How in the world did Apple dupe ZDNet?

<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac-studio-review/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf6j>

'But, of course, it's the M1 processors inside the Mac Studio that
really set it apart from the more compact Mac Mini. As mentioned, the
Mac Studio is available with either an M1 Max or M1 Ultra, the latter
providing a 20-core CPU, 48 or 64 GPU cores, and a 32-core Neural Engine.

The top-end M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips bolted together
using Apple's on-die UltraFusion architecture.'

Or did Apple bribe them to stay quiet?

Because nowhere does the article mention TSMC.

:-)

On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, Alan wrote:
> How in the world did Apple dupe ZDNet?
>
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac-studio-review/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf6j>
>
>
> 'But, of course, it's the M1 processors inside the Mac Studio that
> really set it apart from the more compact Mac Mini. As mentioned, the
> Mac Studio is available with either an M1 Max or M1 Ultra, the latter
> providing a 20-core CPU, 48 or 64 GPU cores, and a 32-core Neural Engine.
>
> The top-end M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips bolted together
> using Apple's on-die UltraFusion architecture.'
>
> Or did Apple bribe them to stay quiet?
>
> Because nowhere does the article mention TSMC.

No bribes, ZDNet's authors just aren't technology experts or
semiconductor geeks that understand about chip technology. You can't
expect many journalists to know the details about this kind of stuff.

The chip is fabricated by TSMC using TSMC's "chip-on-wafer-on-substrate
with silicon interposer," a fancy name for a type of MCM (multi-chip
module), see <https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/tsmc/cowos>. Apple's trade
name for the TSMC process is "UltraFusion."

..

In article <t1t1de$umo$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, Alan wrote:
> > How in the world did Apple dupe ZDNet?
> >
> >
> > <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac-studio-review/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf6j>
> >
> >
> >
> > 'But, of course, it's the M1 processors inside the Mac Studio that
> > really set it apart from the more compact Mac Mini. As mentioned, the
> > Mac Studio is available with either an M1 Max or M1 Ultra, the latter
> > providing a 20-core CPU, 48 or 64 GPU cores, and a 32-core Neural Engine.
> >
> > The top-end M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips bolted together
> > using Apple's on-die UltraFusion architecture.'
> >
> > Or did Apple bribe them to stay quiet?
> >
> > Because nowhere does the article mention TSMC.
>
> No bribes, ZDNet's authors just aren't technology experts or
> semiconductor geeks that understand about chip technology. You can't
> expect many journalists to know the details about this kind of stuff.

they're clearly not the only ones lacking in expertise or understanding
and you are entirely missing the point of his post.

sms wrote:

> The chip is fabricated by TSMC

Steve fell for Alan Baker's bait, which has nothing to do with Android.
Nobody saw the AB post except for you, Steve, as AB is universally plonked.

Alan Baker falls for every marketing trick in the book due to his low IQ,
lack of any education in marketing ploys, and his ego wrapped up in slogans.

Hence Alan Baker is _desperate_ to claim something (anything!) for Apple
that's better than Android because his self-esteem is indelibly intertwined
into his choice of Apple's decidedly substandard products which have no
basis for their wild claims (such as the silicon being of Apple's genesis).

As a result AB _hates_ the fact that "apple" silicon _is_ "*TSMC Silicon*".
No matter how many ways Apple trademarks that fact, it's still that fact.
--
Woo hoo. Not. Apple buys the modem from Qualcomm, woo hoo; and woo hoo,
Apple buys the technology from ARM; and TSMC fabs it, yet another woo hoo.

nospam wrote:

> they're clearly not the only ones lacking in expertise or understanding
> and you are entirely missing the point of his post.

It's Apple who can't even _design_ something as small as a modem, nospam.
And it's Apple who can't even _integrate_ a modem they bought outright.

It's Apple who lacks the expertise in design.
But Apple makes up for that lack of design expertise with stellar MARKETING!

And you iKooks fall for every obvious marketing trick in the book, nospam.

Both nospam and Alan Baker are iKooks who suffer from the same issues:
a. Their ego is somehow (strangely so) intertwined with Apple marketing BS
b. And both lack the IQ necessary to separate fact from fiction
c. Worse, both have no education (certainly none in marketing gimmicks)

Apple _trademarks_ anything they can as a mere marketing gimmick.
That way they can "sell" that gimmick to ignorant fools like nospam & AB.

The fact remains almost everyone buys Qualcomm modems, so woo hoo there.
Almost everyone buys any one given level of ARM technology too, so woo hoo.
And almost everyone has TSMC fab those Qualcomm/ARM technologies. Woo hoo.

The only woo hoo in all of Alan Bakers diatribe was he's absolutely enamored
that Apple bothered to trademark what nobody else bothered to trademark.

Wow. Apple can make "*TSMC Silicon!*" using Qualcomm & ARM technology.

Woo hoo.
--
Apple buys the modem from Qualcomm, woo hoo; and Apple buys the technology
from ARM, woo hoo; and TSMC fabs it for them, yet another woo hoo. Not.

On 2022-03-28 3:35 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> they're clearly not the only ones lacking in expertise or understanding
>> and you are entirely missing the point of his post.
>
> It's Apple who can't even _design_ something as small as a modem, nospam.
> And it's Apple who can't even _integrate_ a modem they bought outright.

There is no substantiation of either of those claims.

>
> It's Apple who lacks the expertise in design. But Apple makes up for
> that lack of design expertise with stellar MARKETING!
>
> And you iKooks fall for every obvious marketing trick in the book, nospam.
>
> Both nospam and Alan Baker are iKooks who suffer from the same issues:
> a. Their ego is somehow (strangely so) intertwined with Apple marketing BS
> b. And both lack the IQ necessary to separate fact from fiction
> c. Worse, both have no education (certainly none in marketing gimmicks)
>
> Apple _trademarks_ anything they can as a mere marketing gimmick.
> That way they can "sell" that gimmick to ignorant fools like nospam & AB.
>
> The fact remains almost everyone buys Qualcomm modems, so woo hoo there.
> Almost everyone buys any one given level of ARM technology too, so woo hoo.
> And almost everyone has TSMC fab those Qualcomm/ARM technologies. Woo hoo.
>
> The only woo hoo in all of Alan Bakers diatribe was he's absolutely
> enamored
> that Apple bothered to trademark what nobody else bothered to trademark.
>
> Wow. Apple can make "*TSMC Silicon!*" using Qualcomm & ARM technology.

No. Apple can design their own CPUs that run the ARM instruction set and
have them manufactured by TSMC...

....just as many other chip companies have done.

In message <t1t1de$umo$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, Alan wrote:
>> How in the world did Apple dupe ZDNet?
>>
>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac-studio-review/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf6j>
>>
>>
>> 'But, of course, it's the M1 processors inside the Mac Studio that
>> really set it apart from the more compact Mac Mini. As mentioned, the
>> Mac Studio is available with either an M1 Max or M1 Ultra, the latter
>> providing a 20-core CPU, 48 or 64 GPU cores, and a 32-core Neural Engine.
>>
>> The top-end M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips bolted together
>> using Apple's on-die UltraFusion architecture.'
>>
>> Or did Apple bribe them to stay quiet?
>>
>> Because nowhere does the article mention TSMC.

> No bribes, ZDNet's authors just aren't technology experts or
> semiconductor geeks that understand about chip technology. You can't
> expect many journalists to know the details about this kind of stuff.

They certainly know the details better than you do.

Only a completely brain-dead troll would try to claim that Apple's chips
are not Apple.

--
Vitamins are a waste of money, you can eat like $200 worth and still feel hungry.

On 2022-03-28 12:13 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, Alan wrote:
>> How in the world did Apple dupe ZDNet?
>>
>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac-studio-review/?ftag=CAD-03-10abf6j>
>>
>>
>> 'But, of course, it's the M1 processors inside the Mac Studio that
>> really set it apart from the more compact Mac Mini. As mentioned, the
>> Mac Studio is available with either an M1 Max or M1 Ultra, the latter
>> providing a 20-core CPU, 48 or 64 GPU cores, and a 32-core Neural Engine.
>>
>> The top-end M1 Ultra is essentially two M1 Max chips bolted together
>> using Apple's on-die UltraFusion architecture.'
>>
>> Or did Apple bribe them to stay quiet?
>>
>> Because nowhere does the article mention TSMC.
>
> No bribes, ZDNet's authors just aren't technology experts or
> semiconductor geeks that understand about chip technology. You can't
> expect many journalists to know the details about this kind of stuff.

'Cliff has worked on numerous computer and technology titles, including
PC Magazine and MacUser, and has over 20 years' experience in tech
journalism.'

But please:

Find anyone in the tech press who is reporting that anyone other than
Apple is designing the Apple Silcon SoC/CPUs.

>
> The chip is fabricated by TSMC using TSMC's "chip-on-wafer-on-substrate
> with silicon interposer," a fancy name for a type of MCM (multi-chip
> module), see <https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/tsmc/cowos>. Apple's trade
> name for the TSMC process is "UltraFusion."
>
>
>
> .

Lewis wrote:

> Only a completely brain-dead troll would try to claim that Apple's chips
> are not Apple.

Nobody said that but you and Alan Baker because your IQ is too low to
understand what they said, you have no education, and your ego is indelibly
wrapped up in believing that Apple has the greatest marketing on earth.

What the _adults_ said, which you whooshed on, is
a. Apple buys modem from Qualcomm (& _still_ can't integrate it into an SOC)
b. Apple bought the ARM technology
c. TSMC fab'd the SOC, not Apple

It's *TSMC Silicon*.

You don't understand _any_ of that because of three things:
a. Your IQ (and that of Alan Baker) is around 40
b. Your education (and that of Alan Baker) doesn't exist
c. Your sense of self esteem (rightly so) is in the toilet

All you iKooks garner almost all your self esteem from Apple marketing BS.
You even gloat time & again over how much profit Apple makes off you iKooks.

Never forget _nobody_ in high tech spends _less_ than does Apple on R&D.
Never forget you can't make those profits off of an intelligent customer.
--
A key difference between an educated and uneducated person is that the
educated person makes assessments based on the actual facts of the matter.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-03-28 12:13 p.m., sms wrote:
>> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, someone wrote:
>> The chip is fabricated by TSMC:

Please do not respond in c.m.a and only respond if you must to
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system because this thread
has nothing to do with Android.

Put anyone who still responds to c.m.a into your kill file please.

Am 29.03.22 um 02:35 schrieb Rudolph Rhein:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-28 12:13 p.m., sms wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, someone wrote:
>>> The chip is fabricated by TSMC:
>
> Please do not respond in c.m.a and only respond if you must to
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system because this thread
> has nothing to do with Android.
>
> Put anyone who still responds to c.m.a into your kill file please.

Are you trying to mimic a netcop? Nice try.

I'll put this Troll Alan back to the killfile anyway where he was for years.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2022-03-29 2:42 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.03.22 um 02:35 schrieb Rudolph Rhein:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-03-28 12:13 p.m., sms wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, someone wrote:
>>>> The chip is fabricated by TSMC:
>>
>> Please do not respond in c.m.a and only respond if you must to
>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system because this thread
>> has nothing to do with Android.
>>
>> Put anyone who still responds to c.m.a into your kill file please.
>
> Are you trying to mimic a netcop? Nice try.
>
> I'll put this Troll Alan back to the killfile anyway where he was for years.

There's nothing like running away from things you don't want to deal with.

Don't pretend it has anything to do with things being off topic.

On 2022-03-29 11:19, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-29 2:42 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 29.03.22 um 02:35 schrieb Rudolph Rhein:
>>>   Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-03-28 12:13 p.m., sms wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2022 10:13 AM, someone wrote:
>>>>> The chip is fabricated by TSMC:
>>>
>>> Please do not respond in c.m.a and only respond if you must to
>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system because this thread
>>> has nothing to do with Android.
>>>
>>> Put anyone who still responds to c.m.a into your kill file please.
>>
>> Are you trying to mimic a netcop? Nice try.
>>
>> I'll put this Troll Alan back to the killfile anyway where he was for
>> years.
>
> There's nothing like running away from things you don't want to deal with.
>
> Don't pretend it has anything to do with things being off topic.

The troll's pathetic iPhone attack has nothing to do with the good folks
over in c.m.a other than said troll attempting to draw in support from
there. They are too smart to join the troll.

--
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:

> They are too smart to join the troll.

Marketing's job is to influence buyer behavior psychology.
Apple is great at that (no... brilliant at that).

Apple likely spends ten times more in MARKETING than in R&D as a result.

The whole "*TSMC Silicon*" marketing proves how great Apple is at that.
Woo hoo. So Apple pays TSMC to make their chips. So does everyone else.

You need a dumb uneducated customer base to _believe_ those silly gimmicks.
Nobody on the _adult_ OS newsgroups falls for Microsoft or Intel gimmicks.

Only Apple iKooks fall for every obvious Marketing gimmick in the book.
But even so, what do Apple marketing gimmicks have to do with Android?

On 2022-03-29 2:36 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> They are too smart to join the troll.
>
> Marketing's job is to influence buyer behavior psychology.
> Apple is great at that (no... brilliant at that).
>
> Apple likely spends ten times more in MARKETING than in R&D as a result.

So suddenly it's "likely"... ...and not a fact?

>
> The whole "*TSMC Silicon*" marketing proves how great Apple is at that.

Nope.

If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename

> Woo hoo. So Apple pays TSMC to make their chips. So does everyone else.

Manufacturing is not designing.

> You need a dumb uneducated customer base to _believe_ those silly gimmicks.
> Nobody on the _adult_ OS newsgroups falls for Microsoft or Intel gimmicks.
>
> Only Apple iKooks fall for every obvious Marketing gimmick in the book.
> But even so, what do Apple marketing gimmicks have to do with Android?

In article <t20anf$reo$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-03-29 2:36 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> ...

> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename

including intel, who plans to use tsmc to fab some of intel's own chips.

On 2022-03-29 6:20 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <t20anf$reo$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-29 2:36 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> ...
>
>> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
>> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename
>
> including intel, who plans to use tsmc to fab some of intel's own chips.

And then there are Qualcomm, Nvidia...

....and lots of other who have no fabs either.

According to our Arlen, every Qualcomm chip--every Nvidia chip...

....is actually "TSMC Silicon"?

In article <t20cet$6dn$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> >> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
> >> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename
> >
> > including intel, who plans to use tsmc to fab some of intel's own chips.
>
> And then there are Qualcomm, Nvidia...

yep, but intel is surprising given that they have their own fabs.

unfortunately, intel is well behind the curve, thus the need to sub it
out to tsmc.

> ...and lots of other who have no fabs either.
>
> According to our Arlen, every Qualcomm chip--every Nvidia chip...
>
> ...is actually "TSMC Silicon"?

he has absolutely no idea about pretty much everything.

On 2022-03-29 7:44 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <t20cet$6dn$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
>>>> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename
>>>
>>> including intel, who plans to use tsmc to fab some of intel's own chips.
>>
>> And then there are Qualcomm, Nvidia...
>
> yep, but intel is surprising given that they have their own fabs.
>
> unfortunately, intel is well behind the curve, thus the need to sub it
> out to tsmc.
>
>> ...and lots of other who have no fabs either.
>>
>> According to our Arlen, every Qualcomm chip--every Nvidia chip...
>>
>> ...is actually "TSMC Silicon"?
>
> he has absolutely no idea about pretty much everything.

And proves it every day!

"-)

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 9:11:13 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-29 2:36 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >> They are too smart to join the troll.
> >
> > Marketing's job is to influence buyer behavior psychology.
> > Apple is great at that (no... brilliant at that).
> >
> > Apple likely spends ten times more in MARKETING than in R&D as a result.
> So suddenly it's "likely"... ...and not a fact?
> >
> > The whole "*TSMC Silicon*" marketing proves how great Apple is at that.
> Nope.
>
> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename
> > Woo hoo. So Apple pays TSMC to make their chips. So does everyone else.
> Manufacturing is not designing.
> > You need a dumb uneducated customer base to _believe_ those silly gimmicks.
> > Nobody on the _adult_ OS newsgroups falls for Microsoft or Intel gimmicks.
> >
> > Only Apple iKooks fall for every obvious Marketing gimmick in the book.
> > But even so, what do Apple marketing gimmicks have to do with Android?
And designing is not manufacturing.

On 2022-04-23 10:38 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 9:11:13 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-03-29 2:36 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are too smart to join the troll.
>>>
>>> Marketing's job is to influence buyer behavior psychology.
>>> Apple is great at that (no... brilliant at that).
>>>
>>> Apple likely spends ten times more in MARKETING than in R&D as a result.
>> So suddenly it's "likely"... ...and not a fact?
>>>
>>> The whole "*TSMC Silicon*" marketing proves how great Apple is at that.
>> Nope.
>>
>> If you're going to start calling it "TSMC Silicon" because they
>> manufacture it, there's a lot more you're going to have to rename
>>> Woo hoo. So Apple pays TSMC to make their chips. So does everyone else.
>> Manufacturing is not designing.
>>> You need a dumb uneducated customer base to _believe_ those silly gimmicks.
>>> Nobody on the _adult_ OS newsgroups falls for Microsoft or Intel gimmicks.
>>>
>>> Only Apple iKooks fall for every obvious Marketing gimmick in the book.
>>> But even so, what do Apple marketing gimmicks have to do with Android?
>
> And designing is not manufacturing.

Correct.

Designing is the really difficult bit.