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.
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?*
Not only is Apple incompetent in chip design - they're morons in coding.
*That's how atrocious Apple's coding is - that zero-click holes abound*
How does that even happen??
*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!*
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.
And haven't you insisted for years that Apple DIDN'T design chips?
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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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??
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??
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.
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...
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 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?
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?*
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.
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.
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.
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 Apple¹s.
What Apple did was
sneaky and limited the consumer¹s control over their own device.
Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple¹s.
nope, they settled.
further, no court can overrule the laws of physics
What Apple did was
sneaky and limited the consumer¹s control over their own device.
how did it limit their control?
what apple did wad intended so that the
user's device did *not* unexpectedly shut down, thereby making the
device *more* useful.
further, sudden shutdowns risk data loss and hardware damage in extreme cases.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple�s.
nope, they settled.
Only an iKook with a child-like mind would think that...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:50:15 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,791 |