cloudguy

Docker, Parallels, VMWare ... one of these things is not like the other. 

commentzilla said:

So fairly useless at this point without Windows for ARM and absent of so many things that made it useful before.

Says you. Much of the population these days have no use for Windows at all. (Not a Windows hater, quite the contrary, just stating a fact). Especially developers, 35% of whom use Linux exclusively, and a bunch more only use Linux and macOS. This group won't bat an eye at Windows not being available, but will welcome the ability to run Linux in VirtualBox, VMWare and Parallels when the Pro M1 Mac configurations come out in 2021.

Some added context: normally TSMC is manufacturing flagship chips for both Apple and Qualcomm right now. However TSMC attempted to use the A14 and M1 business from Apple, Zen 4 business from AMD (all 5nm) as well as potential 7nm server CPU business from Intel to try to charge Qualcomm more money for delivering the Snapdragon 888 LATER. Samsung promptly stepped in and pitched Qualcomm on charging less for delivering them earlier. Qualcomm agreed to shift the 888 to Samsung's 5nm node and a midrange chip to their 7nm node. Now that it turns out that Intel may not have TSMC make their first batch of 7nm chips after all as their customers appear to be pleased with their new 10nm chips, TSMC may have overplayed their hand with Qualcomm, while in the process helping restore the reputation of their only real competitor in Samsung.

Also, pointing out that Apple demand is higher than Android demand is trivial. The latest batch of Android phones launched weeks ago in 3Q. The only major Android brand that has end of the year launches is Huawei, and they have been hammered by the trade war. 

It is amazing to see so many people bash Qualcomm for not agreeing to Apple's demands, even though doing so would have cost Qualcomm billions of dollars.

1. Apple and Qualcomm had an existing legal agreement in place that Apple entered into on their own volition that Apple broke.
2. Qualcomm has 100% valid patents in this area and are a practicing entity.
3. Qualcomm's billing philosophy for Apple was consistent with their billing philosophy for everybody else.

Apple just up and said "we are going to stop paying for you what we agreed to pay you because":

1. We are Apple making patent and contract law only binding on everyone else. Everyone else heeding contracts with us and respecting our IP is mandatory. For us it is voluntary.
2. Qualcomm's patents while valid - are only valuable because they are in iPhones in the first place. So Qualcomm should really be paying us!
3. Because we are Apple, we should be able to dictate our own billing philosophy based on our needs. If Qualcomm's many other customers who buy far more components and operate on much lower margins all do what Apple did - break valid contracts in the middle of them and demand new terms that are as self serving as possible - costing Qualcomm 1/3 of its revenue, that is Qualcomm's problem!

Total garbage. The reality: Apple had no problem paying the previously agreed to rate when they were still experiencing massive yearly sales increases. But after "peak iPhone" and "peak iPad" passed, Apple decided that they were going to maintain a similar amount of profit by squeezing suppliers. While that works with smaller suppliers, it isn't going to work with big suppliers with the resources to fight - and win - multiyear lawsuits filed in multiple countries. (For example, Apple didn't even contest the penalty they had to pay Samsung for not buying as many OLED screens as they committed to.) Unlike Apple's (mostly) tilting at windmills against Samsung over an issue that they had already decisively lost in Apple vs Microsoft 20 years prior, Qualcomm filed lawsuits against Apple in every regulatory and legal market in the world and was going to win in nearly all of them. Those courts and agencies were on the verge of awarding Qualcomm:

1. previously owed licensing fees
2. punitive damages
3. bans on sale on Apple devices until they addressed 1. - 3. (The things that Apple tried to win against Samsung, but only got a few hundred million - the equivalent of maybe $5 for every device that Samsung sold - over trade dress.)

Granted while all bodies were not going to do 3. they were all going to do 1. and 2. Apple had no choice but to "settle" - meaning give Qualcomm everything they were owed and sign a long term exclusive deal with them which was much better than before - because Qualcomm's patents are obvious and airtight plus Qualcomm's tech is the best in the industry and no else else can compete. Intel wasn't the only one competing with Qualcomm making LTE and 5G radios. Samsung and MediaTek make them too. There is actually a Wintel 5G laptop that has a MediaTek 5G radio installed near the speaker. 

While Qualcomm made a ton of money off Apple, being a mobile chip supplier is only a small part of their business, and discrete 5G radios only a small part of their mobile component business. Going forward their focus is going to be competing with Intel, AMD and Nvidia on edge computing devices. Apple cut them a check to sever their business relationship. As part of the deal, Qualcomm is going to actually help Apple design a 5G radio that is comparable in quality with theirs. (Apple isn't exactly screaming this from the rooftops but it is true.) After this agreement is over, Qualcomm will be thrilled at not having to do business with Apple anymore. You make so much money off Apple that you can't turn them down - your shareholders would freak out - but dealing with Apple's gamesmanship is so frustrating that you wonder whether it is worth the money you are making in the first place, especially if you are already a massive company who doesn't need it. 

yojimbo007 said:

Ahhh how i wish Apple had pulled the trigger and bought Disney few years back,.. 

Except that Disney was never for sale. Neither was Nintendo. Sure there was a time when Disney was troubled but ever since the Eisner era in the late 80s when they started making hit movies again like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and The Little Mermaid, then in the 90s when they bought ABC and ESPN and had even bigger hits like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and the Lion King Disney has been fine (an understatement). And after the Eisner era ran its course, they got even bigger with Pixar, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Disney Princesses merchandising empire. Next was going stratospheric after buying Marvel, Star Wars, Fox and launching Disney+.

Also, even when Disney troubled in the mid to late 80s, whether Apple would have had the money to buy it is debatable. Sure stuff like "The Black Cauldron" and "The Brave Little Toaster" had then bleeding red ink all over the place, but Disney still had their studio lots, a very valuable film library, a cable network, theme parks and the merchandising empire. Even if Apple had mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy those assets, what would Apple have done with them anyway? Disney is what they are today because of a string of outstanding people - Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, John Lasseter, Bob Iger, Bob Chapek etc. - made excellent creative and business decisions. Without that, Disney would be MGM/UA (went bankrupt and now only exists on paper), Columbia (owned by Sony), Warner Bros (owned by AT&T), Paramount (owned by Viacom) or Universal (owned by Comcast). All of whom were much bigger entertainment companies than Disney was in the 1980s.

GeorgeBMac said:

Wouldn't that involve me providing Google with my AppleId & its Password?  

No way!  I feel secure with my health data and access to my finances being available to Apple -- but to give somebody else the keys to that data?   No thanks.

And how many Google Home or Nest devices do you own? My guess is zero. So your only purpose in contributing was to make yet another riposte expressing your disdain for Google's decision to protect themselves from being swallowed up by the Microsoft monopoly by creating Android. So enjoy your HomePod.

Oh, but you own an Alexa? Fine ...  so of course you knew that Amazons' speakers run Android too? Amazon's entire hardware ecosystem is based off their forked version of Google's Android. Before then, all Amazon had going on was firmware for their Kindle e-readers. So even if you do own a HomePod, it is only because Amazon's Android speakers created a successful product for Apple to copy in the first place.