Your Name wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny how you've changed your claim.

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

Other that the best-in-class Apple Silicon CPUs

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

You're using the wrong tense.

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

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

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

Download the annual report like anyone else does.

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

Alan Browne wrote:

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

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

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

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

On 2022-03-11 9:51 a.m., Nic wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> What is the percentage that Apple spends in R&D compared to the others?
>>
>> Irrelevant. That is the point of the paragraph above. Apple cannot be
>> compared to "the others" in these terms.
>
> I knew you didn't know as the percentage is always reported to be very low.
> And Apple can be compared to many companies such as Samsung & Microsoft.
>
>>>> Outside their lane: They could simply buy Chrysler, Ford or GM for
>>>> example and that would solve the "car making" part of that sort of
>>>> venture. (And yeah, I know they are unlikely to do that).
>>>
>>> How much in dollars does Apple typically spend in yearly total R&D costs?
>>
>> Download the annual report like anyone else does.
>
> They are frequently reported because low R&D is a common theme with Apple.
> What's more important is that you didn't and still don't know them.

Wrong:

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

And wrong:

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

And wrong:

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

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

Oh, look!

It's another "Arlen" sockpuppet!

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

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

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

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

Don't be afraid to speak in technical language.

lew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Your comparison becomes...
"A Ferrari, BMW, Rolls Royce, AND a portable spaceship, etc, are faster
than my old Honda; but the faster cars cannot get to the supermarket
faster than me unless they break the law and the portable spaceship
doesn't even exist on the iOS platform".

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

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

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

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

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

In article <t0gc24$nur$1@dont-email.me>, lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

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

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

nospam wrote:

> that apple silicon is

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one touts that.

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

What is touted is that APPLE designs the chips.

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

Oops!

Wrong again!

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

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

Apple DESIGNS chips.

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

Is it really?

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

LOL

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

It isn't.

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

It's Apple Silicon...

....because Apple designs it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Max and Ultra are for the Mac.

Thanks for playing.

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

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

Didn't you read:

Arlen knows that Apple Silicon is actually TMSC Silicon.

(where's the smirk emoji hiding?)

😏

nospam wrote:

> different people value different features.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple phones that still received the last iOS:

Everything from the iPhone 6s forward.

The 6s was released more than 6 years ago.

In message <t0go07$75d$2@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-11 3:50 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> that apple silicon is
>>
>> Please don't say Apple Silicon like it means something because it doesn't.
>> It's *TSMC Silicon* based on ARM licenses if you _must_ use any term.

> It's Apple Silicon...

> ...because Apple designs it.

Sorry, Dipshit Troll is immune to facts.

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

Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

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

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

> Dipshit Troll doesn't understand how manufacturing works.

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

In article <t0ik2l$3ss$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you recall wrong.

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

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

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

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

also wrong.

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

<snip>

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 2022-03-12 12:20, sms wrote:
> On 3/9/2022 7:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "have to"?  They couldn't physically spend RD&E as a "typical industry
>> percentage" even if they wanted to - unless they got way outside their
>> lane (and that would entail acquiring entire large companies to do so).
>
> True.
>
> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
> percentage, goes down.
>
> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
> would go up from the current 8% or so.

Closer to 6%. Prior year 7%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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