Imagination Technologies Share Discussion Threads

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 18:00

Rob, I'm sorry, you're right. Next time I'll get my colleagues to write you a note. :-) My facts come from within the industry, from people talking at various off site meetings or any number of other events. People like to talk and share secrets - it's human nature. Your "facts" come from an internet posting showing a LinkedIn job listing.

If you had taken my original "opinion" and thought, hmmm, I better check LinkedIn. You too could have changed opinion to fact based on finding a GPU architect who used to work for AMD and now works for Apple. And he moved in 2013 no less.

So as you see, there really is no difference between your "facts" and my "opinioin" other than the fact that you didn't bother to look at LinkedIn in 2013.

Gosh you're a confusing fellow. But it looks like, given your definition of fact, you could have dumped IMG way back in 2013 and saved yourself a load of hassle.

[richardc77] 15/5/2017 17:45

Get a room FFS ;)

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 17:45

Sheep_Herder > "They clearly show what I claim, specifically that I have been of the opinion that Apple have been building the team for their own in house GPU for as far back as 2013"

What is wrong with you?!

Seriously!

You don't seem able to distinguish between facts and opinion - you really seem to think they are the same thing.

Well they're not!

Your post saying Apple were building their own GPU was OPINION.

My link to the Ashraf article was FACT. Apple had hired two GPU architects, clearly PROVING they were working on their own GPU.

Perhaps you can get whoever looks after you to explain the difference?

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 17:38

Rob, now now, don't be one of those people who runs away when they've been asked to back up their claims! Go on, post something insightful that was fully substantiated. By Ashraf or whoever you like.

I still have no idea what you're on about regarding those posts though. They clearly show what I claim, specifically that I have been of the opinion that Apple have been building the team for their own in house GPU for as far back as 2013. I even gave a timescale of 2016-2017 which isn't too bad of a guess.

Perhaps you clicked the wrong link or are just a blinkered spiv. :-)

Pottsey, sorry, wasn't referring to Samsung specifically as I have no experience with that project. Was just referring to the usual nonsense that gets posted here and taken as fact by many. Your posts regarding the fact that IMG will be able to make up the short fall in Apple revenue by winning the low/mid end is a good example of one. Those sort of rumours.

[pottsey] 15/5/2017 17:26

“And regarding the AMD GPU team - they are not there to work on an IMG arch license.”
Wasn’t that the team that gave us an Apple inhouse GPU based on IMG arc the very opposite to what you said?



“Pottsey, you shouldn't believe all the rumours you hear on this board. Most of them are started by the likes of you. Lol”
A long time ago I posted various photos in this thread to prove I was in the industry. Rob should remember as at the time I made a mistake and confused him with my post. I mistakenly thought he was another Rob I know with a similar name. Now I don’t work at Samsung but the only thing I have ever heard was that Samsung failed due to patent problems and the court cases. What did you hear was the reason why Samsung had to drop the in house GPU?

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 17:11

Sheep_Herder > "Rob, please show me one substantiated fact that you have posted?"

Okay, this is officially embarrassing now - you really need to stop making a complete fool of yourself.

Maybe next time you are tempted to boast that you have been saying something for years, you'd be well advised to actually READ the link posted before doing so.

And not admit later that you've only just read it.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 16:40

Sheep_Herder > "Rob, step away from the keyboard. You're making a fool of yourself now."

You'd have been well advised not to touch a keyboard at all today - all you've done is make a complete fool of yourself.

"I think you're now repeating what I've been saying for years"

There you go again - claiming to have been saying this and that for years, when in fact all you did was post ad nauseam unsubstantiated opinion, which everyone understandably ignored.

I post substantiated facts - that's the difference.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 16:39

Pottsey, you shouldn't believe all the rumours you hear on this board. Most of them are started by the likes of you. lol

I can't say anything specific about patent cases as I'd get in trouble, but do you think IMG would be shouting about their patent case losses? Or perhaps you'd just never hear of them and be happily thinking they'd never taken anyone to court?

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 16:33

Rob, step away from the keyboard. You're making a fool of yourself now. I think you're now repeating what I've been saying for years and calling me dim. lol.

[pottsey] 15/5/2017 16:28

“Pottsey, there are many companies working within the graphics industry, none of which have recently (or ever?) lost a patent infringement case against IMG. That should give you a clue.”
IMG has never had a reason to go after anyone before. But going by past cases the courts tend to favour the patent holders.

The reason Samsung gave up on their in-house GPU was due to patent infringement problems they couldn’t create a GPU without imposing on everyone else patents. It’s not just IMG that Apple have to protect against but the very aggressive companys like NVidia could have a go at Apple like they did with Intel and Samsung. The only reason Apple was protected last round was due to PowerVR patents.

Without a licence from IMG, Apple has lost all GPU patent protection. What makes you think Apple won’t end up like Samsung’s failed in-house project due to lack of patents or Intel who ended up paying what was it 1.7 billion due to GPU patents?

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 15:21

Sheep_Herder > "Does it matter where they come from?"

Oh dear, surely you're not THAT dim?

No, it doesn't matter whee they came from - it matters that they are GPU architects.

We all knew Apple was customising IMG's IP, so would need people to help do that, and that was IMG's story when questioned on the issue.

The significance of Apple hiring GPU architects is that clearly signifies that they had ambitions beyond simply customising some of IMG's IP. And knowing that would have saved a lot of people here a lot of money.

Don't worry if you don't understand the above - you're very clearly not the brightest penny in the fountain.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 15:15

Aaaaah, I now see why you're confused. I wasn't claiming I'd posted about those exact hires you pleb.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 15:06

Sheep_Herder > "I'm happy knowing that Apple recruit the best talent from a large pool"

And I'm happy that you made a complete fool of yourself by first falsely claiming that you had already posted about the GPU architects Apple had recruited, only to admit a bit later that you hadn't even read the article I posted a link to.

What a Wally!

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 14:46

Oh dear. I knew they were creating a team to tackle the issue. Does it matter where they come from? I'm happy knowing that Apple recruit the best talent from a large pool. Get over yourself.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 14:37

Sheep_Herder > "But I commend your persistence in that useless point"

Oh I don't think proving you a liar is entirely useless.

You said this earlier today - "Rob_Evans, do you know what's funny about you posting that link to Ashraf from 2015? The fact that I was telling you lot the same thing from as early as 2013."

You said no such thing back then, as I have clearly proved you didn't even know that Apple had recruited GPU architects from Nvidia and Vivante.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 14:32

Rob, when you know the answer to a question, there's no reason to go looking. But I commend your persistence in that useless point. I guess you've run out of real points to make.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 14:05

Sheep_Herder > "So you don't find it a little hypocritical that you've spent your last few posts extolling the virtues of Ashraf when all it comes down to is a Google search?"

Which you didn't do either obviously, as you didn't know Apple had recruited GPU architects from Nvidia and Vivante.

And yes, I was worried enough about what I had found out to sell up.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 13:55

Rob, found your level I see. So you don't find it a little hypocritical that you've spent your last few posts extolling the virtues of Ashraf when all it comes down to is a Google search? YOU could have had your proof if you'd done that when I first told you to. I'm guessing you didn't bother finding your own proof when I put up the UK job reqs either. Or perhaps you'd already stopped ramping and had sold out by then. I forget your timeframes.

Pottsey, there are many companies working within the graphics industry, none of which have recently (or ever?) lost a patent infringement case against IMG. That should give you a clue. My opinion is we won't see a court case and there won't be any payments. I thought I'd been through the patent side already but in case you missed it, IMG would have to prove infringement before they can take Apple to court. Apple will be very careful about designing around specific areas where the IP is visible externally somehow. For everything that isn't discoverable, they won't lose too much sleep.

[pottsey] 15/5/2017 13:28

“it wasn't my "opinion" that they were designing a new GPU, it was fact. Just like it wasn't my "opinion" when I showed all the heads being recruited for the UK office and relayed Apple's plans long before it was public,”
I am not confused about your history of posting. You said the team had been created to make an in-house none IMG GPU and the team instead did the opposite and made an inhouse GPU based on IMG IP. You repeated that for 3 years saying the next inhouse GPU would not have IMG IP and each time it did. Now a new team is working on a none IMG IP GPU you are forgetting all the times you was wrong and acting like you was right all along. I bealive at one point last year you even went as far as to say the next idevice wouldnt have IMG IP then it come out with IMG IP.



“Clean environment? What world are you living in. Lol. They've been working on this for years in the US.”
Clean environment as in they should be working on this in an area that doesn’t have confidential IMG IP. How can they designed a new GPU in an area full of IMG IP or with a team that is already working on deep IMG IP! That’s going be a nightmare to explain at court if talks break down.

I have seen no evidence Apple have been working on this going back as far as you first started shouting about it. All the evidence I have seen suggest Apple only started on this project years after you said they started and only seriously took it up in the past 6 months.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 13:14

Sheep_Herder > "Edit: I've only just read that Ashraf article in full."

Well that explains a lot!

So you didn't know that Apple had recruited GPU architects from Nvidia and Vivante then!

Thanks for clarifying.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 13:09

Pottsey, I see you're easily confused about the history of my postings. Never mind.

Clean environment? What world are you living in. Lol. They've been working on this for years in the US.

[pottsey] 15/5/2017 13:02

“The Orlando link was just an example Pottsey”
But what you based your speculation on turned out to be wrong. As Rob said you never posted any evidence and what you did post was proven wrong. You was also wrong 3 times with the first 3 generations of the in house GPU and it looks like now what you was saying will be wrong for the first 6 generations. That’s why so few people listened to you.

As for the none IMG GPU surly it has to be designed in a new office away from established staff in a clean environment. If Apple design it in one of the current offices they are putting themselves in an extremely weak position should the talks fail and this goes to court. It’s not going look good when IMG take them to court over patents and Apple have designed a new GPU in the same place they have ex PowerVR GPU staff and current apple staff with access to deep confidential workings of PowerVR GPU designs. That’s going be a patent nightmare for Apple.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the end results of this is Apple stop paying a free per device but pay a set fee per year for patent protection. Not just to protect against IMG but all the other GPU makers.

[sheep_herder] 15/5/2017 13:00

Rob,

it wasn't my "opinion" that they were designing a new GPU, it was fact. Just like it wasn't my "opinion" when I showed all the heads being recruited for the UK office and relayed Apple's plans long before it was public, that was also fact. I even hinted at how I knew and told you all to phone up the recruiter and have a chat.

Just because YOU seem to need some higher proof before you accept what you are free to find out for yourself, doesn't make my knowledge any less fact based. You can choose to ignore it or accept it as a something you should research. Working in the industry does provide you with more "rumours and opinion" that most have access to I guess.

Edit: I've only just read that Ashraf article in full. Lol. Your "proof" is some job postings and some LinkedIn browsing. Holy public domain information batman.

[rob_evans] 15/5/2017 12:20

Sheep_Herder > "Rob. Let me help you"

That's a laugh, when you are beyond helping yourself.

Of course the suspicion was that Apple were designing their own GPU, but we lacked PROOF. This was available in the Ashraf article, but none of us - you included - spotted it at the time.

You seem unable to discern the difference between suspicion and proof.

But then you thought that posting your opinion that Apple were designing their own GPU was proof, so I suppose there is no helping you.