold over 2.2 billion iPhones to date.
>
> War is partly about propaganda, and always has been partly about that.
> Apple is the worlds' master at propaganda.

Propaganda won't keep a product selling well for 15 years.

>
> People who can't separate fact from bullshit _believe_ what Apple says.
> But people who own adult cognitive skills understand what Apple is.
>
> Apple is about a decade behind almost everyone in terms of design.
> Yet Apple is well ahead of everyone in terms of marketing propaganda.
>
>> Simple division ... $20B/$2.2B ... means that the modem cost is under
>> $10/unit.
>
> Steve already showed that it's almost a hundred bucks alone for just the
> X55 modem, "hh", which just proves again how _ignorant_ you iKooks really
> are.
>
> It's no longer shocking that none of you iKooks owns an IQ even remotely
> close to normal, which is, after all, partly _why_ you're so strange.
>
> You actually _believe_ Apple spends $10 per iPhone when just the one single
> part is almost a hundred bucks - which proves my point about you iKooks:
> a. Your IQ is incredibly low
> b. None of you have any education to speak of
> c. And yet, you defend Apple to the death
> Why?
> I think I know why.
>
> You iKooks gain most (if not all) of your self esteem from Apple ads.

So you can't do simple arithmetic.

Got it.

Alan wrote:
> On 2022-07-02 04:17, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.
>>>
>>> He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it.
>>
>> You're right about me trying to put Apple's surrender into
>> perspective.
>>
>> Remember, nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in their R&D
>> spend, and even
>> in sheer dollar amounts, _plenty_ of companies spend more than
>> does Apple.
>
> False.
>
> In sheer dollar amounts, only a few companies that spend more than
> Apple.
>
> There are two references I can find from last year, and both of
> them place Apple in at least the top 7 in total R&D spending, with
> one placing them top 5.
>
> <https://spendmenot.com/blog/top-rd-spenders/>
>
> <https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>
>
>
>>
>> But what Apple outspends everyone else in, by far, is propaganda.
>> Which is why I put the surrender cost in terms of Ford class
>> carriers.
>
> Got any proof of that, Arlen?
>
>>
>> I'm speaking to morons like you and Alan Baker, who don't
>> understand basic
>> concepts the way a normal adult would... which is why I quantify the
>> surrender by Apple to Qualcomm as costing as much as a completely
>> equipped
>> Ford class aircraft carrier, _including_ all the sophisticated
>> avionics,
>> airplanes, materiel, and personnel.
>>
>> That's how much a teeny tiny 5G modem is worth to a company like
>> Apple who
>> would have gone out of business if they weren't able to produce a
>> 5G iPhone
>> when they did.
>>
>> Apple knew that.
>> It's _why_ Apple surrendered to Qualcomm.
>>
>> You iKooks don't own the adult cognitive skills to comprehend it
>> though.
>> (All nospam can do is complain that Qualcomm can design & Apple
>> can't.)
>>
>>> The USS Gerald Ford has gotten a lot of heat for being the most
>>> expensive
>>> carrier to date for the US ... $13B.   Add fifty F35s for
>>> roughly $5B more and
>>> then a few $B more in miscellaneous...call it $20B.
>>>
>>> Meantime, Apple has sold over 2.2 billion iPhones to date.
>>
>> War is partly about propaganda, and always has been partly about
>> that.
>> Apple is the worlds' master at propaganda.
>
> Propaganda won't keep a product selling well for 15 years.
>
>>
>> People who can't separate fact from bullshit _believe_ what Apple
>> says.
>> But people who own adult cognitive skills understand what Apple is.
>>
>> Apple is about a decade behind almost everyone in terms of design.
>> Yet Apple is well ahead of everyone in terms of marketing
>> propaganda.
>>
>>> Simple division ... $20B/$2.2B ... means that the modem cost is
>>> under $10/unit.
>>
>> Steve already showed that it's almost a hundred bucks alone for
>> just the
>> X55 modem, "hh", which just proves again how _ignorant_ you
>> iKooks really
>> are.
>>
>> It's no longer shocking that none of you iKooks owns an IQ even
>> remotely
>> close to normal, which is, after all, partly _why_ you're so
>> strange.
>>
>> You actually _believe_ Apple spends $10 per iPhone when just the
>> one single
>> part is almost a hundred bucks - which proves my point about you
>> iKooks:
>> a. Your IQ is incredibly low
>> b. None of you have any education to speak of
>> c. And yet, you defend Apple to the death
>> Why?
>> I think I know why.
>>
>> You iKooks gain most (if not all) of your self esteem from Apple
>> ads.
>
> So you can't do simple arithmetic.
>
> Got it.
>

I bet he has a Phd in apple economics. Maybe our anti-iKook
professor will post some pics of his thesis at iKook-university.

On 7/2/2022 10:40 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-07-02 04:17, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.
>>>
>>> He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it.
>>
>> You're right about me trying to put Apple's surrender into perspective.
>>
>> Remember, nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in their R&D spend, and
>> even
>> in sheer dollar amounts, _plenty_ of companies spend more than does
>> Apple.
>
> False.
>
> In sheer dollar amounts, only a few companies that spend more than Apple.
>
> There are two references I can find from last year, and both of them
> place Apple in at least the top 7 in total R&D spending, with one
> placing them top 5.
>

True. And remember, the whole idea is leverage your R&D expenditures to
create products that sell in huge volumes so the percentage of R&D
spending is lower, even though the absolute amount of R&D spending is large.

It would be foolish to increase R&D spending to some percentage of
revenue or profit without a valid reason.

sms wrote:

> True. And remember, the whole idea is leverage your R&D expenditures to
> create products that sell in huge volumes so the percentage of R&D
> spending is lower, even though the absolute amount of R&D spending is large.
>
> It would be foolish to increase R&D spending to some percentage of
> revenue or profit without a valid reason.

*The point is Apple is NOT a design powerhouse.*

The whole world knows this.
It's only the iKooks who don't know Apple sucks at chip design.

The facts are clear, in all areas of design, particularly in modem design.
Apple will be a _decade_ behind the leaders by the time the patents expire.

What Apple is, is a MARKETING powerhouse.
Big difference.

HINT: Apple sells mainly to people who _believe_ only in their bullshit.
And even PT Barnum made a killing because the stupid outnumber us by a lot.

On 2022-07-02 13:08, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> True. And remember, the whole idea is leverage your R&D expenditures
>> to create products that sell in huge volumes so the percentage of R&D
>> spending is lower, even though the absolute amount of R&D spending is
>> large.
>>
>> It would be foolish to increase R&D spending to some percentage of
>> revenue or profit without a valid reason.
>
> *The point is Apple is NOT a design powerhouse.*

The point is that you were wrong on the facts you claim to so worship.

>
> The whole world knows this.
> It's only the iKooks who don't know Apple sucks at chip design.

According to you up until very recently, Apple wasn't supposed to be
DOING chip design.

On 2022-07-02 13:08, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> True. And remember, the whole idea is leverage your R&D
>> expenditures to create products that sell in huge volumes so the
>> percentage of R&D spending is lower, even though the absolute
>> amount of R&D spending is large.
>>
>> It would be foolish to increase R&D spending to some percentage of
>> revenue or profit without a valid reason.
>
> *The point is Apple is NOT a design powerhouse.*

So when you're wrong on the facts we should believe your opinions...

....why exactly?

>
> The whole world knows this. It's only the iKooks who don't know Apple
> sucks at chip design.

Until recently, you insisted that Apple didn't do chip design at all.

Wrong on the facts... ...again.

On 7/2/22 1:23 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-07-02 13:08, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> True. And remember, the whole idea is leverage your R&D
>>> expenditures to create products that sell in huge volumes so the
>>> percentage of R&D spending is lower, even though the absolute
>>> amount of R&D spending is large.
>>>
>>> It would be foolish to increase R&D spending to some percentage of
>>>  revenue or profit without a valid reason.
>>
>> *The point is Apple is NOT a design powerhouse.*
>
> So when you're wrong on the facts we should believe your opinions...
>
> ...why exactly?
>
>>
>> The whole world knows this. It's only the iKooks who don't know Apple
>> sucks at chip design.
>
> Until recently, you insisted that Apple didn't do chip design at all.
>
> Wrong on the facts... ...again.

When anyone continually argues with a fool, it would be fair to conclude
he also is a fool.

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:17:28 AM UTC-4, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> >> ...but then you implicitly claim you can quantify it.
> >
> > He's also trying to be highly dramatic about it...
>
> Remember, nobody spends _less_ than does Apple in their R&D spend, and even
> in sheer dollar amounts, _plenty_ of companies spend more than does Apple.

Nah, Apple spends quite a lot. What you meant to say is that they spend a smaller
percentage.

> But what Apple outspends everyone else in, by far, is propaganda.
> Which is why I put the surrender cost in terms of Ford class carriers.

Just remember that you did that, not anyone else.
> I'm speaking to morons like you and Alan Baker, who don't understand basic
> concepts the way a normal adult would... which is why I quantify the
> surrender by Apple to Qualcomm as costing as much as a completely equipped
> Ford class aircraft carrier, _including_ all the sophisticated avionics,
> airplanes, materiel, and personnel.
>
> That's how much a teeny tiny 5G modem is worth to a company like Apple who
> would have gone out of business if they weren't able to produce a 5G iPhone
> when they did.
>
> Apple knew that.
> It's _why_ Apple surrendered to Qualcomm.

Funny thing is that they survived ... nay, prospered ... for more than a decade before
that, all without any 5G modem chip.

> > The USS Gerald Ford has gotten a lot of heat for being the most expensive
> > carrier to date for the US ... $13B. Add fifty F35s for roughly $5B more and
> > then a few $B more in miscellaneous...call it $20B.
> >
> > Meantime, Apple has sold over 2.2 billion iPhones to date.
>
> War is partly about propaganda, and always has been partly about that.
> Apple is the worlds' master at propaganda.

The ground in a third of Ukraine looks quite a bit different today vs six months ago,
which isn't from Russians using propaganda.

> > Simple division ... $20B/$2.2B ... means that the modem cost is under $10/unit.
>
> Steve already showed that it's almost a hundred bucks alone for just the
> X55 modem, "hh", which just proves again how _ignorant_ you iKooks really
> are.

Nah, it shows that the fool was the one who claimed it was equal to only one Aircraft Carrier.

> You actually _believe_ Apple spends $10 per iPhone when just the one single
> part is almost a hundred bucks...

Nope. You did that with your aircraft carrier claim, not anyone else.

-hh