RIM sees PlayBook OS as 10-year future for smartphones, tablets - Page 3

Check out a 7 tablet with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Its to be big to be a phone and its too small and wonky to be a good eReader. I am sure there are plenty of uses that each display size and resolution are most ideal for, but I dont think that a 7 16:9 display is small enough to be a phone or pocketable PMP replacement, or large enough to be a good eReader.

Personally, Im not fond of using my iPad for web browsing because I almost always have my 13 MBP with me (which I find superior in that regard) or Im highly mobile so the iPad is less likely to come with me but Im likely to have my iPhone in hand or pocket so I cant comment on my experience in that regard, but I have heard many state how they do like the iPads browser experience.

That's what I am saying --- Samsung produced a cortex a8 chip a year ahead of Apple.

The dual core cortex a9 isn't even ready yet ---- RIGHT NOW --- from the big silicon companies. You are assigning mythical abilities to the PA Semi and Intrinsity teams.

Size doesn't matter because you're doing the same stuff, but size makes all the difference. It's stupid to imagine that more space makes a qualitative difference in the experience, but lack imagination if you can't see how that extra space can be used.

Here, let me help:

Yes, it's not in production RIGHT NOW. The iPhone 5 isn't launching RIGHT NOW but in 8 months.

The iPad 2 is likely to be March or April. 4-5 months from now.

This isn't mythical abilities for Apple but fairly reasonable timeframes given where the A9s are now...in prototype units like the LG phone, Playbook tablet, etc and very close to full rate production.

There are prototype dual core Cortex A9 iPads in Cupertino RIGHT NOW. There are prototype dual core Cortex A9 iPhone 5s in Cupertino RIGHT NOW. There are dual core Cortex A9 based A5 samples in Cupertino right now.

Will Apple decide to go with single core A5s over duals for battery life? Maybe, but strikes me as doubtful.

So you are telling me that the time lag between a big silicon company like TI vs. Apple is less than 2 months --- because the earliest time RIM launches the Playbook seems to be in February.

If Apple launches a dual core cortex A9 ipad 2 in April 2011, they are buying a stock CPU from Samsung because I don't think that Apple can do it within 2 months of other big silicon companies.

If I'm reading ARM's product page correctly it looks like there will also be significant space savings with the single-core A9.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Apple's ability to execute is not tied to RIM's ability to execute. Thank god.

There is no reason they cannot have a dual core Cortex A9 based A5 design fabbed by Samsung and sampling internally as we speak (type). The S5PC100 in the 3GS was custom for Apple. The A8 in Hummingbird and the A4 is a custom version of that designed by Intrinsity and fabbed by Samsung.

Samsung and Apple have a very close relationship and there's no reason that Apple can't have been working on the A5 in parallel with Orion development. There's no need for things to have to happen sequentially.

So there's no reason to doubt that Apple couldn't lag TI by 2 months so long as Samsung doesn't lag TI by more than 2 months.

Given Orion is 45nm this is a distinct possibility. Folks had expected 32nm but not so much so yah...2 core bigger than 1 core.

As an aside, TI isn't going past the 45nm process so effectively they become a fabless designer for next generation ARMs just like Apple. Probably end up using TSMC.

I am not talking about RIM, I am talking about TI and Samsung.

There is no reason to suspect that Samsung is going to do a custom Apple job ahead of Samsung's own chip --- and we haven't seen Samsung announcing that they are anything close to shipping their own dual core Cortex A9 chip yet.

And there is no reason to believe that big silicon companies like TI are shipping massive amounts of dual core cortex A9 chips either. Wall Street ain't estimating RIM to ship millions and millions of Playbook in Q1 --- they are estimating the figure to be in hundreds of thousands.

So you are telling me that somehow Samsung is going to ship a custom Apple job for millions and millions units --- ahead of their own Samsung chip (which won't be available in massive quantity until first half of next year).

Think about it!

Say you are Samsung.

You have an internal demand for, say, 100 K A9s per month (0% profit).

You have an external demand for, say, 300 K A9s per month (20% profit).

Apple comes to you with an order for 2 Million A9s per month (15% profit), for 6 months, payable in advance.

Just who do you want to give priority -- especially since Apple can go to any other Fabs and make the same deal?


There's an old (supplier) saying from the days when IBM dominated the mainframe computer market with 97%:

When you make love with an 800 lb gorilla -- you stop when the Gorilla gets tired!

.

This is whats called a self-deating argument:


Okay so you claim that the iPad isn't better because its bigger.


But then you claim a 7" tablet is better than a phone because its bigger.

Oops!

Fact is, the size differential between iPhone and iPad is significant meaning that the capability differential is also significant. The size different between iPhone and Playbook on the other hand is minimal meaning the expected capability differential is also minimal.

Of course, if you consider the capabilities of a current Blackberry as the baseline then yes of course the Playbook will be exponentially more capable simply because Blackberries are so incapable.

You reached the same conclusion as me --- that's why I said that if Apple is coming out with a dual core a9 ipad2 in Q2, it's going to be a Samsung stock CPU.

What nht was talking about was a custom Apple dual core A5 chip coming out before a Samsung stock dual core A9 chip.

No, I believe the A5 design is done. Samsung will give priority to manufacture the A5.

Here's some questions about state of the art SOC manufacturing:

Ages ago, I worked in the semiconductor industry.

In those days they would build chips to mil-qual specs for the military.

After manufacturing, the chips went through rigorous testing to assure that they performed to specs -- things like performing within a certain range under varying power, temperature, etc.

Those that passed testing went to fill orders.

Those that failed testing were either total rejects (scrapped) or marginal.

The marginal chips were often put in inventory where they could be used as less- critical spec'd parts (lower power, narrower temperature range, etc.)


So, with something like the A5:

1) Can they target manufacturing of say, a 1 GHz Dual-Core A9?

2) Can chips that don't meet those specs be used as a lesser part. e.g. a single core variant and/or a slower-clocked variant?

3) If so, do they design extra capacity into the chips to increase their yield?


Say Apple decides that for 2011 they want the following chips:

iPad - 1 GHz Dual-Core A9
iPhone - 1 GHz Single-Core A9
iPod Touch - 800 MHz Dual-Core A9
AppleTV - 800 MHz Single-Core A9

4) Would they manufacture a single chip targeted at the highest spec, then fill the lower-speced by under-clocking and/or disabling a core. etc."

5) If so, what other things can they over sped, then re-spec?

Why should Samsung give priority to Apple --- when Samsung also manufactures smartphones and tablets themselves, which has a higher profit margin because it's a finished product. Selling a million galaxy tab is more profitable to Samsung than selling 10 million custom A5 chip to Apple.

Again, lets assume that you are Samsung -- I am pulling numbers out of the air:

1) You plan to set up a manufacturing line/process for ARM Dual-Core A9

2) You Budget, say, $250 Million to set up and test the line over a period of 3 months.

3) You amortize these costs over, say, a 3-year expected life of the ARM Dual-Core A9

4) Over those 3 years you plan to sell 300 Million units at a profit of $10 per unit -- a very attractive 30% gross profit margin .

5) Just for ease of calculation, the production starts in Jan 2011


Now, using the numbers from my earlier post:

You have an internal demand for, say, 100 K A9s per month (0% profit). These are the units that Samusing sells to itself for use in Galaxy Tab follow-ons. There is no profit on these chips until they are included in the manufacture of the tablets, and subsequently sold at a profit. But for sake of argument lets say Samsung can sell 100 K Samsung Galaxy Tab2 at full retail, realizing the $10 profit on each ARM Dual-Core A9 included.

So, Samsung will make $1 million per month on Samsung chips in Samsung Tablets

You have an external demand for, say, 300 K A9s per month (@20% profit) or $6.70. Here Samsung sells the chips to others at 2/3 the profit realized by selling to Samsung. There is immediate (30 days later) profit.

So, Samsung will make 300 K x $6.70 ~= $2 million per month on Samsung chips sold to others.

Apple comes to you with an order for 2 Million A9s per month (15% profit), for 6 months, payable in advance. Sales of chips to Apple are at 15% margin vs internal 30% margin, or $5 profit per chip.

So, Samsung will make 2 million x $5 == $10 Million per month on Samsung chips sold to Apple.

Putting these together:

Samsung will make 100 K x $10.00 == $1 million per month on Samsung chips in Samsung Tablets
Samsung will make 300 K x $06.70 ~= $2 million per month on Samsung chips sold to others.
Samsung will make 2 mill x $05.00 == $10 Million per month on Samsung chips sold to Apple.

Noteworthy:

There is a thing called the time/value of money

Apple pays Samsung in advance.
Apple guarantees sales for 6 months
Apple reserves certain rights to increase quantities/orders at these prices
Apple, essentially, pays for Samsung to setup the $250 Million manufacturing line/process (the A5 is a superset of the Samsung chip)
Apple can go to another Fab (a Samsung competitor) and make the same offer -- reducing Samsung's economy of scale

A bird in the hand is better than a turd in the bush!


To answer your question:

"Why should Samsung give priority to Apple -- Selling a million galaxy tab is more profitable to Samsung than selling 10 million custom A5 chip to Apple."

If Samsung can make $100 (including $10 on the A9) each and sell 1 million Tabs in 6 months thats $100 million profit ($10 Million on the A9) possible

Samsung can make $5 each and sell 12 million A5s in 6 months that's $60 million profit guaranteed

More profit, Less risk, better use of $ (payment in advance vs manufacturing and inventory costs).

No, you are just arguing shiite for the sake of trying to cover your ass. CortexA9 has been licensable as IP from ARM since early 2009. Tegra2 dual core shipped in 2010, although not power optimized as it came from Nvidia, it shows the maturity of IP to tape-out is well past question.

I wouldn't state my reputation in TI's ability to churn out other folks CPU IP, that's not their strength. But you just go ahead, because your technical reputation is already damaged beyond repair. Do you actually know facts or check them at all before you post? Because it sure doesn't read that way.

And Samsung didn't announce an A8 phone until Feb 2009, which is only a couple months before iPhone 3GS shipped. And Samsung produced that version of the A8 as a Samsung part number. Apple later made the A4 based on further CortexA8 improvements.

There has been plenty of time for Apple to do an CortexA9 version if they thought it was economically smart to ship. That's what Apple will use as criteria for inclusion, not spec-whoring.

Because every A4/A5 sold is finance risk-free. Samsung has no R&D skin in the A4/A5 game, and it keeps their contract fab busy. The Samsung contract fab CAN'T produce Galaxy Tabs, it can only provide chips, and Samsung uses the contracts to pay off the capital expenditure of building and upgrading the fab. That way they get their own Cortex CPUs without having to bear all the manufacturing financial risk themselves on top of the R&D risk inherent in implementing the Cortex IP on silicon. Flat out Samsung needs Apple contract business more than Apple needs Samsung specifically because TSMC could do the job nicely too.

The profit on the contract run chips is many times higher compared to in-house taped and used ARM Cortex chips because of all of the above. I'll even sat Dick's numbers on internal cost are skewed in your favor because he missed accounting for the fact Samsung has no R&D investment to recoup for A4/A5 before they can recognize any profit. And that skewing still didn't look good for you, your position is even worse than you were led to believe the the first thrashing.

So you have it exactly backwards as far as fabbing chips go. It's obvious you have no idea how the industry works, at all.

Rightly or wrongly --- Korean and Japanese conglomerates don't care about short term profitability --- between cross shareholdings and government pushing technology agendas, satisfying Apple's needs are going to be a low priority.

I am not saying that's the right thing for Samsung to do financially, I am saying that's what they would do --- given how the Korean and Japanese conglomerates operate. Hell, after 20 decades of economic mess, the Japanese conglomerates would still do that.

This is called saying even more stupid things in the hopes that folks forget the stupid things already stated. This is why Hiro says your technical reputation is beyond repair.


Given that Samsung gave Apple A4 production equal if not higher priority over Hummingbird used in their own flagship products this is demonstrably false.

Apple had millions of A4s produced for them and launched the iPad in April where Samsung's flagship Galaxy S using Hummingbird didn't launch until June. Apple announced in Jan, took pre-orders on March 12 before Samsung even announced the S (March 23).

Given which product came out first and the qty of iPads built it's fairly easy to make the case that Samsung gave Apple A4 production priority over its own.

Given that stock cortex a8 chips were available one year before both Samsung and Apple released their version, you are saying that Samsung and Apple have caught up with the big silicon companies in one year's time.

Wow, way to miss the point and say something else unrelated and nonsensical. You must be channelling the BB CEO.

I'm saying that despite what you wrote Samsung already gave Apple priority for the A4 OVER their own Hummingbird product. Therefore what you wrote was stupid and therefore you completely evaded this by writing another stupid statement to attempt to divert attention.

Samsung is a "big silicon company". More so than Ti. So what you wrote was once again factually incorrect and stupid. Samsung didn't "catch up" to anyone. Intrinisty and Samsung enhanced their Samsung's A8 product used in the 3GS to be one of the very best SoC of the A8 generation: the Hummingbird.

And before you embarrass yourself further, the reason why Samsung > Ti is because Samsung is sampling 32nm A9s where Ti isn't going to move past 45nm themselves but probably end up using TSMC. Half of Ti's production was already outsourced in 2007. It's probably higher now and even more so when they go fabless for 32nm and beyond. So much for "big silicon".

Meanwhile:

"South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. said its foundry business has qualified a 32-nm low-power process with high-k metal gate technology. The company lays claim to being the first foundry to qualify a low-power process using high-k at 32-nm."

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...oundry-process

Absolutely clueless about Samsung aren't you?

You don't even know what the ARM Cortex line is do you. (yes that was a statement not a question)

ARM licenses IP, not chips. Companies contract to use the IP to make the chips with whatever customizations they want.

There is no such thing as a stock Cortex chip!

They don't exist!

Because the Cortex IP itself isn't the entire package of IP needed to generate a functional silicon CPU!

The IP was available in 2008, the first complete shipping implementations (not counting pre production tape-outs) didn't show until Feb/Mar 2009.

Anywhere.

You.

Still.

Fail...



As for big silicon. I only consider Intel and AMD in that company. If you haven't shipped 25nm or smaller memory runs you don't qualify as big silicon. 32nm is a generation old tech. Cheap to build the fab for that, only about a $ Billion and a quarter for the machinery. You want big silicon you don't start until your fab runs $3 Billion for less than 25 nm.

I know that only 4 companies to-date has signed ARM architecture license --- Qualcomm, Infineon, Marvell and Microsoft. They can design their own cores.

I know that all the other players license the cores and put their own extra stuff around it.

I know that TI --- which has a long history of designing application processors --- will barely able to produce low 6 figure quantities of OMAP4430 dual core cortex A9 application processors for the RIM Playbook.

I also know that Samsung while they are big in silicon, they are heavy on memory chips, not actual application processors. That's why Samsung licensed the Hummerbird.

Now you are telling me that Samsung and Apple --- while they are both big companies with lots of cash ---- both are pretty new to this industry and somehow they are going to do even better TI --- which is to produce millions of dual core cortex A9 application processors for the iPad 2.

You are showing yourself to be an absolute talk out your ass sideways idiot. Apple is an ARM licensor, as is TI- what do you think the OMAP series are? And Samsung is a licensor too--Hummingbird isn't made or designed by ARM, the CortexA8 core was licensed by Samsung so they could make the Hummingbird. There are also a handful of DoD and European defense contractors that contract for ARM IP directly too.

Your statements only highlight your utter lack of knowledge as to what ARM sells and what licensors get. At least you keep creeping a little closer to reality each time you try to cover your arse, but the rate is abysmally low given the learning opportunities you have been provided.

What made up un-facts will you try next?

I never said otherwise.

I said that big merchant established chip companies are barely able to produce low quanities of dual core cortex A9 application processors --- these are stock merchant chips. Now you are telling me that Samsung and Apple who are both relatively new to the scene are going to be virtually certain to provide millions of these same kind of chips at the same time as TI. Remember these are newcomers who didn't have the expertise and had to license the Hummerbird from someone else.

Is it possible? Sure, it is possible. But you are making it sound as if it is a virtual certainty, and I disagree with that assessment.

wow.

just wow.

Either you have the worlds shortest memory or convenient lying is considered a valid debate tactic in your world. Your post's above are QFT.


You keep saying that, but you have no evidence. You are just making up words hoping something will stick.

There are shipping CortexA9 chips in the wild. Not small feature-size production runs for low power, but there isn't any reason to expect that at less than the 1 year point from IP availability. The implementations are actually going swimmingly well based on both current producers of plug-in device cores shipping well respected units. This means there are no architectural gotchas for the small feature size crowd to deal with, they only have to deal with setting up the fab process.

Apple isn't a fab, so your assessment of their experience in producing chips is utterly irrelevant and worthless. Because Apple simply doesn't do that! And the opposite side of that, the diss on Samsung is way off base too, because Samsung is a proven 32nm memory producer for a couple years now, meaning they have the proven technical ability to run the fab at the feature size the low-power CortexA9 based cores will be fabricated on.

This is completely wrong as usual. Intel, Apple, and Samsung are also architecture license holders. Apple is unconfirmed given their traditional secrecy but most folks believe so. Especially given ARM's coy statement and Apple's early history in creating ARM for Newton with Acorn.


This seems highly unlikely. Given your penchant for making "facts" up I'd want a link.


See what I mean? A made up "fact". Samsung is only the second largest semiconductor company behind intel and the largest supplier of application processors.

"Scemama notes that Samsung is the world's largest vendor of application processors."

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...--says-analyst


Again wrong. They didn't license Hunningbird. They designed it in collaboration with Intrinsity.


Wrong again. Neither Samsung nor Apple are new. Apple has been a fabless designer for a while (mostly northbridges prior to buying pa semi but they also owned a big chunk of ARM). And samsung didn't become the second largest semi company expected to overtake Intel overnight. Samsung passed Ti a while ago.

I don't think you wrote a single correct statement in this entire post.

That is corporate talk semantics. It's like the xbox CPU's. Microsoft licensed the IBM powerpc architecture and then hire IBM to help them design the xenon cpu. The end result is that the CPU itself is a Microsoft's own IP. Who did most of the work? It's IBM.

You are completely wrong. On all counts, well except that it was IBM that did the work, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

Once again you prove that you can make crap up and spout it off with the best of them, being utterly incorrect on any important point the whole while.

Microsoft did not design the Xenon. IBM did, completely. Microsoft contracted IBM to design and produce the chip, providing requirements and feedback in the process. IBM started with their existing PPC muli-core design and then wrapped three of them together with VMX optimizations and communications crossbars to meet the MS XBox CPU spec requirements. Microsoft didn't license and design anything, they bought finished, custom specified hardware. That's all.

Don't let yourself be confused by MS having a couple employees working with IBM. That doesn't constitute design any more than it did between Apple, Motorola and IBM when the AltiVec/VMX design was created. Apple's engineers had the grand picture and knew what they wanted working with Moto and IBM every day. They were even very capable, participating completely in the architecture process. But all the actual decisions were Moto's/IBM's, so very explicitly AltiVec belongs only to Moto and is a Moto design just as VMX is for IBM.

Your idea of corporate semantics is the thing that's f*%-ed up here. Samsung DID design the Hummingbird (not the Hummerbird as you have repeatedly called it throughout the thread). Samsung licensed the core IP from ARM, then contracted for engineering assistance from Intrinsity to create a complete CPU design. After they were done Samsung fabbed their own proprietary CPU design.

You don't understand any of this. At all.

Get the clue that you will not be allowed to disseminate incorrect information at your every whim. And when you make stuff up with such an obviously deficient background it isn't difficult at all to contradict by those of us who do happen to have appropriate backgrounds.

Meh, I wrote a response but just nuked it so: what Hiro wrote. Ridiculing you twice seems redundant

http://www.insidedsp.com/tabid/64/ar...0/Default.aspx

Quote:

"Hummingbird represents an interesting business model. Samsung has a license for the Cortex-A8 from ARM, and a license for Hummingbird from Intrinsity. Intrinsity received a fee to develop Hummingbird, and both ARM and Intrinsity will collect royalties when the core is used in SoCs. Hummingbird belongs to Samsung; Intrinsity cant license it, re-use it, or port it to another process."

It is the EXACT business model as the console chips --- IBM designed them, and Microsoft owns the IP.

Considering that the latest rumors floating around is Samsung going to use the Tegra 2 on its Galaxy Tab 2 --- which means that Samsung's own dual core A9 chip is not ready yet. And if Samsung is not ready, then probably Apple's own dual core A9 chip is not ready as well.

Yes, Samsung licensed ARM IP from ARM (because you have to in order to make ARM chips) and custom IP from Intrinsity. They then hired Intrinsity to help apply that IP to the A8 that Samsung ALREADY BUILT AND USED IN OTHER PRODUCTS. Which part of this is hard to understand?

Of course Intrinsity had IP to use...otherwise what is the value add to Samsung to hire Intrinsity?

This in no way supports your idiotic contention that Samsung cannot build the A9 on its own, especially given it has already done so and is sampling the chip. Just like it did with it's original A8 product. Which part of Samsung is the 2nd largest semi company and largest app processor company confuses you? Moreover Samsung is a architecture license holder and Ti is not.

It is also not like the business model of console chips given that Samsung makes chips unlike Microsoft (or Sony for that matter). This is like saying that Intel followed the console business model because it had to get a license from ARM and buy the StrongARM IP from DEC and therefore didn't have the chops to design chips.

The Tegra 2 is first to market so Samsung might go that route, especially for the gpu performance. On the other hand its the same rumor that has been circulating since earlier in the year.

Of course, if true, that completely demolishes your other argument of how Korean and Japanese companies act since this is Samsung Mobile dumping Samsung Semi in favor of nVidia who traditionally uses TSMC. Google has been pushing Tegra 2 for Honeycomb.

What does that mean for Apple? It depends. As an ARM license holder it can design the A5 alone and get any decent fab to build it for them. After all, it owns all of Intrinisty's IP.

It would be interesting if the A5 is being fabbed by Samsung Semi's new 32nm HKMG fab. Samsung announced their 32nm fab was ready for volume production and Samsung developed 32nm HKMG ARMs as a part of the CPA and was highlighted at TechCon 2010 by ARM.

So Samsung Mobile going Tegra 2 might really mean that 45nm Orion isn't ready and likely never will be ready because it'll go 32nm. Apple being Apple they probably pre-bought a huge amount of 32nm fab capacity from Samsung and Samsung sure as hell isn't going to fab its own processors at Global Foundries.

All your talk about me getting it wrong that Samsung licensing the Hummingbird --- has been proven that you are wrong.

Another thing that you got it wrong is that you think Samsung is a architecture licensee. There are only 4 architecture licensees --- Marvell, Qualcomm, Infineon and Microsoft.

I never claim that Samsung can't build their own A9 --- I said that they can't do it within the time line given. And the recent rumors about Samsung going to use the tegra 2 on their own Galaxy Tab 2 tablet reinforces my arguments.

I never said that Samsung has a business model like Microsoft. I said that the arrangement between Intrinsity and Samsung is like IBM and Microsoft. Intrinsity/IBM did all the designing but Samsung/Microsoft owns the IP.


I was talking about time line, time line, time line. I never said that they couldn't design it. I never said that they couldn't manufacture it. I said that they can't design it within the time line given. I said that even if they can design it, they can't produce it in quantities that would satisfy Samsung's own internal demand, let alone produce in massive quantities that Apple demands.

Considering the fact that Cortex A15 is design for 32nm, by the time that the fabs are ready to do 32nm --- they would be manufacturing A15 chips then.

Ummm. No. I find it very interesting how you cherry-pick which sentence to use, esopecially when the very next sentence of YOUR SOURCE says this :


Taking statements out of context and gratuitous information hiding allows all kinds of whacky things to be said.It's know as being dishonest.

The model of core development in that article is exactly what I said it was, Samsung contracted Intrinsity to work on Hummingbird. The method of payment includes some royaly-like mechanism, but that didn't change the ownership of the Hummingbird core itself.

I didn't cherry-pick --- I specifically stated that it is the same as IBM designing the Xenon chip and Microsoft owning the IP. Microsoft bought an architecture license for the PowerPC chip, then hire IBM to design the Xenon. Microsoft keeps the intellectual property for the Xenon --- IBM can't sell the Xenon to another customer and can't license the Xenon to another customer.

No this statement only proves you either A) cannot read for context or b) are so embroiled in your fantasy that you cannot admit you are still 100% wrong, so you delude yourself, or C) realize the core of B but are so egotistical that you intentionally attempt to keep up subterfuge to win a lost point by volume of falsehood and opportunistic out-of-context interpretation..


You are clearly just making shit up here. And you don't even know what the flavors of ARM licenses are. As for contradiction of 4 licensees--from the ARM Ltd Annual report:


http://www.arm.com/annualreport09/



Hey, buying the farm on the advice of a rumor. Great way to lose your ass.


Actually you still have it wrong, I said the Microsoft part on the 12th in this post:
Are you so vacuous that you can't remember what arguments were used against you and suddenly think they sprung from your own brain? You don't get credit for this, But I think its absolutely hilarious that you now think the stick that beat you is your savior.

The rest of that post dealt with associated issues. IBM still owns the Xenon and its IP, by license they just cannot sell the Xenon product to anyone else. In contrast Samsung OWNS the Hummingbird product, it isn't Intrinsity's to sell.




Shifting goalposts. Everything else you have said is so broken or malappropriated this is inconsequential.


Coretx A15 is a desktop/plug-in laptop class chip. Not a mobile device centric chip. Your lack of ability to realize that impeaches all you have to say regarding the relationships between desktop chip manufacturing and mobile CPU manufacturing.

I cannot I say this any more clearly. You are entirely out of your element here.

You are exhibiting all the weaknesses of a typical internet blowhard: 1) Find an article in the internet via Google; 2) Quote a sentence out of context to use as support for some assertion you really have no background in; 3) Screw it up by not having understood the quoted precisely because you are lacking the background necessary to actually understand the article, and so missing important, relevant, information; 3a) or maybe you do understand it, but hope others are sloppy and just believe you because you say so; 4) Repeat as often as necessary hoping the masses will get tired and let you "win".

Are you really gunning for a #1 here: http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-in...nt-techniques/

I am right in this case. It has nothing to do with being egotistical --- it has to do with you two trying to slam me for not understanding the business arrangement. But I was right all along.


You don't even know what I am talking about. All the other licensees are "core" licensees --- which means that they take a "stock" cortex A8 core and add a couple of non-core stuff to it (like an GPU). What these other 80-90 licensees cannot do is to change a single gate on the cortex core itself.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/23/microsoft_arm/

There are only 4 ARM "architecture" licensees --- Marvell, Infineon, Qualcomm and Microsoft. They design their own "compatible" cores. Marvell has the Sheeva core and Qualcomm has the Scorpion core. This is like AMD selling a x86 compatible CPU.

Hummingbird has a stock A8 core vs. Qualcomm has a ARMv7 compatible core.