1STnTENDERBITS

chasm said:

Gatorguy: I believe you misread the article and jumped to conclusions. Mikey's article clearly states that Google did not reveal that they had paused the reviews globally until Friday. Your statement doesn't contradict that at all -- it refers exclusively to the pausing of audio review in Germany.

Interesting that you're so quick to defend Google that you'd make a careless error like that.

Also unchanged: Apple among the three companies was the only one that was always anonymizing its voice clips before all this controversy even started, as per their white paper. Anonymizing is not 100 percent foolproof against identifying someone (for example, they identify themselves in the recording, or its obviously a famous person with a distinctive voice etc), but it was and is better than what was previously the policy at Google and Amazon, which left identifying information intact.

I think you're wrong on both accounts.  Read the headline.  It says "Google follows Apple's lead... "  That's not true.  They didn't.  There's no way to misinterpret that. 
Even from the article: "Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars Technica.  AI changed the context of that quote when they changed the attribution. 
The quote from the Ars article actually reads:
"Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally," Google told Ars today.  They had already paused the reviews when they spoke to Ars on Friday.

You're wrong about the claim that Apple was the only one anonymizing the voice clips.  Google was anonymizing clips that were listened to as well.  Google also made the storing of audio clips opt-in and even if you do you can opt-out at any time.  If you've opted-in, you can set your account to auto-delete every 3 or 18 months.  You can also manually delete them at any time.   From the earlier Ars article on 11 Jul https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/google-defends-listening-to-ok-google-queries-after-voice-recordings-leak/

In case you misunderstand my intent, I'm not defending Google.  I am countering your misinformation.

BuffyzDead said:

 Does VirnetX actually manufacture anything?
As in, are any products manufactured, featuring the  VirnetX technology?

 Manufacturing a product is not a prerequisite of a patent validity... particularly for software patents.  But to answer your question directly, yes VirnetX patents are licensed in software from the likes of Microsoft, Siemens, NEC Corp, and Avaya.  They also have a software suite on the market that utilizes the patents.  To be fair, that software suite could be junk specifically put on the market to bolster their position.   You can judge for yourself.  https://www.virnetx.com/

Apple has lost this battle in almost every conceivable way.  At some point you'd think they would abandon the Samsung strategy of appeal, appeal, and if you still don't win... appeal again.  

I've always felt that if Apple finally came to an agreement with VirnetX, they could expand the reach of FaceTime and iMessage.

I wrote this in a different thread a week ago:
"Afaik, there were no other vendors using Intel modems.  I think [think] Apple was their only modem customer.  It's why they were losing money.  Component manufacture only makes sense at volume.  Apple alone wasn't enough volume for intel to be profitable.  I believe Intel took the initial losses hoping to grow it mobile business to include other vendors... piggybacking of their relationship with Apple.  Problem was, Intel has always had a reputation for missing deadlines.  Well earned reputation.  Crappy, but totally okay for PC's.  Not so for mobile.  Mobile is a yearly grind.  Incessant and unforgiving.  Deliver the new chip or GTFOH.  That XMM 8160 was rumored to have problems from the get go and never got back on track.  Hopefully for Apple, there's some wheat in that chaff from Intel."

Swan basically said the same thing minus my speculation regarding the reasons no one else was interested in their chips.  

coolfactor said:

I suspect that Qualcomm sells its modems much cheaper than Intel was, and Apple was the only one willing to pay Intel's price, given their situation with Qualcomm.

Way to go Intel CEO, stab your biggest customer in the back. Genius.

Wasn't it much more likely that Qualcomm's chips were better and Intel had a reputation for not delivering on time?  I also suspect Qualcomm's modems may have been cheaper.  Cheaper because of economies of scale.  Qualcomm sold multiple chips in multiple variations to multiple customers.  Intel sold 1 chip to 1 customer.  That relationship was only ever going to produce negative equity for Intel.  Worse, that chip had a reputation of being inferior to Qualcomm's.  The only way Intel was going to pick up more customers was to go further into the negative for a longer time by lowering the cost.  That wasn't going to work because Qualcomm's chips were already cheaper and viewed as superior.   

Not really sure what you saw in this situation that lead you to conclude Intel stabbed Apple in back.  Intel's modem business was a dead man walking the moment they agreed to make the chip for Apple.

hammeroftruth said:

I wonder if Apple bought up those ips so that Qualcomm couldn’t get them. 

They could make a great competing modem that they could license. 

Can you imagine the shock of Fandroids discovering their super fast 5G modem in their Android device is made by Apple?

Does the current administration want to go easy on Qualcomm in exchange for 5G network hardware they will make? I never understood why they don’t want Qualcomm to get its comeuppance. 

Apple isn't getting into the component business.  They like healthy margins.  
The US gov't doesn't want Qualcomm hindered because they fear harming Qualcomm harms the US' position in 5G infrastructure.  Chinese companies like Huawei already have strong headway towards a dominant position in building out 5G infrastructure.  The US gov't doesn't want the world's 5G backbone to be Chinese.

mark fearing said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

Part of these efforts included hiring luminaries in the modem world, including former Intel executive Umashankar Thyagarajan, an engineer thought to have played a key role in the development of Intel's XMM 8160 5G modem.

Understanding that Mr. Thyagarajan is an excellent "get" for Apple, maybe listing the XMM 8160 modem as a highlight of his talents isn't the best way to go.  I mean the failure of development on the XMM 8160 is, what some say, the reason Apple settled with Qualcomm, Intel left the mobile chip business, and Apple is buying their mobile shop.  It's probably the last thing I'd want mentioned on my list of accomplishments.

We simply don't know what aspects Apple was unhappy with- cost, size, materials, quality, or maybe something related to battery use. And perhaps Apple has inhouse engineering already able to tackle any issues. It's even possible that intel was hamstrung trying to meet Apple's demands while producing something to sell to everyone else.

As with most of these stories, it's worth considering what we don't know before jumping to a conclusion that the engineering was at fault. I think an educated guess is that Apple asked for A,B,C,D and Intel wanted to produce A,B,C because they needed to meet specs for others in the market. It's easier for Apple to spec, design, and manufacture EXACTLY what they need and only what THEY need.

Honestly it doesn't matter what Apple was unhappy with in this situation. My comment is about AI's inclusion of the XMM 8160 on Mr. T's notables.  That failure is not something someone wants to be associated with imo.  It would be like saying I worked on Samsung's Note 7 or VW's emissions program.

AppleExposed said:

How does this affect other vendors who may be using Intels modems?

1STnTENDERBITS said:

Part of these efforts included hiring luminaries in the modem world, including former Intel executive Umashankar Thyagarajan, an engineer thought to have played a key role in the development of Intel's XMM 8160 5G modem.

Understanding that Mr. Thyagarajan is an excellent "get" for Apple, maybe listing the XMM 8160 modem as a highlight of his talents isn't the best way to go.  I mean the failure of development on the XMM 8160 is, what some say, the reason Apple settled with Qualcomm, Intel left the mobile chip business, and Apple is buying their mobile shop.  It's probably the last thing I'd want mentioned on my list of accomplishments.

Of course not. He's the king of dragons.

Afaik, there were no other vendors using Intel modems.  I think [think] Apple was their only modem customer.  It's why they were losing money.  Component manufacture only makes sense at volume.  Apple alone wasn't enough volume for intel to be profitable.  I believe Intel took the initial losses hoping to grow it mobile business to include other vendors... piggybacking of their relationship with Apple.  Problem was, Intel has always had a reputation for missing deadlines.  Well earned reputation.  Crappy, but totally okay for PC's.  Not so for mobile.  Mobile is a yearly grind.  Incessant and unforgiving.  Deliver the new chip or GTFOH.  That XMM 8160 was rumored to have problems from the get go and never got back on track.  Hopefully for Apple, there's some wheat in that chaff from Intel.