2 ms·
Great, but you are not a disinterested source on this. You are an insider (C-level exec) who allowed someone to write a potentially conflicted PR piece without
by nimish 8y ago
Great, but you are not a disinterested source on this.
You are an insider (C-level exec) who allowed someone to write a potentially conflicted PR piece without disclosing that the beneficiary of that piece has a non-trivial investment in your company.
I don't even see a clear disclaimer that says "Qualcomm is an investor in Cloudflare" in the blog post.
The SEC doesn't usually like a technical distinction on potentially-material information (huge win for Centriq!) about something that could move QCOM done underhandedly by a company that didn't disclose that it received a lot of investment by QCOM.
- jsgo 8y agoper the comments section, it appears that the engineer is open sourcing or maybe has already open sourced (discussion was 6 months ago) their testing setup so perhaps someone can check his work? Maybe the lack of notice of investment should have been noticed earlier (or perhaps should be amended to include), but I'd assume an engineer isn't aware of details of who is providing funding (don't work for them, though, so maybe they do). The engineer specifies the metric that matters most to them is long term cost (performance per watt) so with that, I don't get the feeling that their conclusion is flawed when comparing ARM vs Intel in consumer space. We host a few pre-core ASP.NET web applications so I'm fairly certain we wouldn't come to the same conclusion due to use cases. I will say, though, based on the Bloomberg article vs the Cloudflare one, I'm a bit bummed as it seems like long term it'd be a good avenue where applicable and losing a competitor is unfortunate.