- Last Active
MplsP said:ericthehalfbee said:MplsP said:carnegie said:titantiger said:My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip. But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.
The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two. Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
Half of this site is comprised of reasonable people making common sense deductions of what’s going on while the other half desperately try to twist things to always have Apple come out in the losing end.
avon b7 said:anantksundaram said:avon b7 said:anantksundaram said:speakingmywords said:As long as the Feds have a espionage warning on Huawei, Apple ain't gonna put Huawei chips in their products. Any attempt will just make the spooks more suspicious.
I am not going to bother with giving you any links, since I have little doubt that you know how to do an internet search.
It has been said time and time again, anyone involved in spying doesn't care which hardware is being run.
If anything, Huawei's products are likely to be more secure as, not only are they scrutinised more but when issues are found, solutions are demanded of them.
Apple would have more to gain than lose, not least in time to market.
1) Please send a link on who's admitting what "off the record." Otherwise, delete the post.
2) "They have nothing"? We'll see when Meng Wanzhou shows up in a US court. (Canada's formally started the extradition proceedings, as you likely know). Until then, I'd advise you to hold spouting off.
"They have yet to provide hard evidence and, privately, these officials admit they don’t have any. Instead, they frequently fall back on a 2012 House Intelligence Committee report."
Sound familiar? Same old story. Yes. 'Groan'
... you have no "evidence" that Huawei is not acting, nor will act in the future, as an agent of China.
'you have no "evidence" that Trump is not acting, nor will act in the future, as an agent of Russia.'
But, fortunately for both Huawei and Trump, that's not how it works.
Oh, wait, that might not be possible...
But I repeat myself; you might want to consider adding something intelligent to the conversation.
The moderation here is letting him get away with a lot of political name calling.
sflocal said:Chapman8tor said:Buying an external drive to make up for the Mac Mini's lack of reasonably-priced internal storage makes it the ultimate dongle and an insult to customers. Go to any Best Buy and you can find a half terabyte internal SSD for under $60. I understand the case with Apple is the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts, but Apple's margin on storage shouldn't be as high as the markup for gold.
Here's a well considered take on the Huawei 5G problem;
"The US is engaged in a global campaign to keep Chinese tech companies out of advanced 5G networks promising faster connections, enabling uses such as autonomous vehicles and remote surgery. American officials fear that the Chinese government may force companies such as Huawei to incorporate software code or hardware that would allow Beijing to spy on the US or allies and disrupt sectors ranging from power to transport and manufacturing in a crisis."
“The most fundamental security standard, really, is that you cannot have this extrajudicial, non-rule of law compliant process where a government can tell its companies to do something,” Strayer said on Monday.
"Australia, New Zealand and Japan have acceded to US requests to bar Huawei’s 5G equipment. Those allies have also banded together to provide aid to the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea so that they would reject a Huawei submarine cable carrying broadband connections, saying the line represents a national security threat at its connection point in Australia."
This is absolutely about national security, and not about "protectionism"; the U.S. doesn't have any existing 5G telecom manufacturers, relying instead on the marketplace. Unfortunately for Huawei, those CCP and Chinese Government Connections as well as the legal system that is beholden to the CCP, all are high risks for Western Liberal Governments.A foreign country who has never attacked us might, maybe, sometime in the future ask one of their companies to reveal U.S. secretes and that company might, maybe do so in that hypothetical future and might maybe not reveal anything to any of their valued customers in the U.S. -- and that constitutes irrefutable proof that they are spies...Meanwhile asking a country who was in the process of attacking us to expand their attack into cyber warfare in order to over turn our election is not collusion.Got it.
In any case you stated that they have never attacked us which is false. I don’t think that even the Russians have attacked us directly with regular army units. “Contractors” and “individual volunteers” yes. Soviet divisions? No.
It's a problem with many ideologues: They come up with the conclusion first and then look for something to justify that conclusion.
Everything else you're writing is just deflection that you don't know history and stated something completely wrong. The US and UK are linked in a fundamental way and the War of 1812 was declared by the US, not the UK which was busy in the Napoleonic Wars. Something else you are completely unaware of because you don't know history. Genius. They didn't "invade us", they bitch slapped us with a raid of only 2500 soldiers for being stupid in declaring war on one of the major powers of the world while being completely unprepared and unorganized.
On the plus side we managed to recover and not do too terribly badly in such an ill considered war and ended being more trouble than it was worth to actually invade.
ROFL... yes, "China attacked us" -- in the alternative reality of so called conservatives.
You need to deal in facts rather then political rhetoric. In this case, the U.S. is attacking China and its company Huawei with a Russian style disinformation campaign in order to gain political advantage.