He talks about how stagnant and copycat the Samsung development bureaucracy is and how it's practically impossible to make any real innovative moves in development.
Another major issue is that the Tizen SDK (despite all the "Linux Foundation" mantra) is proprietary and gives Samsung near complete control of your code. I don't see any developer agreeing to those terms when he/she is already risking so much on a new OS to begin with.
Itanium is gone because Intel knew from the start that the chip had no future (they had already tried this some years before with the failed i860). The long-term effect of Itanium was that it generated enough smoke and mirrors to convince the know-nothings at the top to kill all the good RISC architectures (all the R&D was pulled except for SPARC which was mis-managed by Sun Microsystems).
VAX was killed because they had Alpha. Intel killed Alpha, but every advance they have made came from the Alpha EV8 and EV9 (AVX, SMT, Quickconnect, etc), in fact, Haswell has just finally managed to go as wide in execution as EV8 designs from 2003. Alpha was the apex of computer processor design. It's telling that ShenWei was/is so power efficient despite using a reverse-engineered copy of EV56 with an updated FP (a processor designed in the mid 90's).
RMI made a MIPS64 that is a 8-core (32-thead) monster with 12MB of cache, running at 1.2GHz (specs say up to 2.0GHz). It was designed for network switches and allowed for 40Gbps of traffic per chip (10Gbps encrypted/compressed on the fly) and was rated for less than 50 watts of power, all while back on 40nm. No ARM chips are anywhere near that performance (and x86 would struggle to get that performance at 40nm and around 50 watts). MIPS is already big and Loongson seems to indicate that China is willing to throw a lot of weight behind the MIPS architecture (for example using MIPS in their upcoming 100 petaflop supercomputer scheduled for 2015).
Basically, if something can be sent to a collections agency (in this case the internal Verizon collections agency), the it is a DEBT and thus the creditor (VerizonWireless) CANNOT refuse payment.
To clarify, payment with Federal Reserve Notes cannot be refused, else things will not go well for them in court.
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment? Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.
Basically, if something can be sent to a collections agency (in this case the internal Verizon collections agency), the it is a DEBT and thus the creditor (VerizonWireless) CANNOT refuse payment. Since payment of a Verizon bill is frequently after some or all of the service has been given, their is debt (money owed for services previous rendered). Retail is different because there is no debt owed to the retailer since the merchandise ownership is only exchanges (barring a contract) after the payment has been given. (technically, it could be argued in some cases that a verbal contract has been established and thus a debt has been agreed to).