Apple still hasn't figured out how to make a wireless chip

M

Marees

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
2,258

Former Apple Engineers Say It Can't Figure Out How to Make a Cellular Modem​

The company has been banging away at this project for many years with little to show for it.


Apple wants to provide its own radio chip because Qualcomm earns a percentage of each phone's price instead of just requiring a flat rate per chip, which costs Apple a lot of money. Qualcomm has also required Apple to pay it a patent fee as well, which Apple equates to "double dipping." The two companies have been embroiled in patent litigation for years, so no love is lost between them.

In a sign that Apple might have just thrown in the towel, at least temporarily, both companies announced they had inked a deal to see Qualcomm 5G modems in Apple devices through 2026.
The previous agreement was set to expire this year


Sources told the WSJ that an early prototype of Apple's modem tested last year showed the company's missteps in building a wireless chip. The prototype was reportedly too slow and prone to overheating, and the circuit board for the wireless chip was so big it took up half the phone's internal volume.


Also, Instead of making a chip for your phone that runs on Apple's software, a 5G cellular chip must be backward compatible with previous technologies such as 4G, 3G, 2G, etc. In addition, they also have to run on networks spanning the globe. Every region's network has different standards along with associated quirks. It became a compatibility headache for the company used to a wholly siloed engineering environment with its own software on its own devices.


https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/...-cant-figure-out-how-to-make-a-cellular-modem

News of Apple's modem saga comes from The Wall Street Journal (via 9to5Mac), which talked to former employees who worked on the project.
 
It’s that that they can’t it’s just there are 3 Qualcomm patents they haven’t found a way around.

Apples been trying since 2017 to invalidate or find alternate methods for doing and hasn’t been successful.

So they are stuck paying licensing to Qualcomm until they do, so Apples modems aren’t entirely theirs.
 
They'll figure it out eventually given their clout/money. Ultimately, this isn't something that is likely easy for them to do given various patents they have to work around, and a company like Qualcomm largely being 'the one'.
 
Intel I guess got out at the right time.

I would imagine also another complication is that Apple likely wants to create a single unified chip that works everywhere. Qualcomm doesn’t have a chip like that. Likely because it’s way too complex.

Love ‘em or hate ‘em (mostly hate them), Qualcomm makes the best cellular chips. And haven’t stayed still.

And this is all to say nothing of global competing technologies. China and the US both view communication technologies as being critical for control. Each wants to be the one to creating the unifying format.
 
Lakados said:
Qualcomm has successfully defended them in court twice so I would say they are solid.
Click to expand...

Another question is whether patents on mechanisms that are required by national infrastructure should be patentable in the first place.
 
uOpt said:
Another question is whether patents on mechanisms that are required by national infrastructure should be patentable in the first place.
Click to expand...
If I remember it’s not a mechanism exactly but a series of formulas and algorithms for dealing with signal transmissions in saturated environments and not causing devices that aren’t communicating correctly from flooding the space with noise as they fail to communicate correctly. Which would cause them to function like mini signal jammers.

Apples issue is the patents are licensed pretty fairly and challenges against their validity have consistently failed.

It wouldn’t be terribly hard to classify most technology as necessary for national infrastructure at this stage.
 
Last edited:
Back in the good ol' days Apple would have just taken the other technology, reverse engineer it, and come out with the own version saying they developed it, then end up settling for half a billion for patent violations a decade or more later. So sad where Apple ended up!
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Intel I guess got out at the right time.

I would imagine also another complication is that Apple likely wants to create a single unified chip that works everywhere. Qualcomm doesn’t have a chip like that. Likely because it’s way too complex.

Love ‘em or hate ‘em (mostly hate them), Qualcomm makes the best cellular chips. And haven’t stayed still.

And this is all to say nothing of global competing technologies. China and the US both view communication technologies as being critical for control. Each wants to be the one to creating the unifying format.
Click to expand...

With the ongoing demise of qualcoms CDMA 2/3g networks (done in the US, not sure about the handful of other places they beat out GSM) the biggest painpoint for a works everywhere modem is going away. The remaining one is not on the modem itself but the RF chip, the amount of spectrum being allocated for mobile data continues to grow faster than the ability of a single chip to support that many bands so while the latter keeps going up it hasn't ever caught up with the former. That may eventually change because finding spectrum to reallocate is getting progressively harder. Switching to a more software defined approach might be an option too; AFAIK it's mostly already the case as the base stations. OTOH spending a bit more on power there for increased flexibility and fewer hardware swaps is a lot easier to justify than anything that decreases battery life in a phone.
 
uOpt said:
Another question is whether patents on mechanisms that are required by national infrastructure should be patentable in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't know what exactly the patents are for (and I don't want to read patentese about signal processing; I can barely read english signal processing), but figuring out how to make advanced wireless networks work is clearly hard stuff, and patents are the mechanism that transfers wealth to people/companies who figure out how to make things work if it's stuff they want to do.

If you don't want to pay for patents, you can use older tech, but you'll probably need to launch your own 2G network, cause none of the US carriers want to spend their spectrum on 2G.

It'd be nice if networks didn't standardise on patented stuff, but someone's got to pay people to figure out what to do next and it looks like that's mostly Qualcomm.
 
toast0 said:
I don't know what exactly the patents are for (and I don't want to read patentese about signal processing; I can barely read english signal processing), but figuring out how to make advanced wireless networks work is clearly hard stuff, and patents are the mechanism that transfers wealth to people/companies who figure out how to make things work if it's stuff they want to do.

If you don't want to pay for patents, you can use older tech, but you'll probably need to launch your own 2G network, cause none of the US carriers want to spend their spectrum on 2G.

It'd be nice if networks didn't standardise on patented stuff, but someone's got to pay people to figure out what to do next and it looks like that's mostly Qualcomm.
Click to expand...
The fun thing about standards is everybody has their own. But open standards are different than closed standards and some things become a standard because everybody just uses it, not because some regulatory body said it was.
Cellular is the former, somebody built a modem that worked, a company deployed towers that used it for phones that had it. And it just sort of snowballed, the only real regulation was what broadcast frequencies they could use past that it was a grab bag of what ever they had to do to make it work.

Now because it’s big business there are governing bodies that rein things in so nothing gets too far off the rails but the cellular communications networks were built off the backbone of proprietary licensed tech from day one, that’s not something that just goes away because it got popular.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Back in the good ol' days Apple would have just taken the other technology, reverse engineer it, and come out with the own version saying they developed it, then end up settling for half a billion for patent violations a decade or more later. So sad where Apple ended up!
Click to expand...
It’s one thing when your stealing from a small company with no means of defending itself, in a time when the laws and courts were completely new to the concept.

But this would be multi trillion dollar global corp vs multi trillion dollar global corp. Its a fight that would play out in some 30 separate counties (not all friendly) and the only winners there would be the law firms that sprang into existence over the money spent on the cases.

There is no scenario there where Apple comes out ahead and they know it.

And that’s why they haven’t just done it and asked permission after. I have no doubt it it were some small garage startup with no financial backing Apple would have had “their own” modem years ago…
 
Lakados said:
The fun thing about standards is everybody has their own. But open standards are different than closed standards and some things become a standard because everybody just uses it, not because some regulatory body said it was.
Cellular is the former, somebody built a modem that worked, a company deployed towers that used it for phones that had it. And it just sort of snowballed, the only real regulation was what broadcast frequencies they could use past that it was a grab bag of what ever they had to do to make it work.

Now because it’s big business there are governing bodies that rein things in so nothing gets too far off the rails but the cellular communications networks were built off the backbone of proprietary licensed tech from day one, that’s not something that just goes away because it got popular.
Click to expand...

Mumble.

I still think public infrastructure (which the cellphone network is for me) should be built on patent-free standards. It's not that Apple didn't invest as much effort as Qualcom did (probably more), it's just that their effort is invalidated.
 
uOpt said:
Mumble.

I still think public infrastructure (which the cellphone network is for me) should be built on patent-free standards. It's not that Apple didn't invest as much effort as Qualcom did (probably more), it's just that their effort is invalidated.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about it. Apple has the money to come up with something at the end of the day. When they do Qualcomm will be entirely just the maker of chips for cell phones that are always about one generation behind what Apple can do, but at least anyone can put them in their phones if they want.
 
uOpt said:
Mumble.

I still think public infrastructure (which the cellphone network is for me) should be built on patent-free standards. It's not that Apple didn't invest as much effort as Qualcom did (probably more), it's just that their effort is invalidated.
Click to expand...
Problem is by its very definition it’s not public it’s private. If it were government owned and operated then yes it’s public, but it’s an infrastructure built, owned, and operated by private corporations.

Yeah it’s public money that pays for half of it, because the US is great and bringing private expenses to the tax payers and privatizing the profits but that’s how the system sadly works.

Canada isn’t much better for it.
 
Mchart said:
I wouldn't worry about it. Apple has the money to come up with something at the end of the day. When they do Qualcomm will be entirely just the maker of chips for cell phones that are always about one generation behind what Apple can do, but at least anyone can put them in their phones if they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I like competition.

Keep in mind that this is a software and security problem, too. Most likely Qualcom does deliver a binary blob as drivers for their chip(s), which Apple can't audit. Even if they give sources (unlikely, IMHO, since Apple is a competitor for the chips) then at least the chip is a black box that can contain security problems that would be very hard for Apple to uncover. If Apple made their own modem chips they also make the drivers and can do their full security sweep.
 
uOpt said:
Yeah, but I like competition.

Keep in mind that this is a software and security problem, too. Most likely Qualcom does deliver a binary blob as drivers for their chip(s), which Apple can't audit. Even if they give sources (unlikely, IMHO, since Apple is a competitor for the chips) then at least the chip is a black box that can contain security problems that would be very hard for Apple to uncover. If Apple made their own modem chips they also make the drivers and can do their full security sweep.
Click to expand...
Apple mostly doesn’t want to pay the Qualcomm licensing fees and wants the change the packet priority to favour their own standards at a driver level. But yeah there are some platform security things I would imagine.
 
God, I remember the original Airports. No matter what we did those things wrecked our wireless networks back in the early 2000's. Apple has been incompetent in this aspect for like 20-30 years. And that was using other people's proven chips!
 
[Spectre] said:
God, I remember the original Airports. No matter what we did those things wrecked our wireless networks back in the early 2000's. Apple has been incompetent in this aspect for like 20-30 years. And that was using other people's proven chips!
Click to expand...
Yeah but they made fantastic signal jammers…

I had one wired under a player piano once for uploading midi tracks to it. Whenever that thing went sideways it killed all Wi-Fi in a solid 50m radius.
 
Lakados said:
Yeah but they made fantastic signal jammers…

I had one wired under a player piano once for uploading midi tracks to it. Whenever that thing went sideways it killed all Wi-Fi in a solid 50m radius.
Click to expand...
Yes! Yes!

Those stupid things collapsed our Wi-Fi networks everywhere they were employed.
 
[Spectre] said:
Yes! Yes!

Those stupid things collapsed our Wi-Fi networks everywhere they were employed.
Click to expand...
That piano was in a grand lobby, I mean it was like a $100k unit. So you can imagine the chaos, suits all over just losing their shit on a random Tuesday because suddenly all their BlackBerries stuff dies mid email... Yeah took us months to figure out what was actually causing it, because who looks inside a Piano for a WiFi AP that isn't broadcasting an SSID.
 
Apple Plans To Discontinue Development Of 5G Modem As It Failed To Perfect The Technology, Winding Down Years Of Investment
It was previously reported that Apple is working on its custom 5G chips to reduce dependency on Qualcomm. The company is in pursuit of relying on its in-house components, following the same approach as Apple Silicon. However, Apple appears to be far from achieving its goals as it has decided to discontinue developing in-house 5G modems, according to a new report. The reports are not confirmed at this stage, but multiple sources have reported similar scenarios.
 
kac77 said:
Apple Plans To Discontinue Development Of 5G Modem As It Failed To Perfect The Technology, Winding Down Years Of Investment
It was previously reported that Apple is working on its custom 5G chips to reduce dependency on Qualcomm. The company is in pursuit of relying on its in-house components, following the same approach as Apple Silicon. However, Apple appears to be far from achieving its goals as it has decided to discontinue developing in-house 5G modems, according to a new report. The reports are not confirmed at this stage, but multiple sources have reported similar scenarios.
Click to expand...
I don't blame Apple here, FBAR filters are already a tricky thing and between Qualcomm and Broadcom they have covered all the ways to build one that actually works while being compatible with traditional SAW filters, and unless we want to go back to the days of "You're holding it wrong" then SAW filters aren't an option in modern cellular devices.
Broadcom made an announcement recently that they will be building the chips in the US at least, and Apple signed an agreement with them for the silicon, which also included a model for a future laptop so maybe cellular-enabled Macbooks in the not-too-distant future, better for Apple to just cut their losses at this point.

I am sure Apple has the technical capability to build a cellular modem, but I am 100% sure that all their attempts result in something that shits the bed when in a crowded environment, or in one with less-than-awesome signal strength because those are the places that the Qualcomm and Broadcom patents cover that they have been fighting to get invalidated or licensed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: uOpt
like this
Ugh, so funny that every time one these threads get bumped - the post I want to make is essentially the same thought I had before. But I suppose to add on to whatever I said before, this is unfortunate for a number of reasons.

It would give rise to more competition and it would allow greater integration with other Apple hardware.
Theoretically the modem could be part of the SoC if Apple could just make the thing themselves. Undoubtedly they could've made it low powered. It also could've made it so that every iPad etc, could've just had cellular (other than to segment it in order to make more money). The same with every Macbook.

I guess Apple also doesn't want to pay royalties in order to build out the options that work. Theoretically royalties should cost less than buying chips no? It just seems like such a waste to not continue dev work. Especially considering that there will be new cellular techs in the future that Apple could get ahead on by simply continuing dev work.

EDIT: Said another way, what else is Apple spending all its money on? It's not as if they cannot afford to keep going here, and indeed I can't think of something else that would be more valuable for vertical integration on their phones than continuing to work on a cellular chip.
I almost feel like it would be worth more money to them to go through the lawsuits to get the pricing of licensing down on cellular patents and make their own chip, just to have a better and lower cost product. It's not as if they haven't had spats with Qualcomm before.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Ugh, so funny that every time one these threads get bumped - the post I want to make is essentially the same thought I had before. But I suppose to add on to whatever I said before, this is unfortunate for a number of reasons.

It would give rise to more competition and it would allow greater integration with other Apple hardware.
Theoretically the modem could be part of the SoC if Apple could just make the thing themselves. Undoubtedly they could've made it low powered. It also could've made it so that every iPad etc, could've just had cellular (other than to segment it in order to make more money). The same with every Macbook.

I guess Apple also doesn't want to pay royalties in order to build out the options that work. Theoretically royalties should cost less than buying chips no? It just seems like such a waste to not continue dev work. Especially considering that there will be new cellular techs in the future that Apple could get ahead on by simply continuing dev work.
Click to expand...
The global issue is that 5G was fundamentally developed by Qualcomm, it has many of its patented technology layered in there at the very core of the technology and the standard.
Qualcomm managed to go full RAMBUS and got away with it clean.
5G being issued as the global standard with all of that proprietary tech in there was one of the leading factors that led to Broadcom's desire to purchase Qualcomm, which ultimately failed.
Apple (with the silent backing of Broadcom) has been working to invalidate those patents since the purchase failed back in 2018 and after 5 different attempts has managed to make no progress.
The ultimate problem is the patents are 100% valid, the topics they cover are specific and complex, and Qualcomm is charging accordingly which is to say they are charging a lot.
Broadcom has an existing cross-licensing agreement with Qualcomm so they get it through there, but it keeps Apple and just about everybody else with no options.

So theoretical benefits aside, unless somebody can find some patent lawyers that even Apple couldn't get ahold of who can find a new way to present the arguments that Apple's failed to do, I don't see this getting resolved any time during 5G's usable lifespan.
 
Lakados said:
The global issue is that 5G was fundamentally developed by Qualcomm, it has many of its patented technology layered in there at the very core of the technology and the standard.
Qualcomm managed to go full RAMBUS and got away with it clean.
5G being issued as the global standard with all of that proprietary tech in there was one of the leading factors that led to Broadcom's desire to purchase Qualcomm, which ultimately failed.
Apple (with the silent backing of Broadcom) has been working to invalidate those patents since the purchase failed back in 2018 and after 5 different attempts has managed to make no progress.
The ultimate problem is the patents are 100% valid, the topics they cover are specific and complex, and Qualcomm is charging accordingly which is to say they are charging a lot.
Broadcom has an existing cross-licensing agreement with Qualcomm so they get it through there, but it keeps Apple and just about everybody else with no options.

So theoretical benefits aside, unless somebody can find some patent lawyers that even Apple couldn't get ahold of who can find a new way to present the arguments that Apple's failed to do, I don't see this getting resolved any time during 5G's usable lifespan.
Click to expand...
Right, so if I was Apple, what I would do is license the 5g technology at whatever cost it is, and build my own chip or integrate into the SoC.

Then in the background, I would invest huge amounts of money into 6g or whatever will be the next wireless tech or even satellite tech. Then I would patent the hell out of every R&D discovery and beat Qualcomm to the punch with the next set of standards. The end goal being Qualcomm having to license from Apple for the next set of standards. As soon as that happens, Apple has the bargaining chip to a cross-licensing agreement, in which they won't have to pay anymore for 5G or previous technologies. Because for Qualcomm it's either that or simply not be able to produce a next gen chip for literally every other cellphone manufacturer on the planet.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Right, so if I was Apple, what I would do is license the 5g technology at whatever cost it is, and build my own chip or integrate into the SoC.

Then in the background, I would invest huge amounts of money into 6g or whatever will be the next wireless tech or even satellite tech. Then I would patent the hell out of every R&D discovery and beat Qualcomm to the punch with the next set of standards. The end goal being Qualcomm having to license from Apple for the next set of standards. As soon as that happens, Apple has the bargaining chip to a cross-licensing agreement, in which they won't have to pay anymore for 5G or previous technologies. Because for Qualcomm it's either that or simply not be able to produce a next gen chip for literally every other cellphone manufacturer on the planet.
Click to expand...
But that price for licensing made Broadcom pony up $120B to buy them as the cheaper option
Made Apple say "You know what? Spinning up a whole R&D division and spending the next 5 years also fighting them in court is the cheaper option"
And was supposedly the final straw that made Intel say "F-This, we're out! Peace!".
Qualcomm has been in constant lawsuits regarding its pricing on 5G patents since 2017, and they have lost twice since the first ones started, but they are managing to really draw out the duration of the negotiation prices.
There was only one other company with a patent portfolio that could stand against Qualcomm on 5G and that was Huawei, but they are not allowed to play in this game anymore.
It was only a few months ago that Qualcomm finally announced their new licensing structure and supposedly it is just as bad but now with extra steps.
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
But that price for licensing made Broadcom pony up $120B to buy them as the cheaper option
Made Apple say "You know what? Spinning up a whole R&D division and spending the next 5 years also fighting them in court is the cheaper option"
And was supposedly the final straw that made Intel say "F-This, we're out! Peace!".
Qualcomm has been in constant lawsuits regarding its pricing on 5G patents since 2017, and they have lost twice since the first ones started, but they are managing to really draw out the duration of the negotiation prices.
There was only one other company with a patent portfolio that could stand against Qualcomm on 5G and that was Huawei, but they are not allowed to play in this game anymore.
It was only a few months ago that Qualcomm finally announced their new licensing structure and supposedly it is just as bad but now with extra steps.
Click to expand...
Well, theoretically Apple could buy them too. One of the few companies with stupid amounts of money in reserves.

The one "issue" there being it's a conflict of interest. They don't have people paying them for any other form of licensing agreement that I know of, which would be necessary after the fact. And I'm sure Apple doesn't want that door to be open either. Meaning perhaps my idea on this is also moot.

They would have to buy Qualcomm, give themselves a forever agreement, and then immediately spin them off, which would be likely a colossal waste of money.
 
Is the problem designing the chip or is the problem making the chip on a scale that can supply Apple?

Just think of the number of new iPhones that need to hit the street in a single two or three week window. There's no other tech company in the world that releases a physical product on that scale.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Well, theoretically Apple could buy them too. One of the few companies with stupid amounts of money in reserves.

The one "issue" there being it's a conflict of interest. They don't have people paying them for any other form of licensing agreement that I know of, which would be necessary after the fact. And I'm sure Apple doesn't want that door to be open either. Meaning perhaps my idea on this is also moot.

They would have to buy Qualcomm, give themselves a forever agreement, and then immediately spin them off, which would be likely a colossal waste of money.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue is backward compatibility, make a 6G modem sure, but you are going to need 5G compatibility, how many generations of modems until the world decides that 5G is being shut down and is no longer going to be a thing because that's how long they are looking at having to pay those licenses, this is something that may take decades to work through.
Huawei getting shut out of 5G was what made Qualcomm's ability to print money a thing, in 2018 the price to buy Qualcomm was $120B and since then the 5G situation has more than doubled that.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Is the problem designing the chip or is the problem making the chip on a scale that can supply Apple?

Just think of the number of new iPhones that need to hit the street in a single two or three week window. There's no other tech company in the world that releases a physical product on that scale.
Click to expand...
Designing a modem that works without having to pay Qualcomm or Intel a fee for what they own. It's not going to be easy to design a cell phone modem from the ground up without infringing on someone's patents.

Qualcomm basically owns everything when it comes to cell technology at this point. The only chance Apple would have would be designing something entirely new for cell technology and forcing carriers to adopt it - Which basically has no chance of happening given 5G is here to stay for quite a few years. Apple is doing a lot with satellite stuff though, so it's always possible something could get worked out there long-term. On the Android side the satellite tech stuff that Qualcomm developed has basically been ignored, but on iPhone Apple can push more into that realm. Who knows - Maybe a major carrier will start offering service over starlink, and the iPhone might slowly shift to that.
 
Last edited:
Twisted Kidney said:
Is the problem designing the chip or is the problem making the chip on a scale that can supply Apple?

Just think of the number of new iPhones that need to hit the street in a single two or three week window. There's no other tech company in the world that releases a physical product on that scale.
Click to expand...
Qualcomm is fabless. They have little to do with chip supply.
 
Do all other phone manufacturers—Xaomei, Samsung, Huawei, Asus, etc.—pay these same royalties?

I keep hearing Apple Apple Apple and not a word about everyone else on 5g.
 
sphinx99 said:
Do all other phone manufacturers—Xaomei, Samsung, Huawei, Asus, etc.—pay these same royalties?

I keep hearing Apple Apple Apple and not a word about everyone else on 5g.
Click to expand...
They all buy the Broadcom chips or are already using a Qualcomm chip so it’s there.
Apple was the oddball out in trying to do it, everybody else gave up years ago or didn’t bother trying.
 
sphinx99 said:
Do all other phone manufacturers—Xaomei, Samsung, Huawei, Asus, etc.—pay these same royalties?

I keep hearing Apple Apple Apple and not a word about everyone else on 5g.
Click to expand...

These types of royalties, yeah. But some licenses are per device and some licenses are based on end user retail price of the thing its used in. Apple only makes spendy phones, so they pay more per device on average than someone that sells low cost phones.

Also, Apple is building towards vertical integration in a way most of those other companies can't or won't. Samsung being an exception, they can be more integrated than Apple.
 
Lakados said:
The biggest issue is backward compatibility, make a 6G modem sure, but you are going to need 5G compatibility, how many generations of modems until the world decides that 5G is being shut down and is no longer going to be a thing because that's how long they are looking at having to pay those licenses, this is something that may take decades to work through.
Huawei getting shut out of 5G was what made Qualcomm's ability to print money a thing, in 2018 the price to buy Qualcomm was $120B and since then the 5G situation has more than doubled that.
Click to expand...
Well from what I was saying earlier, the goal would eventually to be the holder of very relevant 6g patents or satellite patents that Qualcomm would need in order to continue its chip selling business. And then Apple would be able to negotiate a cross licensing agreement for all the 5g stuff, getting rid of their chip cost. Qualcomm wouldn't like it, but it's either lose Apple's money or all of the business.

That requires bleeding cash in the interim and investing a huge amount into R&D and perhaps influencing the right people to go Apple's way. However I don't think Apple wants to have to license technology to anyone. They wouldn't like the precedent. I think they could do it, but I think they have a vested interest in not owning any publicly needed technology. Which is precisely the reason why they also didn't want to buy ARM.

Licensing to Apple means giving up their technological edge. They don't want people to have parity with what they have. They don't have an interest in being a reseller/licensor. They want the full stack all to themselves.
 
Last edited:
I remember Nvidia trying to get into the modem business with Icera, but eventually bailed too. Apparently, its not easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top