Re: Apple tacitly admits their CPUs and new Modem are merely a marketing gimmick

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.