291–300 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple bought SiByte who were a lot of ex-DEC VLSI design engineers. So, "Apple" designing a CPU is technically correct, but its a design team from elsewhere.
I think you mean P.A. Semi.
Sorry. I forgot which of the ex-DEC design groups got bought when. It's been a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Offenses against us are entirely ignored... Meanwhile everybody else is saying that US antitrust law is concerned entirely with consumer harm and not with competition. Although in this case the consumer harm seems to be that a >$750 phone costs ~$20 more than it might otherwise.
No, nobody thinks the enforcement is about consumers. Obviously it is on behalf of Apple and, maybe, Intel. But case law says they have to cite costs to consumers, so that is how the complaint reads. A zillion other companies do the same things, and much worse for "consumers", but are less openly greedy toward other big companies, so are ignored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think things are as clear cut as you make them out to be. Apple says nobody can run apps on their phone without handing them a 30% cut. No side-loading, no other stores, nothing. There is very obviously a market for apps that Apple controls completely. Just because there are other app stores for other phones does not mean Apple doesn't have control over the entire market for iPhone apps. Markets can be narrow…
Except that isn't what is happening. Side loading is allowed on iOS and is how Netflix is currently monetizing their iOS users.
And in defence of Qualcomm, I would post a few links from people that had the same thought as I did. [1] Is the Qualcomm information, I think it provides a angle just how much Qualcomm has spent on R&D. While I don't normally consider Cnet as Quality source of news, Shara Tibken [2] has been following the Apple and Qualcomm Trial and has been in the court for every trial between the two, reporting on the "exact" wordings some of these people gave in court. There were lots of details, and Qualcomm clearly has some very decent explanation in every accusation against them. And somehow none of these made it into many other mainstream media.
Patrick Moorhead wrote about this [4][5] and I agree with him on every thing ( Apart from the US politics which I am not well versed in ). Things Such as the "common interest agreement” Apple has with the FTC, and Huawei's involvement. Along with completely ignoring the defendant's testimony. It really opens my eyes as to how US law system works compared to UK or Germany.
And I would just like to remind everyone, Hating Qualcomm, Qualcomm doing wrong, and Qualcomm is a monopoly are 3 different things.
[1] https://www.qualcomm.com/ftc
[2] https://twitter.com/sharatibken
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2019/05/28/ftc-...
[4]https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2019/03/31/the-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it cost apple less to build improvement into 5G that would have been licensed to everyone they would have done so. Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate. If apple developed 5G IP they would have effectively received a rebate based on the relative impact of their contribution. Qualcomm actually has great execution. You realize 5G is going to put a 1 gigabit network in the palm of your hand?…
Meh, 1Gbps over cable is nothing, really. Switches with 10g uplink ports cost almost nothing now. Problem is that most software and hardware on user’s side can’t deal with that speed :) 5G smartphones probably won’t be able to give you 1Ggps either.
Qcom charges Apple $14 bucks for the modem. That doesn't sound crippling or unfair or unreasonable. I think if consumers had the option to buy an ipod touch for 500, then add the modem like you do with a PC no one would be buying a fully integrated device from Apple for 1000.
I worked at Qualcomm, so take this with a grain of salt. But I find it laughable that Apple is complaining when they can sell the exact same thing at 2x the price by just adding a $14 dollar qualcomm modem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
App Store, in their ios ecosystem.
Jeep doesn’t allow me to install my own apps on Uconnect. I guess they are a monopoly. Sirius, Apple, and Android are 3rd party products that are allowed on Uconnect but not my own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple phones do not use ARM-designed processors. They just implement the same instruction set. If it’s possible for Apple to develop a mobile processor independently of ARM, why shouldn’t it be possible for Intel?
> If it’s possible for Apple to develop a mobile processor independently of ARM, why shouldn’t it be possible for Intel? Apple holds an ARM architecture license ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Architectural... ) and to this day the Apple CPUs are ARM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A12X ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CPU design and RF stuff are both very difficult; I wouldn't assume one way or the other. I wonder if knowledge of CPU design is more widely dispersed (e.g. you can hire ex-Intel, ex-AMD, ex-IBM people) than cellular radios where the only (working) ones seem to be made by Qualcomm.
Samsung, Huawei and Intel all make working 4G modems. They work fine outside the US, which suggests that there is some US-specific problem at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is the gangster in the hood.
What Apple did to/with that glass foundry that went under was straight-up gangster.