Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Did Christiano Amon mess it up for us.

"Blevins (Apple exec) hoped that the iPad mini 2 could help begin a longer-term relationship with the chipmaker, and had a meeting with Qualcomm president Christiano Amon in 2013. Amon, however, simply told Blevins that, “I’m your only choice, and I know Apple can afford to pay it." "

This was from the FTC trial yesterday. Reading the article, I feel Apple may be right. It is not uncommon for our execs to screw it up. Poor negotiators and arrogant I feel. Let us see what the decision is. They will find Q guilty in some and exonerate in some. Will end up paying 500m in fines for sure.

by
| 2725 views | | 20 replies (last )
Post ID: @X5dzz7U

20 replies (most recent on top)

Some official data here:

example.com/layoff/Qualcomm

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-5nxc

Some official data here:

https://example.com/layoff/Qualcomm

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-5xgu

Agree Apple UI is personal choice. Samsung, Pixel, LG etc all have a good UI too. Lots of people choose each, power to the people in a free market thst offers choice.

Imagine if Google paid Apple billions to not use their own SW and UI, that's closer to the discussion in this thread.

Crimes were committed, that matters in nations of laws. SM must go due to his own illegal actions. He can take his exec team with him, good riddance. Hello Hock Tan or another ethical leader.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-2pik

Apple's UI isn't any better than what's out there now. My mom and dad can use an Android device easily without problems. Perhaps it was in the beginning, but the gap is closed. There isn't anything extraordinary that Apple is doing now.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1aop

How did Apple SW come into this? Does that matter? The problem seems to be with a payment ($1B) for the purpose to keep Intel out of all Apple products. That sounds highly illegal if the court finds that's what we did. Can SM be prosecuted for this crime? Musk was forced to leave the board and pay a fine for much less.

If SM is out will the stock price go up? Maybe we can get Hock Tan for our new CEO? That would make Qualcomm great again.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1joz

I think there's much legitimate pissing in this thread. Ultimately a judge and lawyers, not engineers, will decide winners and losers.

We know Apple is already a winner with consumers, UI matters, not SW nor modem, with consumers. Imagine asking almost anyone about MIPI camera/display SERDES or how many QAM their modem supports.

Laws exist in many countries to protect from monopolistic tactics, from anti consumer tactics, from anti competitive tactics, etc. And guess who has consistently lost in the courts of Europe, China, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, USA and more for violating these laws.

Sadly Qualcomm is in for harder times and it's clear why, a track record of breaking laws. I'll let ya'll decide who shoulders the blame. No idea how anyone can argue the buck stops below CEO. I don't get how someone seems to be defending SM for creating this legal mess, blaming Apple for Qualcomm signing a contract???? Really?

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1awu

@1adp I actually don't use a cell phone.

All I know is that they are incompetent at making any significant SW. I'll say what I've said before:

Their OS is a ripoff of BSD; they knew they couldn't make a decent OS, so they ripped off BSD. Their OS does not work well with third party HW; as you mentioned, their SW only works well in their ecosystem. They still rely on AWS and Google Cloud for their cloud. Siri does not compare to Alexa or Google Assistant. They are still trying to make a modem all these years. All of this despite having more money than any company on earth. They have basically infinite money. They could potentially have the world's best SW, but they do not. This is a sign of incompetency, even more than Qcom.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1lbv

I am sure Blevins is no angel either. "Long Term" - my rear! Intel should know by now that their own demise from Apple is round the corner.

With that said the exclusivity deal is something both companies agreed in trial which means it is bad for Q. Giving a billion dollars to be the exclusive supplier is something Q would have initiated -- not the phone maker who always want choice. Only way to fight that is to say these are typical business practises and not really illegal!

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1ikz

-uja “pretty 'luxurious' phone that robots, yuppies, and teenagers lap up”...

Do you know who uses iPhones? EVERYONE (well, honestly, the people who are, well, not dorks). So 43.5% of smartphone users in the US which includes ALL the men in the US who actually have experience speaking to a real woman. Yes it’s overpriced, but guess what? It’s the device people want. Do you know how iPhone users view non-iPhones users ? We don’t. It’s just a fuxxing phone. But if I had to guess I’d say the non-iPhone users are engineers, neckbeards, Google employees and hipsters (these overlap significantly). I’m also sure they love to school people on the superiority of their non-iPhone due to insecurity and doubt. Maybe your device actually is technologically superior in this way or that, but the Apple ecosystem is simply too much like crack to give up. Personally I love how all my devices work seamlessly with my entire family’s devices. Does your device connect with your mom’s upstairs from your basement apartment?

Truth is that I don’t really care what you use and I don’t know why you care so much about what others use. But you drew first blood, brother.

So bottom line, you sound like a jealous bitter techno nerd complaining that nobody gets it but you.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1adp

I agree with comments suggesting Qcom, led by its executive team, stepped into a legal pile of sh!t.

I agree with the comment below that SM doesn't have a law degree, he was just an engineer. The problem is SM thinks he's smarter then everyone else, which he is not. Why does SM think he doesn't have to play by the laws of the lands? Almost everywhere Qcom does business in the last few years have proven legal losses, almost no wins.

Make Qualcomm great again. We never win anymore. We used to almost always win. We quickly need a new CEO or Qcom will be a penny stock and a shell of what it is today.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1niv

For apple, longer term relationship just means they will kill you one quarter later.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1ekd

Very well said, uja:

"Truth is, Apple is as garbage as their SW. If you want to develop world class SW and work in a FAANG, avoid Apple. Think of it as you think of Qcom. No, think of them as even lower than Qcom."

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-1aiw

Apple entered an exclusive agreement because Qcom offered the cheapest modem. Qcom said they wanted exclusivity because Apple wanted Qcom to pay $1bln just for privilege of having their modem inside a pretty 'luxurious' phone that robots, yuppies, and teenagers lap up, even though Apple wouldn't commit to how many modems they'd buy. Apple could have said, no we won't enter an exclusive agreement because we want to dual source.

In summary: Intel could have offered their modem at a lower price to beat Qcom. Apple could have paid more for the modem.

Truth is, Apple is as garbage as their SW. If you want to develop world class SW and work in a FAANG, avoid Apple. Think of it as you think of Qcom. No, think of them as even lower than Qcom.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-uja

SM doesn't have a law degree. He was just an engineer.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-lwi

I'm just an old engineer who designs HW from chip companies. I've never heard of a deal like "I'll give you a billion dollars and in exchange you buy only from me or else I get to change my price to anything I want to charge you".

Wow, saying that out loud sounds very illegal to me. How does it sound to you?

Imagine if Intel did the same with PC manufactures. If Microsoft did it with operating systems or MS office.

This is counter to the basic buslness concept of 2nd sourcing. It's an anti competitiveness business tactic. It stifles innovation in the industry. Anti consumer all the way.

Wait for it, SM wil claim justified due to being a "better" modem than Intel or others.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-ogi

Why would Apple enter into a purchasing exclusively offer? They must have felt they either were getting a to good to be true offer, or what else?

How could Qualcomm betray their shareholders like this? So clearly illegal if it is as it appears. I hope to god a lawyer doesn't testify he/she advised Qualcomm not to enter into such an illegal contract. Did Steven M honestly not know better? Or more likely, never believed Tim C would turn him into the police. Accomplishes to crimes think this way.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-usq

The tip of the problem is and was SM. Others followed his lead, so ok yes they also own responsibility.

Laws were broken. That's fact. Lawyers at the time advised those who thought they knew better, maybe thought they were smarter and more knowledgeable of law. And not just US law.

You've never heard me defend Apple or others for illegal practices, and you won't. Some offenders are larger offenders than others. None in telecom or technology outperforms QCOM when it comes to innovative illegal business practices.

Some of our execs might be great engineers, but horrible business people, and SM is a horrible lawyer. Maybe the president will come through, claim national security to save his friend SM one more time.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-szy

Apple had every opportunity to buy from Intel, but they chose not. Blevins essentially said this. They only chose Qcom because they gave them a cheaper price, and therefore, they felt that they had no choice. But of course they had a choice. If they truly wanted to dual source, they could have. Qcom only made an exclusivity agreement because Apple was asking for $1bln just for the 'privilege' of having their chips on an iPhone. Apple could have said, 'no we don't like your agreement, and in the spirit of dual sourcing and whatever we'll go with two suppliers.' Qcom did not force anything on Apple. Intel already had a modem ready.

In truth, Apple just wants to make the device cheap as possible while charging as much as possible, more than its actually worth. Even now they are considering sourcing from the cheapest supplier. In comparison to the FAANGs, their software is pathetic. Since they can't compete in SW, they have to sell overpriced phones.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-gaz

Sounds very much like him

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-wew

His talks are clearly overhyped. He has to understand people around will not fall. There is a way to paint a rosy picture. He is clearly out of his head - pretends to be an eternal optimist.

by
|
Post ID: @X5dzz7U-guh

Post a reply

: