Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Professional chess: hard to make a living (Score 2) 237

by jphamlore (#49472609) Attached to: Chess Grandmaster Used iPhone To Cheat During Tournament
There are at least 6 players by my calculations who wound up tied for the top score at this event and therefore split the top prize fund money, approximately $5,000 USD apiece. That is not an easy living if one is trying to survive on chess alone. This probably explains why some cheating at chess is so blatant, because one has to finish at the very top to get any money at all let alone turn a profit. Otherwise a rational cheater would do it sparingly and possibly versus lower level opponents.

Comment: What would Beats have done for design? (Score 1) 141

by jphamlore (#49322581) Attached to: "Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt
Perhaps the initial design problem of Google Glass is that they did not pay attention to what someone like Beats would do. Beats design cheerfully uses color and is not necessarily minimalistic. It says the user of proud of who he or she is, deal with it. The minimalistic mostly-colorless initial design actually invited attacks because it was sending a message of doubt and fear, trying to hide what could not be hidden.

Perhaps this is a lesson in the importance of diversity for the bottom-line.

Comment: Re:Google glass choices (Score 1) 112

by jphamlore (#49288595) Attached to: How To Make Moonshots
This is what stalled Google Glass, the same thing that killed Nokia as a phone company. Google chose the wrong ARM SoC

Support from the SoC vendor is the first step in getting an update out the door, and you'll see many phones' support lifecycles cut short thanks to the likes of Texas Instruments and Nvidia. The Galaxy Nexus used a Texas Instruments OMAP 4460 SoC. TI quit the smartphone business in 2012, leaving Google's flagship without support for KitKat. The only device we've seen update to KitKat without support from the silicon vendor is Google Glass, which uses the same chip as the Galaxy Nexus. If the incredibly buggy performance of Google Glass post-KitKat update is any indication, though, that was an experiment that went very poorly.

The speculation is Google Glass will be switching to Intel for the next iteration. There's a reason why many of the mass market mobile device players such as Apple and Samsung have invested in their own ARM SoCs. There is in fact an uncanny correlation between mobile device companies selling hardware having catastrophic collapse of market share such as Nokia and Blackberry with failure to develop an ARM SoC for the 2010s and beyond.

Comment: Nokia the ultimate outsourcing warning (Score 5, Interesting) 230

by jphamlore (#48749287) Attached to: AMD, Nvidia Reportedly Tripped Up On Process Shrinks
The ultimate story about the dangers of outsourcing is how Nokia destroyed its mobile phone business. Once upon a time Nokia and Texas Instruments had a very close working arrangement with TI being Nokia's fab partner. The two together had a complete phone solution. So how does Nokia treat TI in the mid 2000s: They decided to diversify their wireless chipset providers away from working with TI. Only Nokia forgot one thing: TI don't play in markets where it cannot be overall #1. TI will as fast as possible get out of business segments where it cannot lead. And so TI said to Nokia, bye by 2012. In 2009. By then Nokia had decided it wanted to get its ARM SoCs and wireless modems from the same supplier, and there was one natural candidate, especially since they were, and still are, the leaders in LTE: Qualcomm. Only there was one big problem: Nokia had been caught in a patent war with Qualcomm for years trying to put Qualcomm out of business. It was Nokia that wound up having to settle for billions of US dollars, and suddenly it was at the mercy of the company to whom it had been an existential threat. Oops.

Comment: It's about Intel not Nokia (Score 3, Interesting) 60

by jphamlore (#48673429) Attached to: Nokia's Back In the Tablet Business, With the Android Lollipop-Based N1
What has flown over everyone's head, and it's really disheartening to see this, is this tablet product is likely much more about Intel than Nokia. Intel wants to keep some presence in tablets while it transitions from 22nm to 14nm at which point its products would be much more competitive. Furthermore Intel does not currently even fab its own wireless modems. Fortunately a tablet does not even need an LTE modem, has larger room for batteries, and fortunately Google has recently released Android 5.0 Lollipop with 64-bit support, great for the Atom Intel is using as a transitional product.

Comment: Dark matter or supersymmetry verification (Score 1) 55

by jphamlore (#47943269) Attached to: Mystery Signal Could Be Dark Matter Hint In ISS Detector
Which would be the biggest news for physics: A discovered candidate for dark mattery or discovery of a particle predicted by supersymmetry? I thought evidence from the LHC was casting doubt on many supersymmetry theories? Also Samuel Ting is fairly old which is a shame because it might be unlikely he could live long enough to be one of those rare scientists who are awarded multiple Nobel Prizes.

Comment: Nokia missed being Ericsson by 7 years (Score 1) 54

by jphamlore (#47575057) Attached to: Nokia Buys a Chunk of Panasonic
Nokia is 7 years too late trying to be the company Ericsson remade itself into in the 2000. The key blunder was Nokia's backing WiMAX, a technology that was horribly marketed as potentially cutting out the major telecoms, whereas Ericsson helped create LTE with Verizon by providing a solution for Verizon to upgrade from CDMA. It's surprising to me that the tech sites have not trumpeted perhaps history's greatest example of a company paying the price for failing to invest in the next generation of technology. Instead of building on its baseband expertise, Nokia tried to outsource it ignoring LTE. This destroyed its relationship with its fab partner TI who then pulled out of the mobile phone market leaving Nokia with no supplier for its then line of phones. Nokia was then left having to turn to Qualcomm ... only it had been involved in a massive legal battle with Qualcomm over IP which Nokia then had to settle for an immediate payment of the equivalent of billions of dollars.

One must remember in 2008 the tech press was reporting that it was Qualcomm that was on the ropes due to its IP steadily decreasing in value. But Qualcomm, whose CEO was a Ph.D. in EECS from Cal Berkeley, invested in developing their own ARM SoC as well as LTE baseband chips and bought AMD mobile graphics division for a complete smartphone solution. Meanwhile Nokia invested in neither a modern ARM SoC, unlike Apple and Qualcomm and Samsung, nor in LTE baseband chipsets, nor in foundry relationships unlike again Apple, Qualcomm, and Samsung.

Nokia the phone company was a dead man walking in 2008 long before Elop got there.

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...