You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!




Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: The FTC's antitrust trial against Qualcomm has begun

  1. #1
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551

    The FTC's antitrust trial against Qualcomm has begun

    The "Everbody vs Qualcomm" legal saga continues. I did a 90 minute interview with CNBC during the holidays. The topic was semiconductors and Qualcomm but the real interest was the legal challenges. It really is interesting to see the spin from the Qualcomm lawyers:

    "The chip maker claims it's not as dominant as regulators think"

    This is true TODAY, the reason being that QCOM was in a dominant position and their customers had enough of being bullied and went to plan B (developing their own modem) or plan C work with another modem vendor.

    "Qualcomm's attorney Robert Van Nest, however, insisted that it was on fair terms and that the company was just involved in "hard bargaining" with heavyweight phone makers that had plenty of their own clout. The lawyer added that Qualcomm only provided a minority of wireless chips to some of the bigger companies. Huawei only uses Qualcomm modems in 22 percent of its phones, Van Nest said, while Samsung uses those modems in 38 percent of its devices."

    How does this guy sleep at night? Again, today this statement is true but it certainly was not 5 years ago. Buying modems from QCOM back then was like buying a bag of groceries and the final item you put in the bag would cost a percentage of the total of the other items in the bag. Name another chip vendor that got away with this? Not even Intel the monopoly chip king.

    Other thoughts?

    2 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  2. #2
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    139
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 111
    Given: 154
    Daniel, what is the definition of this contrived "premium tier LTE modem market", that the FTC house of cards depends upon?
    No one has ever been precluded nor constrained from leading any 3rd or 4th generation modem market, by Qualcomm. What has been absent is any competitor with the engineering talent and R&D commitment to build a more advanced and more competent modem. The fact that QCT is the best at what they do, is what merit engineering is supposed to reward.

    While QCT + QTL is a unique business model among merchant competitors, that does not make it illegal. It's important to study and understand the disruptive, pioneering history and contributions Qualcomm has made to the mobile data revolution, to realize why the business evolved that way.

    Apple has been the greatest beneficiary of Qualcomm's work. While Apple and Intel have thrived on marketing closed/proprietary systems, Qualcomm has enabled all comers. In fact, it's the ability of Chinese device makers to quickly market state-of-the-art devices, at a fraction of Apple's anti-consumer high prices, that has motivated this FTC and other Apple litigation attacks.

    1 Not allowed!
     

  3. #3
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyHF View Post
    No one has ever been precluded nor constrained from leading any 3rd or 4th generation modem market, by Qualcomm. What has been absent is any competitor with the engineering talent and R&D commitment to build a more advanced and more competent modem. The fact that QCT is the best at what they do, is what merit engineering is supposed to reward.
    There is no way for you to know this unless you work for QCOM legal and have access to the QCOM threatening letter archive. Not only do I work in the industry, I have first hand experience that says they do. Cease and desist letters are routine in the semiconductor industry and QCOM, being one of the largest patent holders, has sent them with impunity. With the US legal system, unless you are the size of Apple, you have no choice but to comply or risk millions of dollars in legal fees. The FTC will do discovery and they will find cause, absolutely. The question is how much will it cost QCOM?

    I also have direct experience with a legal action that QCOM lost. The clever complainant took action against QCOM's chip customers instead of QCOM directly. QCOM paid dearly for that one. They could have settled this for pennies on the dollar but QCOM legal could not see that from their high horse.

    1 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  4. #4
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Daniel Nenni; 1 Week Ago at 08:37 PM.
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    "... Buying modems from QCOM back then was like buying a bag of groceries and the final item you put in the bag would cost a percentage of the total of the other items in the bag. Name another chip vendor that got away with this? Not even Intel the monopoly chip king..."

    >Daniel- Name me another company that has contributed more to **unleashing** the mobile revolution than QCOM that has a similar unique business model.>

    1) QCOM is the leading developer of foundational 3G/4G-LTE technology that widely shares its patented R&D portfolio (SEP- NSEP ) with the total global mobile wireless ecosystem via FRAND licenses and very reasonable royalty rates accessed on end device's capped ASPs. --- the accepted industry policy practiced by the incumbents since day one. >

    QCOM broke the MEN cartel that restricted competition via the cartels 20%+ abusive royalty rates charged to non-members (Asians). QCOMs much lower royalty rates ( ~ 5% ) with licenses offered to **all** device makers opened the industry to global competition which **unleashed** the mobile revolution. And, QCOM's reasonable rates have continually been reduced over the years.

    2) QCOMs licensing revenues in turn provided the R&D funding to produce the leading mobile chipset solutions, also sold to **all** device makers who licensed its all-encompassing mobile wireless intellectual property.>

    Bottom line, longstanding industry policy required licensing at the device level ( not at the component level ) for many business / economic reasons . It therefore follows that device makers without a QCOM license were prohibited from legally selling their 2G/3G/4G—LTE incorporating QCOM IP.>

    Thus, simply put, a device maker without a QCOM license has no need for a 2G/3G/4G-LTE chip incorporating QCOM IP ( from QCOM or anyone )..... as those devices cannot be legally sold....period !!>

    Thus- ** no license, no chips ** >

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by mullenjl; 1 Week Ago at 09:12 AM. Reason: spacing , quote marks
     

  6. #6
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    139
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 111
    Given: 154
    Thanks for citing 3 Apple instigated regulatory complaints. China settled for reduced device-based SEP-only licenses, and continued to permit separate non-SEP licenses. As a result, Chinese OEMs are thriving, and providing far better technologies than Apple for substantially lower cost - while paying NDRC-sanctioned royalties.

    Korea is on appeal, and Samsung has withdrawn its complaint, which Apple had instigated in a documented meeting between Tim Cook and Samsung's CEO at Sun Valley, Idaho. Samsung signed a new license a year ago.

    TFTC had a 1 vote plurality decision against Qualcomm, which was later withdrawn by settlement agreement, under which Qualcomm returned to Taiwan for 5G and invested money in the supply chain there.

    The EU declined to file a Statement of Objections about SEP licensing, after a long investigation.

    The USFTC filed a 2/1 complaint 3 days before the Trump inauguration, on political lines, over the vehement dissent from Maureen Olhausen that Sec. 5 does not serve as a lawful basis of Apple's instigated complaint. No matter what happens before Judge Koh in the Apple/Intel home court, the odds of any adverse decision withstanding appellate review are between slim and dim, and Slim left town.

    Your antipathy for Qualcomm, and support of free riding holdout implementers at Apple are palpable. Sorry to see you have no appreciation for how Qualcomm has armed and enabled wireless competitors, and how Apple became so wealthy on the back of their inventions.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  7. #7
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyHF View Post
    Your antipathy for Qualcomm, and support of free riding holdout implementers at Apple are palpable. Sorry to see you have no appreciation for how Qualcomm has armed and enabled wireless competitors, and how Apple became so wealthy on the back of their inventions.
    A Detailed History of Qualcomm

    2 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  8. #8
    Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,602
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 613
    Given: 450
    Qualcomm and the medical industry have much in common, how to make money by using the government and regulations by abusing the system in new and imaginative ways. The government and Qualcomm have both figured out how procure the most money for the least effort and freeze out anyone or any organization that gets in the way.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Hanson View Post
    Qualcomm and the medical industry have much in common, how to make money by using the government and regulations by abusing the system in new and imaginative ways. The government and Qualcomm have both figured out how procure the most money for the least effort and freeze out anyone or any organization that gets in the way.
    Arthur, re: "least effort" ???

    30 + Years, ~$7B /year in R&D, ~130,000 + patents, ~ 20,000 engineers, ~300+ licensees to open global licensing ecosystem, not closed proprietary system practiced by AAPL.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  10. #10
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    "The issue that we have with Qualcomm is that they have a policy of no license, no chips. This is, in our view, illegal," Cook said on "Mad Money."

    "And then, secondly, they have an obligation to offer their patent portfolio on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis and they don't do that. They charge exorbitant prices."

    Apple CEO Tim Cook rips into Qualcomm, denies lawsuit settlement

    Cook also took issue with marketing tactics supposedly employed by Qualcomm. The New York Times reported in November that Qualcomm hired Definers Public Affairs to write and spread false stories about Apple to confuse national story lines.

    "The paying somebody to write fake news and then promoting it — this is stuff that should be beneath companies. This is not how things should operate," Cook said.

    Qualcomm and CEO Steve Mollenkopf have repeatedly said the company expects to settle the dispute with Apple outside of court.

    Hahahaha.........

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Daniel Nenni; 1 Week Ago at 05:44 PM.
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    Daniel, some comments / questions for you.>
    1 Re: Cooks **no license, no chips**>
    ...a. Has it not been the Industries (SSOs) practice for over 30 years to license at the device level, with no requirement to license at the chip level

    ...b. Does not QCOM widely license its IP to over 300 licensees, with device level licenses, with AAPL being virtually the only holdout-

    ...c. If 3G/4G-LTE device makers require al QCOM license to legally sell their products, would **anyone** selling 3G/4G-LTE chips to them make rational business sense if
    ultimately those devices could **not** be sold without a device maker first having signed a device level license from QCOM? >

    2. Re: Cooks QCOM...**charges exorbitant prices**>

    ...a. Is $13 QCOM royalty (3.25% X $400 capped ASP) exorbitant vs an iPhone selling for upwards of $1000 >

    ...b At a total cost of an iPhones 3 year ownership of $67/ month ($1,000/36 = $28 +$40 carrier charge)... Is QCOMs royalty of 36 cents / month or ~ 1 cent / day exorbitant >
    ...c. Especially when compared against AAPLs 30% charge to AP developers foruse of AAPLs iTunes platform>

    ...d. Did not I just hear the AAPL has significantly increased the monthly iTunes subscriber fee, and if not accepted one cannot access their library of photoslocked into AAPLs wall garden >
    3. Re: Cooks ** paying for fake news**>

    ...a. Would AAPL ever have to stoop to such, when their billions ofadvertising dollars do the talking for them >

    ..........Why is it that **no** major media outlet has mentioned the **big elephant in the room**, following Cooks warning last week? Have any mentioned the iPhone bans in China and Germany >

    1 Not allowed!
    Last edited by mullenjl; 1 Week Ago at 09:22 AM. Reason: spacing, punctuation marks
     

  12. #12
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    Do you think Apple started this whole thing on whim? Just for fun? Do you think Qualcomm is completely innocent? How about the Antitrust issues with Korea, China, the UK and USA? All completely unfair? Poor poor Qualcomm.......

    Having been on both sides of the legal table in various different disputes I can tell you by experience that both Apple and QCOM have done some bad things which is why this will be settled out of court, outside of public eye. Most recently I have been an expert witness which gives a whole new perspective since I was not sitting at the table per say.

    QCOM is a great company, I have an incredible amount of respect for them. I do not however like QCOM legal. In my opinion they are patent predators who bully smaller companies with impunity. Most people separate QCOM Engineering and QCOM legal but I find that hard to do. Apple is one of the only companies to stand up to QCOM and I find that disruptive in a good way which is long over due.

    Let's see how this plays out but in my opinion it will be for the greater good of the semiconductor industry, absolutely.




    Quote Originally Posted by mullenjl View Post
    Daniel, some comments / questions for you.>
    1 Re: Cooks **no license, no chips**>
    ...a. Has it not been the Industries (SSOs) practice for over 30 years to license at the device level, with no requirement to license at the chip level

    ...b. Does not QCOM widely license its IP to over 300 licensees, with device level licenses, with AAPL being virtually the only holdout-

    ...c. If 3G/4G-LTE device makers require al QCOM license to legally sell their products, would **anyone** selling 3G/4G-LTE chips to them make rational business sense if
    ultimately those devices could **not** be sold without a device maker first having signed a device level license from QCOM? >

    2. Re: Cooks QCOM...**charges exorbitant prices**>

    ...a. Is $13 QCOM royalty (3.25% X $400 capped ASP) exorbitant vs an iPhone selling for upwards of $1000 >

    ...b At a total cost of an iPhones 3 year ownership of $67/ month ($1,000/36 = $28 +$40 carrier charge)... Is QCOMs royalty of 36 cents / month or ~ 1 cent / day exorbitant >
    ...c. Especially when compared against AAPLs 30% charge to AP developers foruse of AAPLs iTunes platform>

    ...d. Did not I just hear the AAPL has significantly increased the monthly iTunes subscriber fee, and if not accepted one cannot access their library of photoslocked into AAPLs wall garden >
    3. Re: Cooks ** paying for fake news**>

    ...a. Would AAPL ever have to stoop to such, when their billions ofadvertising dollars do the talking for them >

    ..........Why is it that **no** major media outlet has mentioned the **big elephant in the room**, following Cooks warning last week? Have any mentioned the iPhone bans in China and Germany >

    0 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    ?So, whos benefiting consumers world wide with affordable sophisticated devices- QCOM or AAPL.

    Products are affordable and sophisticated due to competition. QCOM had a monopoly so by definition the devices could have been more sophisticated and more affordable with competition.

    ?And, whos actually fostering anti-competitiveness, QCOM or AAPL

    Seriously? QCOM legal without a doubt.

    If you refuse to face that fact that QCOM had a monopoly we can stop now. As I said, I am a 30+ year semiconductor professional so my comments are based on first hand experience, not Googling around wading through fake news.

    Speaking of fakes news, care to comment on this? Why would QCOM do this if their hands were clean?

    Cook also took issue with marketing tactics supposedly employed by Qualcomm. The New York Times reported in November that Qualcomm hired Definers Public Affairs to write and spread false stories about Apple to confuse national story lines. NBC news also reported on Thursday that a former Definers employee had identified Qualcomm as a Definers client.









    Daniel, Re: >...Do you think Apple started this whole thing on whim? Just for fun? Do you thinkQualcomm is completely innocent? How about the Antitrust issues with Korea,China, the UK and USA? All completely unfair? Poor poor Qualcomm....... >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Of course not, AAPLs attack was **not** started on whim. AAPLs purpose was plain and simple.... to disable the one company that was / is enabling AAPLs competition by supplying AAPLs competition with state of the art chipsets and world class R&D that enable them to sell devices as sophisticated as the iPhone at a fraction of its cost..... which in turn benefit consumers world wide.

    So, whos benefiting consumers world wide with affordable sophisticated devices- QCOM or AAPL.

    And, whos actually fostering anti-competitiveness, QCOM or AAPL

    The other countries also have a national interest to protect their domestic companies from a U.S. company that leads the world in state of the art innovative technologies that are potentially disruptive to their economies. And, yes, QCOM via long, hard, and fair negotiations was able to reach agreement with China. Notably, AAPL was offer the same terms but turned them down.>

    Now how about answering my prior questions. >
    >

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Daniel Nenni; 1 Week Ago at 06:35 PM. Reason: spacing, punctuation
     

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    Thanks for posting, Daniel.
    Been a while since I looked at **mobile Unleashed**

    Seems to me there was a lot of significant activity in the mobile wireless space during 1999, after the GSM folks allowed QCOM/ CDMA to enter their space (the holly wars). Is there a section in your books on this?

    0 Not allowed!
     

  15. #15
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551

    0 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    Daniel, still no answer to my basic questions.... only the link to The Verge article parroting the AAPLs instigatedFTCs mischaracterization of QCOMs business model . A couple of the articles mischaracterizationsbelow.>
    >>
    1- $30 ROYALTY / IPHONE >

    • - Qualcomm wont sell baseband processors to phone makers unless they agree to disproportionately high patent royalties, a policy referred to as no license no chips.>

    2. If prices drop and more competitors emerge, as the FTC suggests, that doesnt mean individual customers will see huge discounts. (Even at the high end, Qualcomm royalties come out to **around $30 per phone**, for instance.)>

    In my prior comments Ive addressed (see below) these false statements in detail. >

    Again, please specifically answer the following... if you can. >

    1a. **no license, no chips **>

    Bottom line, longstanding industry policy required licensing at the device level (not at the component level). It therefore follows that device makers without a QCOM license were prohibited from legally selling their 2G/3G/4GLTE incorporating QCOM IP.>

    Thus, simply put, a device maker without a QCOM license has no need for a 2G/3G/4G-LTE chip incorporating QCOM IP (from QCOM or anyone)..... as those devices cannot be legally sold....period !!>

    Thus- **no license,no chips** >

    2a. $30 royalties per phone - dated (10/ 17) Bloomberg article. Analysts estimate royalty at **only**$8- $10 per iPhone net after incentives. >

    Futher, Cook has repeatedly lied when stating QCOMs royalty is based on the total cost of it iPhone...higher royalty on a $1,000 phone than a $600 phone. A total lie because of the $400 royalty cap. >

    Re: Cooks QCOM...**charges exorbitant prices**
    >

    ...a. Is $13 QCOM royalty (3.25% X $400 capped ASP) exorbitant vs an iPhone selling for upwards of $1000? >

    ...b At a total cost of an iPhones 3 year ownership of $67/ month ($1,000/36 = $28 +$40 carrier charge)... Is QCOMs royalty of 36 cents / month or ~ 1 cent / day exorbitant? >

    ...c. Especially when compared against AAPLs 30% charge to AP developers foruse of AAPLs iTunes platform?>

    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by mullenjl; 1 Week Ago at 08:32 AM.
     

  17. #17
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    Jim,

    Your basic questions are very poorly worded and badly formatted. Clearly they are cut and paste from another source. I did answer two of your questions. The two most important ones in my opinion. Unfortunately your questions do not come from direct experience. You are also quoting questionable sources like they are fact. I spent 30+ years in the semiconductor industry including many years in IP and IP licensing. I have also worked directly and indirectly with QCOM and APPL on many occasions so my observation and opinions are based on first hand experience. My semiconductor experience includes many hours on IP licensing issues and legal challenges but since I am not directly involved in this case I can only offer my personal opinions. I have no financial or any other attachment to either companies so I am outside eyes looking in. Can you say the same?

    Daniel


    Quote Originally Posted by mullenjl View Post
    Daniel, still no answer to my basic questions.... only the link to The Verge article parroting the AAPLs instigatedFTCs mischaracterization of QCOMs business model . A couple of the articles mischaracterizationsbelow.>



    0 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    16
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 10
    Given: 12
    Daniel, >
    Yes, I compose my comments in MS Word and paste them to your message board which is exceptional, except surprisingly being unable to properly translate MS Word spacing and punctuation ( perhaps an AAPL based format ) . My writing style is also different , preferring the outline format in some cases so as specifics do not get lost in extended
    verbiage .

    I have followed mobile wireless for over 20 years from an investment perspective , watching **mobile unleashed** in 1999 from the GSM incumbents cartel control with QCOM / CDMA (and CDMA derivatives ) opening up the ecosystem to global ( Asian ) competition which fostered the astounding growth in technology, competitiveness , and consumer choice that we enjoy today. And, I was an investor in both QCOM and AAPL until my ** eyes ** were finally opened to the abusive hostility AAPL subjected upon its ecosystem partners.


    0 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Daniel Nenni; 1 Week Ago at 02:33 PM.
     

  19. #19
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551
    While you are in edit mode on SemiWiki look to the top left and see the A/A button. Click that and it will show you the embedded HTML that is causing formatting issues.

    I too was concerned when APPL chose to work with TSMC in fear APPL would ruin them but that has not been the case and I know why. I also know why the APPL imgtec relationship turned hostile. So again we are seeing this problem from different angles. I am on the inside and you are on the outside. The fabless semiconductor ecosystem is an amazing thing. It is very big and strong but also very intimate and extremely difficult to keep secrets. As insiders we often laugh at what nonsense the media is passing off as semiconductor news and the collateral damage it is causing.


    Quote Originally Posted by mullenjl View Post
    Daniel, >
    Yes, I compose my comments in MS Word and paste them to your message board which is exceptional, except surprisingly being unable to properly translate MS Word spacing and punctuation ( perhaps an AAPL based format ) . My writing style is also different , preferring the outline format in some cases so as specifics do not get lost in extended
    verbiage .

    I have followed mobile wireless for over 20 years from an investment perspective , watching **mobile unleashed** in 1999 from the GSM incumbents cartel control with QCOM / CDMA (and CDMA derivatives ) opening up the ecosystem to global ( Asian ) competition which fostered the astounding growth in technology, competitiveness , and consumer choice that we enjoy today. And, I was an investor in both QCOM and AAPL until my ** eyes ** were finally opened to the abusive hostility AAPL subjected upon its ecosystem partners.




    0 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  20. #20
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,631
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,108
    Given: 2,551

    0 Not allowed!
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •