tooltalk

37 ms·

391.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> ... when presented with two candidates that are equally qualified in every other regard? ... Because that is often the situation Is that the case? I always thought that the case is brought on because the diversity candidate is NOT o
392.
Samsung should just cancel the Galaxy Fold(phonearena.com)
1 points by tooltalk 7y ago|0 comments
393.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Yep, they are still some of the most popular selling smartphones in many markets (at least according to DeviceAtlas): https://deviceatlas.com/blog/most-popular-smartphones
394.
Samsung Foundry to Produce Intel's CPU(businesskorea.co.kr)
2 points by tooltalk 7y ago|0 comments
395.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> I specifically didn't talk about when they started their foundry business. I specially was talking about 2017 when they started trying to become an serious option for fabless companies. Sure, if you believe Samsung LSI got serious
396.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Samsung has been running custom foundry business since 2005 when it started designing and fabb'ng Apple's mobile AP used in the iPod and iPhones until around ~2013 when Apple finally developed their own custom AP after PA-semi and
397.
by tooltalk 7y ago
hate to be so nitpicking, but the whole idea of GUI had been around before Xerox and articulated by folks like Jef Raskin who later started the Mac project at Apple[1]: > "My thesis in Computer Science, published in 1967, argued tha
398.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> why aren't these company suing to ban Huawei sales if the copying is so blatant. ... First, Huawei's sales in the US already is quite limited to have any impact. Second, you can't win any sales or import injunction on 5G
399.
by tooltalk 7y ago
That's been going for some time. This case was unique in that the Korean authority caught some rogue Samsung suppliers smuggling Samsung's high-tech OLED manufacturing machinaries their factories in South Korea to China.
400.
by tooltalk 7y ago
I agree with you to some degree. I am against the whole notion of non-compete agreement for this reason. But in this particular case with Samsung's OLED, Chinese companies are not only accused of poaching their former/retired emp
401.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Yes, in most cases, foreign companies are REQUIRED to either transfer their tech or have a domestic partnership as a pre-condition to do business in China (ie, access to domestic market in China). There are a few notable exception to this
402.
by tooltalk 7y ago
It was the foldable display OLED, not the folding mechanism that was stolen IIRC. Also note it was widely speculated that Huawei's display supplier, BOE, was behind the theft.
403.
Huawei Accused of Technology Theft(npr.org)
314 points by tooltalk 7y ago|212 comments
404.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Well no. In this case, it's "premium" LTE market.
405.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Of course Samsung can handle that demand. They got plenty of capacity just laying around and ramp up more as needed.
406.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> Mainland China is by far Taiwan's biggest trading partner. That's true for most neighboring Asian countries. But I'm also guessing that most fabless customers are American. Sure, there are Chinese fabless chipmakers su
407.
by tooltalk 7y ago
I know this is completely tangential, but just wondering if Apple ever came up in discussion.
408.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> The monopolistic position of qualcomm has not only driven up prices, What is your evidence of such claim?
409.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> 99.9% of customers don't even know Qualcomm is a thing a won't care if you told them. Sure, QCOM is not a marketing/consumer electronic company they way Apple is. Your 99% of consumers buy the iPhones over the iPod becau
410.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> Consider the 64 GB iPhone XS selling for $1000 vs the 512 GB one for $1349. Sure, first, QCOM licensing fee only applies to the first $400, which is in turn also based on the wholesale, not retail, price from Apple's contract manu
411.
by tooltalk 7y ago
I believe there was no flat rate. I think during the first FTC trial, it was revealed that Apple paid on average $7.50 per device, or ~$230 (Foxconn's wholesale price for iPhones) x 3.25 = $7.50
412.
by tooltalk 7y ago
>I doubt one has ever been defined as narrowly as a single product. Actually, QCOM's antitrust case is exactly that: QCOM's dominance in one or two particular markets (or product), in this case, the CDMA and "premium"
413.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> Did they have anything to do with the CPU, screen, memory or battery? Sure, without QCOM's IP, other non-wireless parts of the phone won't add/contribute as much value or drive market demand for the phone.
414.
by tooltalk 7y ago
QCOM doesn't have a monopoly in the baseband market either, yet Koh's court found QCOM's monopoly there. The FTC simply redefined a market where QCOM had a dominant marketshare -- the "premium" modem market (LTE) -
415.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> Qualcomm holds CDMA patents and they won't license them to anyone I thought chip-makers weren't required to license QCOM's patents -- QCOM like all other wireless SEP holders only collect licenses at system-level.
416.
by tooltalk 7y ago
If Lucy Koh's decision is upheld, QCOM has to re-write all their existing licensing agreement. What monopoly? There are at least two other 5G chip makers, Samsung and Huawei and according to a fairly reliable Apple analysis Ming Chi K
417.
by tooltalk 7y ago
Let's not forget about the Huawei ban, less than a week ago! You need a ball of steel to trade in this stock.
418.
by tooltalk 7y ago
were they QA positions?
419.
by tooltalk 7y ago
>They probably settled because Intel wasn't able to supply modems for their next Phone I'm very unconvinced that they settled because of 5G or Intel. Apple plotted the world-wide regulatory attacks, the FTC's lawsuit in t
420.
by tooltalk 7y ago
> "Qualcomm is a law firm with a few engineers" I think you are talking about Rambus, not Qualcomm. >They put in a minimal effort to provide support and only after you've completed the onerous requirements to ... Don&#x

More ›