From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:07:52 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded wrote:
To my eye, Apple is about stylish computing. It's a niche that they took
a long time to find, but have since nailed down.
Hi Eli the Bearded,
I hope you're worth the effort I just expended to respond to your valid concerns expressed in your post about the topic at hand of the latest
TSMC Silicon ARM technology designs loudly touted by Apple MARKETING.
You're correct iPhones are MARKETED for "style" & not functionality, which explains why they have never sufficiently tested iOS releases for bugs
(which I provided previous proof of from independent reliable testers).
Pretty much Apple let's hackers & Project Zero do the zero-day bug testing.
o (Don't even get me started on the reams of proof on that statement.)
What irks me isn't that the "stylish morons" _believe_ Apple MARKETING
o It's that none of them (e.g., Alan Baker) own the semblance of a brain
They're all like little kids wowed by the fact Santa Claus can fly
o When all that flying is simply a figment of the MARKETING imagination
1. Apple makes what is really a minor technical change (in that designing
with ARM and fab'ing with TSMC Silicon is no big deal whatsoever
technically)...
I would disagree at least partially. Apple running on Intel allowed
binary cross-overs that previously had not been truely possible. Fat
binaries and binary translation are slightly different kettles of fish.
It remains to be seen how well "binary crossovers" will work.
o Bear in mind Apple has never been one to be obsessed with being "open"
In fact, take Android, for example, where when you download a free app, you
can use that app on almost any Android device on the planet. Same with
Linux. Same with Windows.
But not with iOS.
o Even for free apps, you can't even use it on another iOS device.
Apple limits everything.
o Don't even get me started on how Apple limits everything people do.
This is creating work for other companies to continue supporting Apple,
look at the work Docker needs to do.
It's not only Docker - for example, it kills this dual-boot freeware:
o Boot Camp freeware to dual boot Windows & MacOS is dead on all new ARM-core Macs
<
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/qgnkyly9Aj4>
Apple moved to ARM technology Mac on TSMC Silicon for good business reasons
o But that's _not_ what the MARKETING bullshit is about
What these Apple morons are bowled over on is the MARKETING bullshit
o The fact remains Apple has never designed a best-in-class CPU
Note: You can't be best in class if you have to be throttled to half speed
in about a year; and you can't be best in class if you have unpatchable
holes that basically let the hackers' Mack trucks in a wide-open door.
In general I believe it is good to have a diversity of hardware and
a diversity of software, as it is good to have a diversity of crops
grown. It creates friction for things that could otherwise break
everything.
I'm all for diversity also, as I use Linux when it suits me, and Windows,
and Android, and even the Mac (as I substitute teach at local schools).
In fact, I own _plenty_ of iOS devices, which, interestingly, is one reason these apologists _hate_ me... because I test out their bullshit claims:
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I>
Note that the apologists constantly claim imaginary functionality, as if
Santa Claus really can fly, based on their take of MARKETING bullshit:
o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s>
What I find most obvious about these apologists is their lack of facts:
o Type I (e.g., nospam) is the only one who _knows_ the actual facts
(but his credibility is worse than that of a coin toss on facts)
Simply because he will _always_ defend/parrot Apple MARKETING.
o Type II (e.g., Alan Browne) are otherwise normal people;
but not scientific, so they simply _believe_ MARKETING without
ever even once stopping to think about doublechecking their facts.
o Type III (e.g., Alan Baker) are quite unlike normal people;
they are Dunning-Kruger quadrant 1 & far to the left of even that.
That alone explains them, but in terms of MARKETING bullshit, they
not only believe every single thing Apple feeds them to believe,
but, like cultists and other fundamentalists, they literally
self identify with the image Apple MARKETING portrays.
You've mostly been dealing with the Type I apologists in this thread,
where they're easy to deal with because they don't believe a single
word they, themselves, claim (think of them as extensions to the
Apple MARKETING organization - and you can almost 100% predict them).
The Type II also aren't so bad to deal with since they're actually
relatively normal people but on the side of not being able to handle
details in facts (much like a lot of people are who simply believe
in 'techron' and "octane" as being 'good for your car' MARKETING crap.
The Type II apologists like Alan Browne, Steve Scharf, SavageDuck, et al.,
are simply relatively ignorant people - like most people on this planet.
It's the Type III apologists whom you need to watch out for (IMHO).
While I've plonked Alan Baker (because he stalked me all over the Internet) just as I've put Snit in the killfile (these creeps are not mentally
balanced), there are only a handful of people in my killfile over the
decades of posting daily, scores of posts to Usenet.
This Alan Baker guy literally believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and whatever else MARKETING has fed him to believe.
Worse, he's too stupid to even realize how stupid he is, but far worse than that, he's incredibly confident that he's always right when, in fact, he's
an utter moron whose IQ I estimate to be no greater than 40 or 50 (or so).
o Solid incontrovertible proof of how stupid these apologists really are
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>
There is absolutely no way to ever discuss anything with him as an adult:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>
Raw benchmark numbers that I've seen show Iphones handily beating the
best Androids in javascript speeds.
What good is a CPU that _must_ be throttled to half speed in about a year?
o Bear in mind, I'm the guy who broke this news to the Apple newsgroups
I've kept up on this throttling, which is done to almost every iPhone
o It's like a house made of paper; it falls apart the instant it gets wet
The instant the battery ages (about a year), the user is FORCED to make
the most unwanted choice anyone who owns a mobile device would want:
o Either choose completely unacceptable stability, or,
o Choose completely unacceptable performance (about half speed!).
YOU MUST CHOOSE ONE AND YOU MUST CHOOSE NOW!
Or... get this... you can pay Apple every single year you own an iPhone
o To prematurely replace the Lithium battery (now how "green" is that!)
2015 thread with updates in 2017 and 2020 on successive links:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889
https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889/246
https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-in-2015-is-poor/33889/270
That suggests Apple has some idea what they are doing with ARM, as all
of those phones are ARM vs ARM.
Again, my point is what good is a CPU that has two things in it:
a. It _must_ be throttled (to about half speed) in about a year, and,
b. It has unpatchable security holes that hackers drive Mack trucks through
o Which Apple CPUs, bootroms, & SEP secure enclave coprocessors do NOT already have well-known unpatchable fatal design flaws?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6WKS9KpSyJA>
Note: The Type III apologists like Alan Baker are fond of incessantly
claiming those are just Usenet threads, but that's further proof they don't even _read_ (nor understand) them because every one points to one or more (usually quite a few) external links to well-regarded references in the security community).
Every time they claim it's just a Usenet thread, they _prove_ that they're morons, because every thread contains many links to reputable external
sites; all they prove when they make those claims is that they didn't even bother to _read_ the links (they simply deny them outright sans reading).
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<
https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/fyL1cQUVCp0>
There are facts that need to be realized, one of which is that Apple is
almost all MARKETING and the lowest R&D spend in the entire tech industry.
I have no idea how accurate that is. Got cites? Cites that are not
Google Groups links?
Click on the link.
o The link contains the cites.
Note that my facts have never been wrong in decades on the Internet, so
bear in mind that my credibility is stellar (which is saying a lot on
Usenet).
Don't take me for a fool when you claim a link isn't a link.
o It simply indicates you didn't even bother to click the link I gave you.
Bear in mind these apologists would _love_ to find even a _single_ material fact of mine being wrong - but they can't (they quibble about typos a lot though).
There are good reasons why my facts are never materially wrong, not the
least of which is I went to the finest schools in this country and worked
in Silicon Valley startups for decades, where at these graduate schools and startups you don't survive and prosper by being wrong.
Other good reasons I'm not wrong on facts is that I don't trust my
intuition one bit, like Richard Feynman would say - if you trust your intuition, you're wrong.
I check my facts.
Note: A lot of these apologists can't discern between a fact and an
assessment which is based on those facts - those are different things.
An example of a fact might be:
o Apple makes a red iPhone
An example of an assessment of that fact might be:
o A red phone isn't worth any more than a black phone to me.
I repeat these apologists would _love_ to find a material fact from me
being wrong - but they can't - so what they harp on are the assessments.
Stick to the facts.
o Every thread I point you to contains the facts.
If you can't even click on the links I already gave you...
o What proof is there that you'll click on them when I give you even more
The more people expect devices to be "secure" while also doing
everything, the more people will be disappointed. Intel's processors
have had their own huge numbers of faults. I don't have any current
knowledge of widespread architecture designs beyond ARM and x86
compatible, but I would expect any such alternatives are also flawed.
This is a reasonable assessment in my opinion, as the only place that an
Apple common consumer device is any more secure than any other similar
common consumer device is in the Apple MARKETING bullshit that is painted
on the walls of buildings in Vegas...
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>
The problem is that a _lot_ of people believe that Apple MARKETING BS.
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made? <
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>
There are zero-days in Google's stuff, too. Software bugs are orthogonal
to processor choice. Most zero-days in software don't rely on the chip
being used to provide the wedge to break things. The chip in question
will determine what binary you need to stuff in the buffer overflow
though. A very specific case that goes back to my "diversity is good" concerns.
You think I don't know that?
You don't know me but I post a TON of bugs on Google/Android all the time:
o <
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
I post a ton of bugs on Windows stuff all the time also:
o <
http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
Same with Linux (less nowadays than in the past though):
o <
http://tinyurl.com/alt.os.linux>
*I tell the TRUTH about _every_ operating system, including Apple's:
o <
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad>
o <
http://tinurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system>
etc.
In summary, you are welcome to check the facts that I state, but don't ask
me twice to provide you with the links I _already_ provided you.
That's what the apologists do because, interestingly, I believe that _hate_
the facts, so, like flat earthers, they can only maintain their purely imaginary belief system by denying that the facts exist.
Don't do that please.
o Check the facts.
Bear in mind I have higher degrees (much like many others) and I'm highly "sensing" so I'm well acquainted with the fact that people don't like facts that contradict their intuition (think Myers Briggs with respect to people
who trust their intuition more so than they trust facts to the contrary).
I don't trust my intuition at all; I only trust facts.
o That's why I don't trust anything from MARKETING unless I can find it in
a wholly independent source (e.g., Apple battery life claims).
o Every Apple iPhone model tested vastly overstated battery life claims <
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Q-x-uIzovg4>
In summary...
Intelligent adults don't disagree on facts (facts are funny that way).
o Where they disagree is on assessments (people are funny that way).
You're quite welcome to disagree with my assessments...
o But if you claim a fact is wrong - then you need to produce the data.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113