nospam wrote:

> apple's chips are more power-efficient

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

On 3/12/2022 10:02 AM, RJH wrote:
> 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sms wrote:

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

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

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

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

nospam wrote:

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

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

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

Alan Browne wrote:

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

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

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

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

In article <t0iq7e$1k6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> If you understood what I know

which is absolutely nothing

nospam wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yet, *Apple's MARKETING budget is stupendous*

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

On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> The goal is to have volumes and revenue so huge that R&D expense, as a
>> percentage, goes down.
>>
>> If they want to expand into new product categories then R&D expenses
>> would go up from the current 8% or so.
>
> Do none of you realize it's not just the dismality' of the percentage.
>
> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget.
>
> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.

Nope.

You're either ignorant or lying...

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

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

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

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

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

4. Microsoft $19.27 billion (also similar)

5. Apple $18.75 billion

That was report on June 21, 2021.

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

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

....and really not by all that much.

You lose, Arlen.

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

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

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

>>
>> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing budget. [AA] <---
>>
>> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.
>
> Nope.
>
> You're either ignorant or lying...
>
> ...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.

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

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

You mean 4 more, I think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
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 2022-03-12 1:42 p.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-12 16:27, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-03-12 10:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not even the hugiality' of the enormity of Apple's marketing
>>> budget. [AA] <---
>>>
>>> Apple's _total R&D costs_ are also low compared to similar companies.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You're either ignorant or lying...
>>
>> ...and I suppose that both is a possibility as well.
>
> You can add a long list of negatives to that, actually.
>
>>
>>  From the most current figures I can find, there are  only 6 companies
>
> You mean 4 more, I think?
>

Sorry, yes.

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

>> in the entire world that spend more than Apple on R&D:
>>
>> 1. Amazon     $42.74 billion (not really a similar company at all)
>>
>> 2. Alphabet   $27.57 billion (also not really that similar)
>>
>> 3. Huawei     $22.04 billion (similar in some areas)
>>
>> 4. Microsoft  $19.27 billion (also similar)
>>
>> 5. Apple      $18.75 billion
>
> Quibble (and yes not the exact same time ref as your source):
>
> Apple spent some $21.9B on R&D in their 2021 FY.
>
> When you consider the narrowness of their products and service base
> compared to the others above, it's quite high.
>
> And I see "it" reference Apple's marketing budget above.[AA]
>
> To that I'd say the shareholders approve very much. Because Apple can't
> realistically spend more on R&D, so might as well use that sloshing
> bucket of cash for more marketing.  That leads to more brand awareness,
> sales and profits.  The shareholders can only approve.
>
> Well done Apple.  Sounds like an "ungodly well managed™" company to me.
>
> (™ "ungodly well managed" is a trademark of Charlie Munger, Vice
> Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway).
>

Alan Browne wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I (think I) do.

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

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

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

"Little tiny Huawei"? Really?

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

That's $141.2 billion.

That's not tiny by any measure.

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

And so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say they spend enough on R&D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 2022-03-12 21:29:11 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-03-12 11:29 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you understood what I know
>>>
>>> which is absolutely nothing
>>
>> And yet I have known Apple's R&D expenditure by _any_ means you wish to
>> count it (whether by percentage or by total or by per employee, etc.)
>>  *is dismal*
>
> <https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21>
>

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

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

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

<snip>

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

> It's always thermals.

it's much more than just that.

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

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

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

Your Name wrote:

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

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

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

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

HINT: You can't.

sms wrote:

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

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

HINT: You can't.

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

Hint: You can't.

Alan Browne wrote:

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

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

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

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

Why?
I don't know why.

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

nospam wrote:

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

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

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

Your Name wrote:

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

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

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

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

At least Samsung can do both.