6 ms·

Indeed: the Centriq announcement was maybe 6 months ago. What does this mean in practice?

by mino 8y ago

vertex-four 8y ago
Probably that they were trying to chase one or two major clients, who turned out to be uninterested.
- larschdk 8y ago
  Or they are trying to push them to commitment
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    signaling you are about to give up is a rather counter productive strategy.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Worked for Airbus
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        Worked is a strong word. The A380 is rather on life support since it's basically only serving very few customers. On the whole this is a strategic loss for Airbus.
        Const-me 8y ago
        Disagree about the strategic loss. It essentially killed passenger versions of B747. Because there was no competition in that niche of the market, before A380 Boeing was able to earn very nice profits making them. 747-8I is more than 3 times more expensive than B737 MAX.
        ekianjo 8y ago
        Yeah but since then the 747 model has fallen out of fashion, since the market is now linking smaller airports to each other rather than relying on very few large hubs - and regulations have also made it possible for bi-reactors to fly much longer distances than before, accelerating the transformation of the whole routes model.
        gaius 8y ago
        These things are cyclical.
- __d 8y ago
  Or ended up going with Cavium's ThunderX2 instead?
  - igravious 8y ago
    bit of history here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08/cavium_thunderx2/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08/cavium_thunderx2/ First Broadcom, now Qualcomm – if neither of those two can't crack the server market I don't hold out much hope for anyone else.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      I's say that nobody really tried hard enough. All of them can make a true killer product. And Intel has little defence against defeat in details, other than "being Intel." Many, many niches are not being hold tight by Intel, and they can't spare resources to fight them all.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
Qualcomm's primary revenue stream is patent trolling. They maintain a veneer of respectability by also selling chips, which they maintain by using anti-competitive patent bundling practices to kill off competitors before they can become competitive. (Intel & nVidia spent a lot of money trying to break into the wireless market but gave up because Qualcomm was selling a chip & patent bundle for the same price as just a patent license, essentially giving away their chips for free.) So any read of this announcement must be viewed through that lens. How was this server business going to affect their patent license gravy train?
- wyldfire 8y ago
  > Qualcomm's primary revenue stream is patent trolling This is not fair. By describing Qualcomm as a patent troll, you dilute the meaning of this term. CDMA alone is a pretty huge development and has enabled lots of fantastic technology. Why shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of their patent portfolio? > How was this server business going to affect their patent license gravy train? The two are mostly orthogonal. QCOM's facing three major challenges right now: (1) still reeling from a narrowly-averted LBO. (2) They're no longer getting some revenue while "renegotiating" its licensing agreements with heavy hitters like AAPL. (3) Their acquisition of NXP is in jeopardy as it's up to Chinese regulators and current geopolitics seem to be working against them. Their big bets like server chips were a good hedge against smartphone market saturation but now QCOM wants to get leaner and more focused.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    > CDMA alone is a pretty huge development and has enabled lots of fantastic technology. Why shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of their patent portfolio? Because they agreed to license it for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. If they wouldn't have agreed to do that, it would never have become an industry standard. And then they proceeded to break that agreement.
    - wyldfire 8y ago
      > And then they proceeded to break that agreement. What makes you think that agreement was broken? The licensing terms haven't changed. Qualcomm's licensees (Foxconn et al) have been paying these royalties with the current terms since before Apple asked Foxconn to make the first iphone. What has changed is that device manufacturers' prices are now very high. In order to respond to licensees' concerns, Qualcomm introduced a cap on the royalty.

Indeed: the Centriq announcement was maybe 6 months ago. What does this mean in practice?

by mino 8y ago

Indeed: the Centriq announcement was maybe 6 months ago. What does this mean in practice?

vertex-four 8y ago

Probably that they were trying to chase one or two major clients, who turned out to be uninterested.

larschdk 8y ago
Or they are trying to push them to commitment
- ekianjo 8y ago
  signaling you are about to give up is a rather counter productive strategy.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Worked for Airbus
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Worked is a strong word. The A380 is rather on life support since it's basically only serving very few customers. On the whole this is a strategic loss for Airbus.
      - Const-me 8y ago
        Disagree about the strategic loss. It essentially killed passenger versions of B747. Because there was no competition in that niche of the market, before A380 Boeing was able to earn very nice profits making them. 747-8I is more than 3 times more expensive than B737 MAX.
        ekianjo 8y ago
        Yeah but since then the 747 model has fallen out of fashion, since the market is now linking smaller airports to each other rather than relying on very few large hubs - and regulations have also made it possible for bi-reactors to fly much longer distances than before, accelerating the transformation of the whole routes model.
        gaius 8y ago
        These things are cyclical.
__d 8y ago
Or ended up going with Cavium's ThunderX2 instead?
- igravious 8y ago
  bit of history here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08/cavium_thunderx2/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08/cavium_thunderx2/ First Broadcom, now Qualcomm – if neither of those two can't crack the server market I don't hold out much hope for anyone else.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    I's say that nobody really tried hard enough. All of them can make a true killer product. And Intel has little defence against defeat in details, other than "being Intel." Many, many niches are not being hold tight by Intel, and they can't spare resources to fight them all.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

Qualcomm's primary revenue stream is patent trolling. They maintain a veneer of respectability by also selling chips, which they maintain by using anti-competitive patent bundling practices to kill off competitors before they can become competitive. (Intel & nVidia spent a lot of money trying to break into the wireless market but gave up because Qualcomm was selling a chip & patent bundle for the same price as just a patent license, essentially giving away their chips for free.) So any read of this announcement must be viewed through that lens. How was this server business going to affect their patent license gravy train?

wyldfire 8y ago
> Qualcomm's primary revenue stream is patent trolling This is not fair. By describing Qualcomm as a patent troll, you dilute the meaning of this term. CDMA alone is a pretty huge development and has enabled lots of fantastic technology. Why shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of their patent portfolio? > How was this server business going to affect their patent license gravy train? The two are mostly orthogonal. QCOM's facing three major challenges right now: (1) still reeling from a narrowly-averted LBO. (2) They're no longer getting some revenue while "renegotiating" its licensing agreements with heavy hitters like AAPL. (3) Their acquisition of NXP is in jeopardy as it's up to Chinese regulators and current geopolitics seem to be working against them. Their big bets like server chips were a good hedge against smartphone market saturation but now QCOM wants to get leaner and more focused.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  > CDMA alone is a pretty huge development and has enabled lots of fantastic technology. Why shouldn't they be able to reap the rewards of their patent portfolio? Because they agreed to license it for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. If they wouldn't have agreed to do that, it would never have become an industry standard. And then they proceeded to break that agreement.
  - wyldfire 8y ago
    > And then they proceeded to break that agreement. What makes you think that agreement was broken? The licensing terms haven't changed. Qualcomm's licensees (Foxconn et al) have been paying these royalties with the current terms since before Apple asked Foxconn to make the first iphone. What has changed is that device manufacturers' prices are now very high. In order to respond to licensees' concerns, Qualcomm introduced a cap on the royalty.