4 ms·
> For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based, whereas Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials. I find it ironi
by magicalist 11y ago
> For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based, whereas Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials.
I find it ironic that you've been "following this technology", have quick access to Qualcomm filing links, are happy to fill in details, but couldn't be bothered to even skim Google's filing.
The Jindal and Breslin study is well written and understandable. I'd suggest reading it since you seem invested in the topic.
- tyc2021 11y agoI stand corrected. I confused the filing by Google with other WiFi supporters (which uses simulation results). I have read through the all the filing months ago and apology for the bad memory. I agree that Jindal and Breslin study is solid and raised a valid concern. But they were all addressed in a response though. Now I'd love to know how others think after reading Qualcomm's filing and not just take on one side of the story.
- xenadu02 11y agoThe response was a vacuous non-response that didn't address any of the technical points. If Qualcomm provided a detailed technical response I'd love to see it.
- tyc2021 11y agoWhat do you mean by technical? Section 3 of Qualcomm's filing did respond to many concerns in either simple analysis and/or lab tests. For example, the concern on the impact of rate control algorithm in WiFi.