Apple Granted Patent for 'In-Cell' Touchscreen Display Concepts

[battlefieldfan1]

Wrong. Although there are countless examples, I'll point to their A5 and A5X chips as indicators of their technical expertise in one area.

The A5 and A5X were designed by Apple, but they were incredibly weak processors. I mean ffs, their clockspeeds were like 800 mhz - 1 Ghz.
Not to mention the fact that it's ARM-derived, meaning Apple was using someone else's tech to build it. All Apple did was modify it to meet its specs. Nothing else. A 5-year-old could have done it.

On AMOLED displays, the mechanics and manufacture of which are very different from LCD displays. Apple would be the first to deploy it on LCD technology, leaving others who opt for LCD touchscreens to be the ones playing catchup.

The reason why other companies like SONY and HTC didn't opt for in-cell was because of yield-issues. Wasn't there an article from July of this year that said Sharp was having problems manufacturing their displays in high quantities?

Samsung and Apple are equal in terms of handset manufacturers. They both design their own SoCs and displays. Apple just has to outsource the manufacture of both. The claim they aren't an 'engineering firm' is patent nonsense.

Well, Apple isn't really an engineering firm. Other companies develop tech. The only thing Apple does is license their tech and modify it a bit to meet their specs. Nothing really cerebral about it.

The reason samsung and others spend so much on R&D is because a lot of their R&D never sees the light of day. Apple is very focused in what technologies they develop and have a very high ROI.

No, the reason why Apple's R&D is so low is that they hardly do any research at all. Most of their "research" is buying tech from other companies like Samsung and modifying them to meet their desired specs.

More nonsense. Apple has a track record of being first to market with a lot of innovations. They were first to market with a modern smartphone with ppi of 300+. First to market with a Cortex A9 based tablet in the US. First to market with the 543MP2. They invented the ultrabook category. You arguments are extremely weak and are unsupported.

- I'd hardly call a PPI of 300+ on a 3.5" screen anything even noteworthy.
Now, let's talk about HTC and Samsung's 300+ PPI on a 4.7"+ screen. Now THAT'S something.

- Come back when Apple actually invents a processor on their own instead of licensing tech from other companies.

 

[lazard]

They invented the ultrabook category.

oh really? I'm sure Intel would be surprised to hear that.

 

[chrmjenkins]

The A5 and A5X were designed by Apple, but they were incredibly weak processors. I mean ffs, their clockspeeds were like 800 mhz - 1 Ghz.

You're incredibly misguided if you think clock speed is the only, or even main, indicator of a processor's performance.

Not to mention the fact that it's ARM-derived, meaning Apple was using someone else's tech to build it. All Apple did was modify it to meet its specs. Nothing else. A 5-year-old could have done it.

Almost all mobile phones use ARM derived processors. A5 is an entirely custom implementation of the A9 architecture.

Your radical simplification seems deliberately ignorant.

The reason why other companies like SONY and HTC didn't opt for in-cell was because of yield-issues. Wasn't there an article from July of this year that said Sharp was having problems manufacturing their displays in high quantities?

Part of innovating and pushing the envelope is dealing with technology issues. Do you have any idea how poor flagship GPU yields are on a new process?

Well, Apple isn't really an engineering firm. Other companies develop tech. The only thing Apple does is license their tech and modify it a bit to meet their specs. Nothing really cerebral about it.

Do you even know what the word engineering means?

No, the reason why Apple's R&D is so low is that they hardly do any research at all.

Perceptive.

Most of their "research" is buying tech from other companies like Samsung and modifying them to meet their desired specs.

All handset makers do this, again.

- I'd hardly call a PPI of 300+ on a 3.5" screen anything even noteworthy.
Now, let's talk about HTC and Samsung's 300+ PPI on a 4.7"+ screen. Now THAT'S something.

Or how about a 2560x1600 9.7" display (first to market)? Or a 15.6" 2880x1440 (also first to market). Now THAT'S something.

- Come back when Apple actually invents a processor on their own instead of licensing tech from other companies.

That would be the stupidest business decision they could make.

oh really? I'm sure Intel would be surprised to hear that.

I doubt it, seeing as how Apple approached them to create the new package that enabled the macbook air to become a reality in the first place.

They debuted a more full-powered high-spec'ed laptop when everyone else was in a race to the bottom with netbooks. Now that category is all but dead and Intel is spearheading the ultrabook category using packaged parts Apple asked them to create in the first place.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

You're incredibly misguided if you think clock speed is the only, or even main, indicator of a processor's performance


Almost all mobile phones use ARM derived processors. A5 is an entirely custom implemntation of the A9 architecture.

Your radical simplification seems deliberately ignorant.

Architecture is the biggest. I know. But I told you, unlike Samsung, Apple doesn't try to remodify the architecture of the ARM processor.
Apple buys it and modifies the specs, NOT the architecture. Samsung does both.

Part of innovating and pushing the envelope is dealing with technology issues. Do you have any idea how poor flagship GPU yields are on a new process?

So delaying the launch of the iphone 5 so that they'll have enough iphone 5s in stock for launch day is considered innovative? LOL... You Apple fanboys are a joke. HTC and SONY wanted to get their flagship models out as soon as possible to compete with Samsung. Apple is just waiting until they have enough in-cell IGZO screens.

Do you even know what the word engineering means?


Perceptive.

Buying existing tech and scaling it to meet certain specs and asking other people to manufacture it isn't considered engineering. If they actually modified the architecture, then it'll be a different story.

All handset makers do this, again.

But they actually know everything about the circuitry... Apple doesn't. That's the difference. They hire other people to design the tech to meet their specs and asks other companies to manufacture it.

Or how about a 2560x1600 9.7" display (first to market)? Or a 15.6" 2880x1440 (also first to market). Now THAT'S something.

First to market tech made by other companies is NOT innovative.

That would be the stupidest business decision they could make.

Indeed. Apple is made up of designers and artists, not techies.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Architecture is the biggest. I know. But I told you, unlike Samsung, Apple doesn't try to remodify the architecture of the ARM processor.
Apple buys it and modifies the specs, NOT the architecture. Samsung does both.

Apple modified the A9 architecture heavily for the A5 chip. The die area of their dual core is much larger than a vanilla implementation of the A9 architecture because of their custom logic. Try again.

Bold is the only word that can be used to describe Apple's A5. It was bold to design such a large device. Certainly the CPU+GPU combination is significantly larger than the comparable portion of the A4. However, this is only the beginning of the story. Going beyond these basic elements leaves an additional 34 mm2 or 64 percent of the whole A4 die. Yes, there are very likely additional IP cores there, but there might also be some clever custom design that leverages Apple's integrated approach.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215094/A5--All-Apple--part-mystery?pageNumber=4

So delaying the launch of the iphone 5 so that they'll have enough iphone 5s in stock for launch day is considered innovative? LOL... You Apple fanboys are a joke. HTC and SONY wanted to get their flagship models out as soon as possible to compete with Samsung. Apple is just waiting until they have enough in-cell IGZO screens.

Who said anything about a delay? The current rumor is to release the new iPhone less than a year after the 4S.

Buying existing tech and scaling it to meet certain specs and asking other people to manufacture it isn't considered engineering. If they actually modified the architecture, then it'll be a different story.

As an engineer, yes it is. Even product integrators have to go through worst case analyses, verify the components will function together and design the PCBs to house the components, all of which take engineers. Sorry to disappoint.

But they actually know everything about the circuitry... Apple doesn't. That's the difference. They hire other people to design the tech to meet their specs and asks other companies to manufacture it.

Yeah, so when Apple bought two companies that did custom implementations of silicon, PA Semi and Intrinsity, they fired all the engineers, huh?

First to market tech made by other companies is NOT innovative.

Oh cool, so HTC made the 4.7" display the use?

I guess NASA isn't innovative because Boeing designed their space shuttle.

Indeed. Apple is made up of designers and artists, not techies.

Deliberately ignorant again.

 

[lazard]

I doubt it, seeing as how Apple approached them to create the new package that enabled the macbook air to become a reality in the first place.

They debuted a more full-powered high-spec'ed laptop when everyone else was in a race to the bottom with netbooks. Now that category is all but dead and Intel is spearheading the ultrabook category using packaged parts Apple asked them to create in the first place.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/15/3089611/the-real-history-of-the-ultrabook

 

[chrmjenkins]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/15/3089611/the-real-history-of-the-ultrabook

The article in question ignores 2 things: the processor development that apple explicitly did with Intel that is in ongoing use and part of the topic of discussion, and the fact that it didn't become a legitimate category (rather than a niche product occasional offering) until Apple popularized. They certainly weren't called ultrabooks until after the Air debuted.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

Apple modified the A9 architecture heavily for the A5 chip. The die area of their dual core is much larger than a vanilla implementation of the A9 architecture because of their custom logic. Try again.

So let me get this straight? Apple (Samsung *cough*) increased the die size of the original A9 processor. Okay. What else did they do? As I see it, increasing die sizes isn't exactly the most cerebral thing in the world. In fact, the architecture is still the same. You're only proving my point that Apple (*cough* Samsung) only modifies the specs of the original processor.

Who said anything about a delay? The current rumor is to release the new iPhone less than a year after the 4S.

http://iphone.pandaapp.com/news/07312012/233615053.shtml#.UC2EK6llS48
Case in point, Apple still has the same problem as Sony and HTC. Remember, Apple isn't run by people with above-average intelligence. They're mostly artists and designers. They don't have to think THAT much. Sharp has to do the hard work and figure out how design their screens and how to manufacture their screens with acceptable yield rates. Apple just throws money at them to keep them motivated.

As an engineer, yes it is. Even product integrators have to go through worst case analyses, verify the components will function together and design the PCBs to house the components, all of which take engineers. Sorry to disappoint.

Nope, it isn't. Asking other companies to design some tech and meet some arbitrary numbers and then asking another company to manufacture finished product IS NOT engineering.

Yeah, so when Apple bought two companies that did custom implementations of silicon, PA Semi and Intrinsity, they fired all the engineers, huh?

Hurray! Maybe Apple will be half as good as Samsung's engineering unit now! It's too bad Apple isn't seeing any results from the buy-outs. Apple is still relying on other companies to design their components.

Oh cool, so HTC made the 4.7" display the use?

lolwut?

I guess NASA isn't innovative because Boeing designed their space shuttle.

Being a good salesman is different from being innovative. Apple is more the former than the latter.

Deliberately ignorant again.

What was Apple's R&D budget for the 2012 year again?

 

[Alameda]

This is just way too scientific for me to understand, could someone elaborate on the potentials of this technology? ( Other than the thinness of the phone)

A touchscreen is built using several divergent transparent and translucent layers. Apple filed a patent listing every possible way in which two or more layers could be combined, which would result in a thinner and/or cheaper product.

 

[kdarling]

The reason samsung and others spend so much on R&D is because a lot of their R&D never sees the light of day. Apple is very focused in what technologies they develop and have a very high ROI.

Samsung and others are into a lot more technologies and markets than Apple is.

Apple's R&D spending has finally been increasing quite a bit the past few years.

More nonsense. Apple has a track record of being first to market with a lot of innovations.

Or first to popularize a lot of things. This Apple internal email was revealed at the Samsung trial:

“It’s tough to approach this with the criteria being ‘first.' I don’t now how many things we can come up with that you could claim we did first.

"Certainly, we have the first commercially successful versions of many features, but that’s different than launching something to market first.

"Can we nuance this so it isn’t about shipping a feature first?”

- Steven Sinclair, iPhone Product Marketing Manager

They were first to market with a modern smartphone with ppi of 300+.

In 2007, both the Toshiba Portege G900 and Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 touchscreen WinMo smartphones had 311 PPI.

They were advertised as the first "print quality" smartphone displays. Which is probably why Apple felt they had to come up with another catch phrase.

The early 2009 HTC Diamond2 was 298 PPI, which is close enough to be indiscernible.

 

[chrmjenkins]

So let me get this straight? Apple (Samsung *cough*) increased the die size of the original A9 processor. Okay. What else did they do? As I see it, increasing die sizes isn't exactly the most cerebral thing in the world. In fact, the architecture is still the same. You're only proving my point that Apple (*cough* Samsung) only modifies the specs of the original processor.

Either you don't understand how IC design works or you're trolling. Your post is very inaccurate.

Nope, it isn't. Asking other companies to design some tech and meet some arbitrary numbers and then asking another company to manufacture finished product IS NOT engineering.

And now we've discovered 'design' is beyond your vocabulary too.

Hurray! Maybe Apple will be half as good as Samsung's engineering unit now! It's too bad Apple isn't seeing any results from the buy-outs. Apple is still relying on other companies to design their components.

The concepts of ownership and employment are tough too, huh?

lolwut?

He discovers his own logic is faulty. Therein hope lies.

Samsung and others are into a lot more technologies and markets than Apple is.

Apple's R&D spending has finally been increasing quite a bit the past few years.

it's about level of innovation in the markets you're in. Not how many markets you're in.

In 2007, both the Toshiba Portege G900 and Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 touchscreen WinMo smartphones had 311 PPI.

They were advertised as the first "print quality" smartphone displays. Which is probably why Apple felt they had to come up with another catch phrase.

Both of which had operating systems that no longer ship in any form, hence my 'modern' qualification.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

Samsung and others are into a lot more technologies and markets than Apple is.

Apple's R&D spending has finally been increasing quite a bit the past few years.


Or first to popularize a lot of things. This Apple internal email was revealed at the Samsung trial:




In 2007, both the Toshiba Portege G900 and Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 had 311PPI screens.

They were advertised as the first "print quality" phone displays. Which is probably why Apple felt they had to come up with another catch phrase.

The early 2009 HTC Diamond2 was 298PPI, which is close enough to be indiscernible.

I think it's been increasing to keep up with inflation. Their "research and development" is still only implementing tech designed and developed by other companies to build the next iphone.
Samsung and others R&D in future tech that's not publicly available yet. Apple "researches" how to use already-existing tech into making the next iphone. Huge difference.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

Either you don't understand how IC design works or you're trolling. Your post is very inaccurate.

No, seriously. Do you honestly think increasing die sizes is hard to do? That's the easiest thing to change on a processor or a GPU.
When we say architecture, we mean something like AMD's APU. Both CPU and GPU are located on 1 die to give you better performance/watt.

And now we've discovered 'design' is beyond your vocabulary too.

Please, get it through your head. Apple only designs their OS. The hardware and everything else is designed by other companies.

The concepts of ownership and employment are tough too, huh?





He discovers his own logic is faulty. Therein hope lies.

*sigh*...

it's about level of innovation in the markets you're in. Not how many markets you're in.

Indeed. I can name 1 innovation Samsung made. It's in 3g networks. In fact, it's so vital in modern-day smartphones that it's considered FRAND. Does Apple have any FRAND patents?

The way I see it, Apple is usually the first to be commercially successful in their ventures, but they're never the first to market it. In fact, they're less innovative than Samsung, and I don't really have high regards about Samsung's innovations.

Both of which had operating systems that no longer ship in any form, hence my 'modern' qualification.

Screens are different from OS.

 

[kdarling]

it's about level of innovation in the markets you're in. Not how many markets you're in.

Definitely some truth in that. I think it's also about who is willing to take R&D stuff to market.

Both of which had operating systems that no longer ship in any form, hence my 'modern' qualification.

Yeah, I knew what you were trying to do

Note that Windows Mobile still has Microsoft support until January, 2013. So, strictly speaking, it's still around.

(A lot of places use custom WinMo or WinCE devices for field workers or scientists or even mobile ticket scanners.)

Interestingly, Windows Mobile still has twice the user share in the US as the new Windows Phone does.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

More proof that Apple isn't an engineering company: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2599..._of_ambush_litigation_in_3g_patent_trial.html

"Apple lawyer Cameron Moore said the chipsets are highly complex and not made by Apple. There are many aspects of the chipsets' technology "that Apple simply does not know."

Apple only does simple things like designing the physical look of the iphone or building a simple OS that a child could do. The thing is, Apple does it very well.

The complex things are left for other corporations to handle. Apple also does a great job at tricking people into thinking they really do the complex, hard engineering stuff, though. I mean, just look at this thread.

 

[chrmjenkins]

No, seriously. Do you honestly think increasing die sizes is hard to do? That's the easiest thing to change on a processor or a GPU.

What do you think they fill it with? Miniature think different logos? No one blindly increases die size just because.

When we say architecture, we mean something like AMD's APU. Both CPU and GPU are located on 1 die to give you better performance/watt.

How is this relevant?

Please, get it through your head. Apple only designs their OS. The hardware and everything else is designed by other companies.

Please, get it through your head. You don't know what design means.

Indeed. I can name 1 innovation Samsung made. It's in 3g networks. In fact, it's so vital in modern-day smartphones that it's considered FRAND. Does Apple have any FRAND patents?

Yeah, why wasn't Apple developing standards essential patents when they weren't even in the phone business? Good question!

Also why don't they have any FRAND patents when they've explicitly resisted doing so? Another good one!

More proof that Apple isn't an engineering company: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2599..._of_ambush_litigation_in_3g_patent_trial.html

"Apple lawyer Cameron Moore said the chipsets are highly complex and not made by Apple. There are many aspects of the chipsets' technology "that Apple simply does not know."

Apple only does simple things like designing the physical look of the iphone or building a simple OS that a child could do. The thing is, Apple does it very well.

The complex things are left for other corporations to handle. Apple also does a great job at tricking people into thinking they really do the complex, hard engineering stuff, though. I mean, just look at this thread.

They are talking about 3G chipsets explicitly. Not at relevant to SoCs. Nice try though.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

What do you think they fill it with? Miniature think different logos? No one blindly increases die size just because.

Are you still trying to argue with me on things you don't comprehend?
Do you know why processors cost so much? It's because of the wafers. The size of wafer is the reson why engineers want to keep the die size small.
However, Apple wants to maximize their profit margins, so they increased the die sizes at the cost of performance in order to have cheap processors that they can overprice.

Jesus ****ing Christ...

How is this relevant?

Because that's an example of an ARCHITECTURE. Blindly increasing die sizes like what Apple does isn't modifying the architecture. All they're doing is changing the clock speeds.

Please, get it through your head. You don't know what design means.

See above.

Yeah, why wasn't Apple developing standards essential patents when they weren't even in the phone business? Good question!

That's not the point. I have an example of how Samsung innovates by making discoveries that are essential in modern-day smartphones. All Apple does is market their products well.

Also why don't they have any FRAND patents when they've explicitly resisted doing so? Another good one!

*sigh* I'll tell you why Apple can NEVER have a FRAND patent. It's because Apple doesn't do research on new tech. Their "research and development" is mostly buying tech from other companies and putting them together to make the next iphone/ipad.

Samsung, on the other hand, R&D on future tech that could end up becoming part of FRAND.

Edit: OKAY... LOL... I know wikipedia isn't a very reliable source, but look what it says,
"The Apple A5 and A5X are systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) designed by Apple Inc. and fabricated by Samsung[2][3][4] to replace the Apple A4."

Okay, I think that just about sums it up. The only thing Apple does is order the ARM processor. Samsung is the one who optimizes it to fit in the ipad and the iphone. In other words, Apple doesn't do ****.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Are you still trying to argue with me on things you don't comprehend?
Do you know why processors cost so much? It's because of the wafers. The size of wafer is the reson why engineers want to keep the die size small.
However, Apple wants to maximize their profit margins, so they increased the die sizes at the cost of performance in order to have cheap processors that they can overprice.

Thanks for the laugh.

Because that's an example of an ARCHITECTURE. Blindly increasing die sizes like what Apple does isn't modifying the architecture. All they're doing is changing the clock speeds.

Right, remind me though. They make the die bigger so they can fit more gremlins to turn the clock speed crank faster, right?

That's not the point. I have an example of how Samsung innovates by making discoveries that are essential in modern-day smartphones. All Apple does is market their products well.

And I'm telling you apple doesn't even participate in the metric you're using.

*sigh* I'll tell you why Apple can NEVER have a FRAND patent. It's because Apple doesn't do research on new tech. Their "research and development" is mostly buying tech from other companies and putting them together to make the next iphone/ipad.

Remind me who designed that new variable pitch blades fan in the new retina MacBook pro for them. Thanks.

Samsung, on the other hand, R&D on future tech that could end up becoming part of FRAND.

that's why they buy qualcomm's chips for their US galaxy s 3's. More time for research! Brilliant!

Edit: OKAY... LOL... I know wikipedia isn't a very reliable source, but look what it says,
"The Apple A5 and A5X are systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) designed by Apple Inc. and fabricated by Samsung[2][3][4] to replace the Apple A4."

Okay, I think that just about sums it up. The only thing Apple does is order the ARM processor. Samsung is the one who optimizes it to fit in the ipad and the iphone. In other words, Apple doesn't do ****.

Lol, they don't design, except when they do.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

Thanks for the laugh.

I see you're now subtly admitting that I'm way out of your league, kid.

Right, remind me though. They make the die bigger so they can fit more gremlins to turn the clock speed crank faster, right?

I repeat, the problem with today's processor is about shrinking the dies. Apple doesn't want to shrink them, as that'll bump up the costs of production and shrink their insanely high profit margins.

And I'm telling you apple doesn't even participate in the metric you're using.

It's not that they don't. It's more than that. It's that they can't.

Remind me who designed that new variable pitch blades fan in the new retina MacBook pro for them. Thanks.

I don't know squat about the mac lines. I'll look into them when I'm getting a new laptop. For now, we'll continue arguing over smartphones.

that's why they buy qualcomm's chips for their US galaxy s 3's. More time for research! Brilliant!

Rofl... That's because quad cores are incompatible with 4g LTE in the US. That's not Samsung's fault. Blame verizon and the other carriers. South Korea got the best version of the Galaxy S3. They have 4g LTE that's missing in the European version, 2 GB of ram like in the US version AND the quad core exynos processor.

Lol, they don't design, except when they do.

The term "design" is used loosely. Fabrication is more difficult and more important than ordering parts.
Heck, the difference between exynos and the regular A9 Arm processor is Samsung's fab tech.

Take a look here: http://androidandme.com/2012/03/news/a-closer-look-at-samsungs-killer-2-ghz-exynos-5250/

Since Samsung has their own fabs, they use a different process technology to produce their chips. Their latest process node is 32nm High-k Metal Gate (HKMG), which reduces power consumption. This is the industry’s first HKMG process.

I won’t pretend to know what all of this means, but the benefits of 32nm HKMG include:

2x gate density increase (Superior area scaling with Gate-First HKMG)
>100x lower gate leakage
>40% delay improvement at fixed leakage
~10x leakage reduction at fixed speed

Honestly, Samsung should be considered the real designers of the A5/x processors. I'm sure Apple paid Samsung a hefty price to rebrand the processor.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Rofl... That's because quad cores are incompatible with 4g LTE in the US.

I don't think I'll get you to top that one.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

I don't think I'll get you to top that one.

You know you lost. Now get lost, iSheep.

 

[MattInOz]

Okay, I think that just about sums it up. The only thing Apple does is order the ARM processor. Samsung is the one who optimizes it to fit in the ipad and the iphone. In other words, Apple doesn't do ****.

from wiki history of ARM processors.

In the late 1980s Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on newer versions of the ARM core. The work was so important that Acorn spun off the design team in 1990 into a new company called Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. Advanced RISC Machines became ARM Ltd when its parent company, ARM Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[11]

Then the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM & Motorola) to make the PowerPC architecture. Apple didn't really provide any skill to the team just there to make the acronym cool right?

The history of computing is festooned with examples of Companies working with Apple on tech projects as named joint venture partners. People who don't need Apple even as a customer. Yet you want us to believe Apple doesn't do #$%^. These guys keep involving Apple, you know, just to be nice.

Sorry doesn't wash.

 

[chrmjenkins]

from wiki history of ARM processors.


Then the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM & Motorola) to make the PowerPC architecture. Apple didn't really provide any skill to the team just there to make the acronym cool right?

The history of computing is festooned with examples of Companies working with Apple on tech projects as named joint venture partners. People who don't need Apple even as a customer. Yet you want us to believe Apple doesn't do #$%^. These guys keep involving Apple, you know, just to be nice.

Sorry doesn't wash.

He's a troll. I reported two of the more inflammatory posts I got him to make, I suggest you do the same.

 

[battlefieldfan1]

from wiki history of ARM processors.


Then the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM & Motorola) to make the PowerPC architecture. Apple didn't really provide any skill to the team just there to make the acronym cool right?

The history of computing is festooned with examples of Companies working with Apple on tech projects as named joint venture partners. People who don't need Apple even as a customer. Yet you want us to believe Apple doesn't do #$%^. These guys keep involving Apple, you know, just to be nice.

Sorry doesn't wash.

LOL... Okay, man. 1980? I'm sure Apple's philosophy has changed drastically since then. I mean, Apple had Steve Wozniak back in the 80s.
Apple's current philosophy is, "Let other companies do the hard, intelligent, engineering work, we buy their tech, market them as our own."

I mean, Apple doesn't really make anything except the OS.
Screen - Engineered by LG
Processor - Really designed by Samsung but was rebranded by Apple
Ram/Dram - Samsung
Camera - Sony

Geez...

Edit: LOLOLOLOL... Did you even read the wiki entry? IBM and Motorola did the hard engineering work of creating the processors. The only thing Apple needed to do was make an OS that was compatible with the PowerPC. Again, Apple didn't really do any of the intelligent stuff.
Also, the reason why the alliance was created was to challenge Wintel (Windows and intel). IBM and Motorola had no other choice but to include Apple, as there was no other company except MSFT that had an extensive history making an OS and MSFT was in bed with Intel. Honestly, I think they should have just hired their own software engineers and made their own OS. OS 9 is proof that if Apple is left to make things on their own, you'll wound up with one disaster that'll make Vista look like the best thing to happen since sliced bread.

 

[DeathChill]

It just really saddens me that it seems like he truly believes what he says. I don't know how anyone can be so ignorant.