Qualcomm strikes new Apple deal on 5G chips
https://www.ft.com/content/7b080b34-e551-4b17-a132-efdecfd12d4c

Extension of supply agreement signals Big Tech group is still unable to
perfect the technology in-house [because Apple is incompetent].

Remember, Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever made a best-in-class
chip (and no, a CPU that must be throttled in a year is not best in class).

Qualcomm has extended a deal to supply 5G modems for Apple's smartphones,
in a sign the iPhone maker is still struggling to perfect the technology
in-house.

Yet again, Apple abjectly and rather meekly surrendered to Qualcomm.

Apple has been trying to make modems - which govern how its devices
communicate with cellular mobile networks - for its iPhones since 2018.

But because Apple is incompetent in chip design - Apple has failed.

The plan is an extension of its multibillion-dollar effort to develop more
of its semiconductor components itself instead of relying on external
suppliers.

Apple sued Qualcomm in 2017, complaining of what it considered to be
onerous licensing fees.

After the two companies settled their litigation in 2019, Apple then
purchased Intel's 5G unit, for $1bn, to "expedite" its own competing
technology with the hopes of displacing Qualcomm after 2023.

However, Qualcomm said on Monday that it will supply Apple with its chips
for its smartphone launches in 2024, 2025 and 2026.

The terms of the deal were not made public but Qualcomm said they were
similar to the original deal struck in 2019, when Apple withdrew its legal
claims against the chip group.

"This agreement reinforces Qualcomm's record of sustained leadership across
5G technologies and products," the San Diego-based chipmaker said.

In other words, Apple still can't make something as simple as a 5G modem
(which, let's be clear, far smaller companies successfully designed!).

Apple is Qualcomm's largest customer, accounting for almost 25 per cent of
its revenue, and it was expecting that the iPhone 15 - which is being
launched on Tuesday - would be among the last to rely on its modems.

The two companies were locked in a range of high-profile intellectual
property and contract disputes around the world until striking an accord in
2019.

The new Qualcomm deal leaves open the prospect of Apple phasing in its own
chips into its smartphones over the next three years if they are ready.

Qualcomm said its long-term financial planning assumption was that it would
supply a 20 per cent share of the relevant chips for the smartphone launch
in 2026.

Apple has long sought to develop its own solutions for important
technologies that power its products, from software to silicon.

Its in-house project to make chips, dubbed Apple Silicon, has yielded
strong results for several years in the iPhone's core processors. More
recently, it has adapted those chips for its Macs, replacing Intel as the
primary workhorse in its desktop and notebook computers.

Qualcomm's shares jumped as much as 8 per cent in pre-market trading after
Monday's news before paring some of their gains. The shares were up 4 per
cent in early afternoon trading in New York.

In May this year, Apple struck a multibillion-dollar, multiyear deal with
Broadcom involving other 5G components.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote

> Qualcomm strikes new Apple deal on 5G chips
> https://www.ft.com/content/7b080b34-e551-4b17-a132-efdecfd12d4c
>
> Extension of supply agreement signals Big Tech group is still unable to
> perfect the technology in-house [because Apple is incompetent].
>
> Remember, Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever made a best-in-class
> chip (and no, a CPU that must be throttled in a year is not best in class).
>
> Qualcomm has extended a deal to supply 5G modems for Apple's smartphones,
> in a sign the iPhone maker is still struggling to perfect the technology
> in-house.
>
> Yet again, Apple abjectly and rather meekly surrendered to Qualcomm.
>
> Apple has been trying to make modems - which govern how its devices
> communicate with cellular mobile networks - for its iPhones since 2018.
>
> But because Apple is incompetent in chip design - Apple has failed.
>
> The plan is an extension of its multibillion-dollar effort to develop more
> of its semiconductor components itself instead of relying on external
> suppliers.
>
> Apple sued Qualcomm in 2017, complaining of what it considered to be
> onerous licensing fees.
>
> After the two companies settled their litigation in 2019, Apple then
> purchased Intel's 5G unit, for $1bn, to "expedite" its own competing
> technology with the hopes of displacing Qualcomm after 2023.
>
> However, Qualcomm said on Monday that it will supply Apple with its chips
> for its smartphone launches in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
>
> The terms of the deal were not made public but Qualcomm said they were
> similar to the original deal struck in 2019, when Apple withdrew its legal
> claims against the chip group.
>
> "This agreement reinforces Qualcomm's record of sustained leadership across
> 5G technologies and products," the San Diego-based chipmaker said.
>
> In other words, Apple still can't make something as simple as a 5G modem
> (which, let's be clear, far smaller companies successfully designed!).
>
> Apple is Qualcomm's largest customer, accounting for almost 25 per cent of
> its revenue, and it was expecting that the iPhone 15 - which is being
> launched on Tuesday - would be among the last to rely on its modems.
>
> The two companies were locked in a range of high-profile intellectual
> property and contract disputes around the world until striking an accord in
> 2019.
>
> The new Qualcomm deal leaves open the prospect of Apple phasing in its own
> chips into its smartphones over the next three years if they are ready.
>
> Qualcomm said its long-term financial planning assumption was that it would
> supply a 20 per cent share of the relevant chips for the smartphone launch
> in 2026.
>
> Apple has long sought to develop its own solutions for important
> technologies that power its products, from software to silicon.
>
> Its in-house project to make chips, dubbed Apple Silicon, has yielded
> strong results for several years in the iPhone's core processors. More
> recently, it has adapted those chips for its Macs, replacing Intel as the
> primary workhorse in its desktop and notebook computers.
>
> Qualcomm's shares jumped as much as 8 per cent in pre-market trading after
> Monday's news before paring some of their gains. The shares were up 4 per
> cent in early afternoon trading in New York.
>
> In May this year, Apple struck a multibillion-dollar, multiyear deal with
> Broadcom involving other 5G components.

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote

> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213913

Holy Shit. Apple coders are morons!

Despite the ignorant uneducated low-IQ iKook Alan Browne claiming
"zero-click" holes can't exist in iOS, this is another no-click exploit.
CVE-2023-41064 and CVE-2023-41061

All the attacker has to do is send a single image to your iMessage acct.
That's it.

One image.
And you don't even need to know it's there.

*That's how atrocious Apple's coding is - that zero-click holes abound*

There's a reason iOS has more than twice to three times as many zero-day
bugs as Android and more than ten times the exploits in the wild.

Did you look at that zero-day holes (which Apple did NOT find!)?
(Yes. Holes. Plural. The same bug in two different places!)

*Jesus Christ Apple! Who does your coding? High school dropouts?*

VE-2023-41064 is related to a buffer overflow issue in ImageIO where
processing a maliciously crafted image results in arbitrary code execution.

The same result was noted for Wallet in CVE-2023-41061 due to a maliciously
crafted attachment.

*It's classic Apple incompetent coding - ridiculously sophomoric*

Description:
A buffer overflow issue was addressed with improved memory handling.
CVE-2023-41064: The Citizen Lab at The University of Torontoʼs Munk School
"Apple dealt with a validation issue with improved logic"

In other words, the sophomores in high school who do Apple's coding added a
check for a buffer overflow in two separate pieces of Apple code.

Not only is Apple incompetent in chip design - they're morons in coding.
--
It's shocking how atrocious Apple products are, where the ikooks think it's
normal to have the most zero day holes & exploited vulnerabilities.

On 9/11/23 20:29, Wally J wrote:
> Holy Shit. Apple coders are morons!
>
> Despite the ignorant uneducated low-IQ iKook Alan Browne claiming
> "zero-click" holes can't exist in iOS, this is another no-click exploit.
> CVE-2023-41064 and CVE-2023-41061
>
> All the attacker has to do is send a single image to your iMessage acct.
> That's it.
>
> One image.
> And you don't even need to know it's there.
>
> *That's how atrocious Apple's coding is - that zero-click holes abound*

How does that even happen??

>
> There's a reason iOS has more than twice to three times as many zero-day
> bugs as Android and more than ten times the exploits in the wild.
>
> Did you look at that zero-day holes (which Apple did NOT find!)?
> (Yes. Holes. Plural. The same bug in two different places!)
>
> *Jesus Christ Apple! Who does your coding? High school dropouts?*

~~A high school dropout founded the company so~~

> Not only is Apple incompetent in chip design - they're morons in coding.

Yea

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

>> *That's how atrocious Apple's coding is - that zero-click holes abound*
>
> How does that even happen??

It's simple if you understand what Apple is...
*This proves beyond doubt Apple isn't a design company*

Not only can't Apple design something as simple as a 5G modem...
*But Apple has _never_ designed a best-in-class chip in it's history!*

Apple is like the big soda and big tobacco companies - all marketing and
almost zero engineering. *All bluff* *No substance*

Apple can't even figure out how to integrate a modem onto the SOC let alone
design one - whereas plenty of smaller outfits are on their 5th generation!

It's well publicized that Apple spends something like ten times the
engineering budget on marketing.

If they spent that money on engineering, the holes would be caught by QA.

The problem is these holes are simple buffer overflows - the most
sophomoric of all types of holes.

Not only are the chip-designers incompetent - but the coders are also.
The proof is in the taste of the pudding.

This latest update release contains _three_ zero-click zero-day holes!
*Yes, three!*

That's absurd.
*Apple still can't design something as trivially simple as a 5G modem!*
*And Apple has two to three times the holes & ten times the exploits!*
--
When you understand what Apple is, you find they're no different than big
tobacco and big soda companies - all marketing - and almost no substance.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> *Apple still can't design something as trivially simple as a 5G modem!*
> *And Apple has two to three times the holes & ten times the exploits!*

Apple's 5G Modem Won't Be Ready for Another 3 Years
https://www.pcmag.com/news/apples-5g-modem-wont-be-ready-for-another-3-years

On 2023-09-11 17:48, Wally J wrote:
> Qualcomm strikes new Apple deal on 5G chips
> https://www.ft.com/content/7b080b34-e551-4b17-a132-efdecfd12d4c
>
> Extension of supply agreement signals Big Tech group is still unable to
> perfect the technology in-house [because Apple is incompetent].
>
> Remember, Apple has _never_ in its entire history ever made a best-in-class
> chip (and no, a CPU that must be throttled in a year is not best in class).

The CPU didn't NEED to be throttled, Arlen.

And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?

>
> Qualcomm has extended a deal to supply 5G modems for Apple's smartphones,
> in a sign the iPhone maker is still struggling to perfect the technology
> in-house.
>
> Yet again, Apple abjectly and rather meekly surrendered to Qualcomm.
>
> Apple has been trying to make modems - which govern how its devices
> communicate with cellular mobile networks - for its iPhones since 2018.
>
> But because Apple is incompetent in chip design - Apple has failed.
>
> The plan is an extension of its multibillion-dollar effort to develop more
> of its semiconductor components itself instead of relying on external
> suppliers.
>
> Apple sued Qualcomm in 2017, complaining of what it considered to be
> onerous licensing fees.
>
> After the two companies settled their litigation in 2019, Apple then
> purchased Intel's 5G unit, for $1bn, to "expedite" its own competing
> technology with the hopes of displacing Qualcomm after 2023.
>
> However, Qualcomm said on Monday that it will supply Apple with its chips
> for its smartphone launches in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
>
> The terms of the deal were not made public but Qualcomm said they were
> similar to the original deal struck in 2019, when Apple withdrew its legal
> claims against the chip group.
>
> "This agreement reinforces Qualcomm's record of sustained leadership across
> 5G technologies and products," the San Diego-based chipmaker said.
>
> In other words, Apple still can't make something as simple as a 5G modem
> (which, let's be clear, far smaller companies successfully designed!).
>
> Apple is Qualcomm's largest customer, accounting for almost 25 per cent of
> its revenue, and it was expecting that the iPhone 15 - which is being
> launched on Tuesday - would be among the last to rely on its modems.
>
> The two companies were locked in a range of high-profile intellectual
> property and contract disputes around the world until striking an accord in
> 2019.
>
> The new Qualcomm deal leaves open the prospect of Apple phasing in its own
> chips into its smartphones over the next three years if they are ready.
>
> Qualcomm said its long-term financial planning assumption was that it would
> supply a 20 per cent share of the relevant chips for the smartphone launch
> in 2026.
>
> Apple has long sought to develop its own solutions for important
> technologies that power its products, from software to silicon.
>
> Its in-house project to make chips, dubbed Apple Silicon, has yielded
> strong results for several years in the iPhone's core processors. More
> recently, it has adapted those chips for its Macs, replacing Intel as the
> primary workhorse in its desktop and notebook computers.

So your source disagrees with you about Apple Silicon processors.

>
> Qualcomm's shares jumped as much as 8 per cent in pre-market trading after
> Monday's news before paring some of their gains. The shares were up 4 per
> cent in early afternoon trading in New York.
>
> In May this year, Apple struck a multibillion-dollar, multiyear deal with
> Broadcom involving other 5G components.

On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
> And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?

I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed it..

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>> And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
>
> I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed it..
>

They didn't "throttle a chip".

They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting close
to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?

Alan wrote:

>On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>>>And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
>>
>>I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed
>>it..
>>
>
>They didn't "throttle a chip".
>
>They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?

Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
rather than just get new batteries.

--
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last."
~ Winston Churchill

On 2023-09-12 10:54, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>>>> And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
>>>
>>> I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed
>>> it..
>>>
>>
>> They didn't "throttle a chip".
>>
>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>
> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
> rather than just get new batteries.
>

It's a sensible thing whether or not you inform the owner. The two
issues are orthogonal.

A sudden shutdown without warning is something you do not want.

But in any case, the speed throttling has nothing to do with the quality
of the processor, as Apple's processors are the widely-acknowledged
leaders in performance/watt.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-12 10:54, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>>>>> And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
>>>>
>>>> I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed
>>>> it..
>>>>
>>>
>>> They didn't "throttle a chip".
>>>
>>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>>
>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>
>
> It's a sensible thing whether or not you inform the owner. The two
> issues are orthogonal.
>
> A sudden shutdown without warning is something you do not want.
>
> But in any case, the speed throttling has nothing to do with the quality
> of the processor, as Apple's processors are the widely-acknowledged
> leaders in performance/watt.
>

So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning customers
is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about you after all.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>>They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>>close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>
> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
> rather than just get new batteries.

Hi badgolferman,

Do you see what I mean about the iKooks not owning adult cognitive skills?

The fact is Apple screwed up on only "some" phone designs, such that Apple
should have cared about their customers and just recalled the phones.

But Apple would never do the decent thing to stand by their mistakes.
Apple _secretly_ throttled only some phones with only some OS versions.

That proves it's not the battery; but the iKooks can't comprehend that.

In addition, Apple secretly _backated_ the release notes, for which almost
forty attorneys general successfully sued Apple in addition to the class
action suit (and in addition to the French criminal prosecution).

Each of those statements is something anyone who is not ignorant would know
and yet, the iKooks are completely oblivious of all truths about Apple.

It's not a question of whether or not iKooks are oblivious to the truth.
It's only a question of why.

I think I know why, and I've said many times why I think why.

*But what do _you_ think is the reason iKooks are oblivious to the facts?*

On 9/12/23 12:54, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>
> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
> rather than just get new batteries.
>

Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
*right there* and they just...didn't??

--
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>> But in any case, the speed throttling has nothing to do with the quality
>> of the processor, as Apple's processors are the widely-acknowledged
>> leaders in performance/watt.
>>
>
> So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning customers
> is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about you after all.

Maybe?

On 9/12/2023 4:07 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/12/23 12:54, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>>
>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand.  Perhaps
>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>> would have been prudent.  In this case they were found to be guilty of
>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>
>
> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
> *right there* and they just...didn't??
>

Along with a pop-up dialogue and opt-in/out...

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>
>
> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
> *right there* and they just...didn't??

You have to keep in mind that I reported this first to this newsgroup.
Because I keep abreast of what is in the news about Apple products.

You have to then keep in mind that for years, the iKooks denied the truth.
They claimed all sorts of lies Apple promulgated - which failed in court.

Apple paid over a billion dollars in the main lawsuit, and another hundred
million or so in the criminal French prosecution & Attorneys General suits.

*Clearly Apple is a despicable company*
*Devoid of moral fortitude*

Any decent company would have stood by their customers when they figured
out that the power design of only some iPhones was incompetently designed.

Any decent company would have recalled the affected phones (which, let's be
very clear, was only a subset of phones - even as all the Apple iPhones and
iPads used the exact same battery technology - a point lost on iKooks).

*Had Apple been a decent company - they would have recalled the phones*
*And they would have replaced the battery on those affected phones*
*Probably for two life cycles - (approx. four years)*

Instead... *Apple tried to _hide_ their incompetent-design* mistake.

As an adult, I wonder how much it would have cost Apple to simply do the
decent moral thing instead of trying to screw the customer by
a. Secretly installing software that throttled the affected phones
b. Without telling anyone - not even Genius Bar employees
c. Such that millions of people went out and bought new phones

And worse... to further cover up
A. Apple secretly added a cryptic single line to the release notes
B. Which merely alluded to the fact they "changed power delivery"
C. And then Apple secretly _backdated_ those release notes

These _criminal_ actions by Apple were duly noticed and Apple lost every
civil and criminal case against them (AFAIK) because the proof is there.

And yet... the ignorant low-IQ uneducated religious zealot iKooks are
completely oblivious of every single well-known fact I just stated.

Why?

*Why are the iKooks so completely oblivious of all facts about Apple?*

On 2023-09-12 13:04, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-12 10:54, badgolferman wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having designed
>>>>> it..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They didn't "throttle a chip".
>>>>
>>>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>>>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>>>
>>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
>>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>>> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
>>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>>
>>
>> It's a sensible thing whether or not you inform the owner. The two
>> issues are orthogonal.
>>
>> A sudden shutdown without warning is something you do not want.
>>
>> But in any case, the speed throttling has nothing to do with the quality
>> of the processor, as Apple's processors are the widely-acknowledged
>> leaders in performance/watt.
>>
>
> So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning customers
> is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about you after all.
>

As opposed to the alternative—just shutting down without warning?

On 2023-09-12 13:07, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/12/23 12:54, badgolferman wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was getting
>>> close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you agree?
>>
>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand.  Perhaps
>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>> would have been prudent.  In this case they were found to be guilty of
>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>
>
> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
> *right there* and they just...didn't??
>

Showing your ignorance...

That is what Apple created after the kerfuffle of them just putting the
phone into that mode automatically.

On 2023-09-12 13:19, Wally J wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>
>>> Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand. Perhaps
>>> providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want that option
>>> would have been prudent. In this case they were found to be guilty of
>>> hiding what they were doing, which made owners upgrade to newer phones
>>> rather than just get new batteries.
>>>
>>
>> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
>> *right there* and they just...didn't??
>
> You have to keep in mind that I reported this first to this newsgroup.
> Because I keep abreast of what is in the news about Apple products.
>
> You have to then keep in mind that for years, the iKooks denied the truth.
> They claimed all sorts of lies Apple promulgated - which failed in court.
>
> Apple paid over a billion dollars in the main lawsuit, and another hundred
> million or so in the criminal French prosecution & Attorneys General suits.
>
> *Clearly Apple is a despicable company*
> *Devoid of moral fortitude*
>
> Any decent company would have stood by their customers when they figured
> out that the power design of only some iPhones was incompetently designed.
>
> Any decent company would have recalled the affected phones (which, let's be
> very clear, was only a subset of phones - even as all the Apple iPhones and
> iPads used the exact same battery technology - a point lost on iKooks).
>
> *Had Apple been a decent company - they would have recalled the phones*
> *And they would have replaced the battery on those affected phones*
> *Probably for two life cycles - (approx. four years)*
>
> Instead... *Apple tried to _hide_ their incompetent-design* mistake.
>
> As an adult, I wonder how much it would have cost Apple to simply do the
> decent moral thing instead of trying to screw the customer by
> a. Secretly installing software that throttled the affected phones
> b. Without telling anyone - not even Genius Bar employees
> c. Such that millions of people went out and bought new phones
>
> And worse... to further cover up
> A. Apple secretly added a cryptic single line to the release notes
> B. Which merely alluded to the fact they "changed power delivery"
> C. And then Apple secretly _backdated_ those release notes
>
> These _criminal_ actions by Apple were duly noticed and Apple lost every
> civil and criminal case against them (AFAIK) because the proof is there.
>
> And yet... the ignorant low-IQ uneducated religious zealot iKooks are
> completely oblivious of every single well-known fact I just stated.
>
> Why?
>
> *Why are the iKooks so completely oblivious of all facts about Apple?*

Apple never lost a criminal case about this.

On 12 Sep 2023 at 9:16:46 PM, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:

>> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
>> *right there* and they just...didn't??
>>
>
> Along with a pop-up dialogue and opt-in/out...

Is that low-power-mode switch & pop-up dialog menu on my iPad?

Where?
--
Cheers, Quellen

On 9/12/2023 4:24 PM, Quellen wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2023 at 9:16:46 PM, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
>
>>> Ironically, they *already have a low power mode switch*. The option was
>>> *right there* and they just...didn't??
>>>
>>
>> Along with a pop-up dialogue and opt-in/out...
>
> Is that low-power-mode switch & pop-up dialog menu on my iPad?
>
> Where?

Yep. Settings/Battery/Low-Power Mode toggle.

Alan wrote:

>On 2023-09-12 13:04, badgolferman wrote:
>>Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>On 2023-09-12 10:54, badgolferman wrote:
>>>>Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2023-09-12 08:20, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>>>On 9/12/23 09:51, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T
>>>>>>>design chips?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd guess that you could throttle a chip without having
>>>>>>designed it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They didn't "throttle a chip".
>>>>>
>>>>>They reduced the speed of the phone when the battery was
>>>>>getting close to exhausted; a sensible thing to do, don't you
>>>>>agree?
>>>>
>>>>Only if the owner of the phone had been informed beforehand.
>>>>Perhaps providing a switch to let the owner decide if they want
>>>>that option would have been prudent. In this case they were
>>>>found to be guilty of hiding what they were doing, which made
>>>>owners upgrade to newer phones rather than just get new
>>>>batteries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a sensible thing whether or not you inform the owner. The two
>>>issues are orthogonal.
>>>
>>>A sudden shutdown without warning is something you do not want.
>>>
>>>But in any case, the speed throttling has nothing to do with the
>>>quality of the processor, as Apple's processors are the
>>>widely-acknowledged leaders in performance/watt.
>>>
>>
>>So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning
>>customers is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about
>>you after all.
>>
>
>As opposed to the alternative—just shutting down without warning?

That is not the only alternative. Warning users that their batteries
are dying and will cause problems is a better choice. Give the
consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
than trick them into buying new ones.

In article <xn0o6r894423hh7000@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning
> >>customers is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about
> >>you after all.
> >>
> >
> >As opposed to the alternative‹just shutting down without warning?
>
> That is not the only alternative.

what other alternatives do you think there are?

when an aging battery can't source sufficient current for high demand
loads, the voltage drops below what's needed to operate the device,
resulting in a sudden and unexpected shutdown. this is not unique to
iphones. it's something that affects all batteries.

the only alternative is to limit high demand loads so that the battery
is not pushed beyond its limits where shutdowns can happen.

as has been said many times before, only the peaks are limited. normal
everyday actions (messaging, browsing, email, etc.) are unaffected.

> Warning users that their batteries
> are dying and will cause problems is a better choice.

warning users doesn't change the fact that their phone is at risk for
unexpectedly shutting down under load unless peak demands are limited,
and they do get a warning after the first shutdown, at which point peak
limiting is active.

> Give the
> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
> than trick them into buying new ones.

nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.

in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.

limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xn0o6r894423hh7000@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning
>>>> customers is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about
>>>> you after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As opposed to the alternative‹just shutting down without warning?
>>
>> That is not the only alternative.
>
> what other alternatives do you think there are?
>
> when an aging battery can't source sufficient current for high demand
> loads, the voltage drops below what's needed to operate the device,
> resulting in a sudden and unexpected shutdown. this is not unique to
> iphones. it's something that affects all batteries.
>
> the only alternative is to limit high demand loads so that the battery
> is not pushed beyond its limits where shutdowns can happen.
>
> as has been said many times before, only the peaks are limited. normal
> everyday actions (messaging, browsing, email, etc.) are unaffected.
>
>> Warning users that their batteries
>> are dying and will cause problems is a better choice.
>
> warning users doesn't change the fact that their phone is at risk for
> unexpectedly shutting down under load unless peak demands are limited,
> and they do get a warning after the first shutdown, at which point peak
> limiting is active.
>
>> Give the
>> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
>> than trick them into buying new ones.
>
> nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.
>
> in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.
>
> limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
> phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
>

Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple’s. What Apple did was
sneaky and limited the consumer’s control over their own device.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>> limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
>> phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
>>
>
> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple�s. What Apple did was
> sneaky and limited the consumer�s control over their own device.

Hi badgolferman,

Remember: Apple only tells the truth when forced to, in court.

What's critical for you to realize is these iKooks don't even realize that
it was only a small subset of Apple iPhones that were affected by this.

*Which means _every_ excuse they foment "about batteries" is bullshit*

Not only that, but they ignore that Apple could have done the right thing.
But Apple chose to save their own skin by _secretly_ throttling devices.

*What Apple _should_ have done is own up to their design incompetence*
*And then make the customer whole by replacing the batteries on a recall*

That is what a reputable company would have done, don't you think?

That morally acceptable response would have not only shown that Apple does
care about the customer (which clearly, Apple does not); but it also might
have been less expensive than paying the billions of dollars it cost them.

Why do you think the iKooks are completely ignorant of the logic above?
--
I ask adult questions on this child-like Apple newsgroup in the hope that
an adult response is possible from the people who post to this newsgroup.