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

sc5mu93 said:
I remember Nvidia trying to get into the modem business with Icera, but eventually bailed too. Apparently, its not easy.
Click to expand...
At this point it would be as hard if not harder as getting into GPU's without owning any patents to do so. Only reason Apple could get into the GPU space is because they have all the Imagination PowerVR stuff licensed with a really sweet deal.
 
Mchart said:
At this point it would be as hard if not harder as getting into GPU's without owning any patents to do so. Only reason Apple could get into the GPU space is because they have all the Imagination PowerVR stuff licensed with a really sweet deal.
Click to expand...
well, the nvidia acquisition of Icera came with patents. and they STILL couldn't make it work. must be a really super difficult of a space to get into.
 
I maintain that the root of the problem is that nationwide infrastructure shouldn't be based on standards that are overgrown with patents.
 
uOpt said:
I maintain that the root of the problem is that nationwide infrastructure shouldn't be based on standards that are overgrown with patents.
Click to expand...
The issue there is that just like the medical field, R&D costs money. A lot of money. The purpose of the patent system is to allow those that have put in the extensive resources to be able to profit from that expense. Patents are the cost for being technologically relevant.

Otherwise, who will take it on and drive forward the tech? The government? Yeah right.

Perhaps patent law need to be revised and new limits in light of technological advancements needs to take place. But that is a separate issue.
 
sc5mu93 said:
I remember Nvidia trying to get into the modem business with Icera, but eventually bailed too. Apparently, its not easy.
Click to expand...
It's not easy because it's like balancing tea cups especially with patents in tow. Anyone can make a modem but when you try to make the most performant device while making it efficient the compatibility and testing is truly immense because it has to work with everything.
 
sc5mu93 said:
well, the nvidia acquisition of Icera came with patents. and they STILL couldn't make it work. must be a really super difficult of a space to get into.
Click to expand...
The hard patents right now are mostly around dealing with signal integrity in a super compact space without turning the device into an impromptu signal jammer, or dealing with antenna signal attenuation and not having to stand on stage and say "You're holding it wrong" with a straight face.
Communications and signaling are becoming another one of those super specialized fields requiring mass research investment and huge patent portfolios, There are some 4000+ patents involved in making 5G work, and Apple is completely roadblocked on 4 of them, possibly more but they only spent 5 years in court focusing on the 4 so I assume they were the big roadblocks.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The issue there is that just like the medical field, R&D costs money. A lot of money. The purpose of the patent system is to allow those that have put in the extensive resources to be able to profit from that expense. Patents are the cost for being technologically relevant.

Otherwise, who will take it on and drive forward the tech? The government? Yeah right.

Perhaps patent law need to be revised and new limits in light of technological advancements needs to take place. But that is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a separate issue. Has Apple invested less than Qualcomm? Probably not, rather more. Where's that investment being financed from? Patents should protect from copying existing tech without research. Not invalidate new research.

In any case, I didn't ask to invalidate existing patents. I asked not to promote such technologies to national infrastructure. That is tax money spent to enrich existing patent holders.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Otherwise, who will take it on and drive forward the tech? The government? Yeah right.
Click to expand...
Apparently you have forgotten what entity drove the research for the Manhattan project, the Apollo project, and who was the first to achieve fusion ignition.
 
Endgame said:
Apparently you have forgotten what entity drove the research for the Manhattan project, the Apollo project, and who was the first to achieve fusion ignition.
Click to expand...
The government has never done any of that stuff efficiently. It’s obvious from your cherry picking that you’re looking at very specific programs and trying to paint a picture of the government when the rest of everything that they do and have done is garbage.

Right now NASA is having to use third parties to launch anything into space. The government has nothing to do with any weapons program, what-so-ever (other than creating a spec) and pays exorbitant amounts to build all of the US’ planes and small arms amongst other things. If you want to play the game of what the government has done right vs what they’ve done in terms of construction I would guess that there is a minimum 10:1 projects that the government has been done poorly and over-costed vs correctly.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The issue there is that just like the medical field, R&D costs money. A lot of money. The purpose of the patent system is to allow those that have put in the extensive resources to be able to profit from that expense. Patents are the cost for being technologically relevant.

Otherwise, who will take it on and drive forward the tech? The government? Yeah right.

Perhaps patent law need to be revised and new limits in light of technological advancements needs to take place. But that is a separate issue.
Click to expand...
Some folks just love central planning. No matter how inefficient it is.

Invention is best left to entrepreneurs. Inventors deserve protection of their IP. History shows that in spades.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The government has never done any of that stuff efficiently. It’s obvious from your cherry picking that you’re looking at very specific programs and trying to paint a picture of the government when the rest of everything that they do and have done is garbage.

Right now NASA is having to use third parties to launch anything into space. The government has nothing to do with any weapons program, what-so-ever (other than creating a spec) and pays exorbitant amounts to build all of the US’ planes and small arms amongst other things. If you want to play the game of what the government has done right vs what they’ve done in terms of construction I would guess that there is a minimum 10:1 projects that the government has been done poorly and over-costed vs correctly.
Click to expand...
What commercial projects have landed on Mars more efficiently than NASA? What about more advanced space telescopes than James Webb? Hmm, no one? What about global weather models? Surely there a private company that has better hurricane prediction if private companies are so much better? No?
 
The Apollo program was just a front for ICBM development.
 
Please stop arguing about NASA, they exist to to the projects and R&D that no private entity could undertake because the ROI for them is too extreme and the scope too small for a single company to make.
The work they do for rockets, engines, metallurgical sciences, and such is repurposed in fields around the world. And sadly more expensive to produce than any one of those companies could ever afford to do but results in cleaner air, better medical devices, and buildings full of data for scientists to pour over to advance everything from the contacts in our eyes to the electricity that pours into our homes.
NASA does good work, and are unappreciated and underfunded for their efforts.
 
Wat said:
The Apollo program was just a front for ICBM development.
Click to expand...
The cryogenic rocket technology used for Apollo was utterly useless for ICBM use because in addition to being enormously overpowered they can't be stored fueled and ready to launch.

The only flow was the other direction with early IRBM/ICBMs being used for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Some of the earliest ICBMs were keralox (ex atlas), but they were replaced with hypergolic (ex titan) and then solid fueled (Minuteman) because being able to be kept fueled and not being hazmat were more important than performance.
 
Nope.
Fuel is a minor detail. Staging and guidance were the big technical hurdles
 
Wat said:
Nope.
Fuel is a minor detail. Staging and guidance were the big technical hurdles
Click to expand...

Nope.

Staging was figured out first by ICBMs, guidance good enough to eat the heart out of a city was figured out by Nazi's during ww2. The space program didn't need guidance good enough to vaporize a missile silo.
 
DooKey said:
Some folks just love central planning. No matter how inefficient it is.

Invention is best left to entrepreneurs. Inventors deserve protection of their IP. History shows that in spades.
Click to expand...
Sometimes there really is just one solution to a particular problem. If two completely independent research teams come up with the same solution, whoever gets it patented first wins. They shouldn't be immune to competition just because they refuse to license out their patent to anyone else.

Maybe patents would be less of a problem if the holder was required to license it out at reasonable cost to anyone who asked, who knows. The problem is clear, how to fix it is less so.
 
Spaghetti said:
Sometimes there really is just one solution to a particular problem. If two completely independent research teams come up with the same solution, whoever gets it patented first wins. They shouldn't be immune to competition just because they refuse to license out their patent to anyone else.

Maybe patents would be less of a problem if the holder was required to license it out at reasonable cost to anyone who asked, who knows. The problem is clear, how to fix it is less so.
Click to expand...
Well the issue is there are 2 solutions, Huawei found one and Qualcomm the other. But one of them got blackballed, but their patents still exist. Moderately convenient or inconvenient if you ask me… hashtag conspiracy theory…
 
Wat said:
The Apollo program was just a front for ICBM development.
Click to expand...
No. The Apollo program stood fairly on it's own, there really wasn't a military front for it. Mercury and Gemini - Yes, those were used as a front for the USAF space program and putting manned space stations in orbit along with early Keyhole for imagery. By the time Apollo was a thing it was already determined that putting men in space for national defense purposes was entirely useless. Maybe if the soviets would have fought over the moon with us, but they gave up as soon as the race was won.

As far as using the space program as an example of 'big government creating technology for the people' isn't true at all. The first use of IC's in Apollo, the amazing microwave technology, etc - All of this was developed by private industry and they still owned all the IP/Patents at the end of it. So while it was funded with tax dollars, none of it was just magically released to the public domain for free use. There are very limited examples where a technology was just released for free, and in most cases it's because the person who invented it decided to just make it public domain for the betterment of humanity. This has nothing to do with the government though, and is basically all just great examples of private charity.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
A twist. Maybe they are doing what I was thinking.

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/0...XIUZ15ZlnFx9HfPPamvCAXJbIyTlzEBkTQEO-4LtfLi9M
Click to expand...
They very well could be, meanwhile carriers are struggling with the true costs of 5g. In the rush to buy up spectrum space looks like many overbid, and the products they promised haven’t arrived so they have nothing to increase their revenue with. So they are scrambling for new revenue streams and cost cutting measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top