Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Apple tacitly admits their CPUs and new Modem are merely a
 marketing gimmick
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 15:24:32 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vpb1vg$3k7ot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <76c59e31ac44677e6484fba540ef2ad7a65fb9ec@i2pn2.org>
 <vpaq0p$3ig4r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:24:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b0c92a8e23f13fadd8b1123c835e05d4";
	logging-data="3809053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MVx1QWLqMvK/mArN4Sd6DR7mTM7rZbjQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ceonYguvKuzmgwVwKhol2PCtrU4=
Content-Language: en-CA
In-Reply-To: <vpaq0p$3ig4r$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5689

On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
> On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
>> On 2/21/2025 10:02 AM, Marion wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:36:52 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
>>>
>>>> Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer
>>>> performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from 
>>>> Qualcomm.
>>>> While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible, 
>>>> and
>>>> lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient 
>>>> modem ever
>>>> on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery
>>>> life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight
>>>> integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including 
>>>> the A18
>>>> chip.
>>>>
>>>> "I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said 
>>>> Srouji.
>>>
>>> Hi badgolferman,
>>>
>>> Thank you for trying to understand both the question and a possible 
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> When discussing any well-calculated mere "words" from Apple, we have to
>>> understand that they can't boldly lie outright and say something like 
>>> "it's
>>> faster" or "it's cheaper" or "it's better" for this modem chip.
>>> The reason is that it's not. It sucks. It sucks like you can't believe.
>>> Because it doesn't actually *do* anything useful (that's hard to do).
>>>
>>> So what does Apple say about it?
>>>
>>> Those are the words I'm carefully looking at, since those words have the
>>> only clue how Apple is going to present this crappy chip to the people.
>>>
>>> What Apple says is it's "efficient", which is kind of funny when you 
>>> think
>>> of how Apple also has always said their crappy RAM was "efficient" too.
>>>
>>> All of a sudden, when AI shows up, Apple's crappy "efficient" RAM sucks.
>>> Fancy that. What I've said about Apple's RAM even Apple agrees with now.
>>>
>>> Being 1% more efficient doesn't overcome being 150% less functional.
>>> Efficient is a wonderful weasel word which Apple marketing loves to use.
>>>
>>> More efficient than what? More efficient than a modem that actually 
>>> works?
>>> More efficient than a modem that is actually fast?
>>> More efficient than a modem that is actually functional?
>>>
>>> I hope you understand that I'd love for Qualcomm to have competition.
>>> But Apple's never going to be the company for "leading edge" chip 
>>> design.
>>>
>>> Apple has *never* designed a best-in-class SoC in its entire history.
>>> If they did, nobody can find it.
>>>
>>> So back to the question of Apple admitting their modem design sucks.
>>> The best they can say is the amorphous "efficiency" claim.
>>>
>>> Much like the claim that a bicycle is more efficient than a car is.
>>> It doesn't do anything useful; but it's more efficient not doing it.
>>>
>>> That's what it seems that Apple has said about their new crappy modem.
>>> Hey, "it sucks" but it's "more efficient" at sucking. Well... Geeze.
>>>
>>> I guess that's "something", now isn't it.
>>>
>>> I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of efficiency.
>>> But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more efficient than 
>>> what?
>>>
>>> What good is being more efficient (than what?) if it doesn't do any 
>>> work?
>>>
>>> Note: We'll take Apple's "battery life" claims for another day since 
>>> nobody
>>> in history has ever been able to reproduce anywhere near Apple's claims.
>>>
>>> (In essence, nobody sensible believes Apple's claims on battery 
>>> efficiency
>>> since they've not held up in real life, & the EU has the data proving 
>>> it.)
>>
>> There is an easy solution here.  If you don't like the product, don't 
>> buy it.  It really doesn't matter what Apple says in its marketing 
>> materials.  Marketing claims are often if not usually exaggerated, and 
>> I doubt it most people take them seriously.  The bottom line is - if 
>> you don't like the phone, don't buy it.
> 
> The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever 
> notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd 
> extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and 
> devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years ago 
> and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake of the 
> companies making more money.
> 
> 
> 

Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have isn't 
anywhere NEAR universal yet.