[sorinv]

If the small start-up were developing an *OS* that requires porting drivers and they wanted to run on Qualcomm chips, then they would need big bucks OR convince Qualcomm that their OS has the potential to get Qualcomm more business in the future. BlackBerry is already an established business with cash, so why would Qualcomm treat them like a start-up with an OS that has potential future business? The track record hasn't been good, so what's in it for Qualcomm?

Qualcomm doesn't disclose details because it's their trade secrets. BlackBerry doesn't invest in the drivers because BlackBerry doesn't think they'll recover their investment, not because it's cost prohibitive.

We agree, but in your last sentence the second part somewhat contradicts/cancels the first part.

Posted via CB10

[cbvinh]

Google has already designed special processors with Intel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_processing_unit

Also from wikipedia in the footnote for vision processors:

"Tensor processing unit, a chip used internally by Google for accelerating AI calculations."

That's weird. The wiki page doesn't mention Intel at all nor any kind of collaboration with Intel. Did you cite the right wiki page? Further, there are these articles that contradict the collaboration you're claiming:

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/google...e-intel-freak/

Intel's megachips will take on Nvidia's GPUs and Google's TPUs | PCWorld

[cbvinh]

We agree, but in your last sentence the second part somewhat contradicts/cancels the first part.

There's a difference between something being cost prohibitive and a worthwhile investment. No contradiction at all.

[sorinv]

That's weird. The wiki page doesn't mention Intel at all nor any kind of collaboration with Intel. Did you cite the right wiki page? Further, there are these articles that contradict the collaboration you're claiming:

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/google...e-intel-freak/

Intel's megachips will take on Nvidia's GPUs and Google's TPUs | PCWorld

Both pages come from wikipedia.

There is no contradiction between the links you posted and the news that Google and Intel are now working together on a new neural network processor.
Google posted the news on their website. If you read all links carefully, you'll see that they will collaborate rather than compete in the future.

"We�ve worked closely with Intel for years on datacenter processor technology," that's the quote from the latest Google blog.

After all Samsung made processors for Apple for awhile.

Either way, you now seem to agree that Google is developing hardware processors. You need to control the hardware to lead in software and speed up search.

[BGRS]

Follow-up question is whether enough iPhone users would spend $1/month for the Hub to justify development... For the Android version, BlackBerry is already developing for their own handsets, so the cost is already sunk in. For iOS, it would be a new cost.

I admit they are legit points. But wasn't that question in front of Microsoft ppl who also developed their app for all platforms, for free? And let me tell you, Outlook is not even close but good enough. If BB needs guarantees that something will sell then they are in wrong business.

[cbvinh]

Both pages come from wikipedia.

The wiki page you posted has no references to Intel. None.

There is no contradiction between the links you posted and the news that Google and Intel are now working together on a new neural network processor.
Google posted the news on their website. If you read all links carefully, you'll see that they will collaborate rather than compete in the future.

"We’ve worked closely with Intel for years on datacenter processor technology," that's the quote from the latest Google blog.

Yes, they're collaborating, but no where does it say that Google will be giving up their chip designs to Intel nor are the two working together on a new neural network processor. Google will be optimizing /some/ of their code for Intel hardware.

BlackBerry is collaborating with Google. Will BlackBerry be giving up their security tech to Google?

After all Samsung made processors for Apple for awhile.

So what? Samsung fabs chips. Doesn't mean they're buddies, nor does it imply as such. They've been at each other's throats in court.

Either way, you now seem to agree that Google is developing hardware processors.

Of course Google is developing hardware. They have their hands in everything. That's why they changed the name of the company to reflect that. In this particular case, they saw a need for some optimized hardware and they were able to develop it, without the help of these giant fabs that you insist are the only ones that can do it. Start-ups could do the same.

You need to control the hardware to lead in software and speed up search.

That's nonsensical.

[cbvinh]

I admit they are legit points. But wasn't that question in front of Microsoft ppl who also developed their app for all platforms, for free? And let me tell you, Outlook is not even close but good enough. If BB needs guarantees that something will sell then they are in wrong business.

Perhaps Microsoft's plan with the free apps is to attract more buyers to their full-fledged desktop versions? The app is a sampler. What would BlackBerry be doing, trying to attract iPhone users to BlackBerry phones? The Hub is the end product, not a sampler. Microsoft hopes to recover their money with sales of the desktop version or subscription service for the full version. BlackBerry is too.

In BlackBerry's roadmap a long time ago, they did pitch the idea of a BlackBerry suite of software for other OS'es. Maybe this still might happen, but the reason Android is happening now is that it's mostly done for their own handsets. iOS can happen later.

[sorinv]

The wiki page you posted has no references to Intel. None.



Yes, they're collaborating, but no where does it say that Google will be giving up their chip designs to Intel nor are the two working together on a new neural network processor. Google will be optimizing /some/ of their code for Intel hardware.

BlackBerry is collaborating with Google. Will BlackBerry be giving up their security tech to Google?




So what? Samsung fabs chips. Doesn't mean they're buddies, nor does it imply as such. They've been at each other's throats in court.



Of course Google is developing hardware. They have their hands in everything. That's why they changed the name of the company to reflect that. In this particular case, they saw a need for some optimized hardware and they were able to develop it, without the help of these giant fabs that you insist are the only ones that can do it. Start-ups could do the same.



That's nonsensical.

You obviously don't understand hardware and software interdependencies and resort to expletives...

Here's one more recently announced hardware partnership between Intel and Amazon. That doesn't mean that one is giving up to the other, as you claimed I stated between Google and Intel. I made no such statements.

http://rethink-iot.com/2016/12/02/in...b9ec-163989973


Posted via CB10

[cbvinh]

You obviously don't understand hardware and software interdependencies and resort to expletives...

I don't think you know what expletives are...

You've posted many citations, but then extrapolate and make conjectures that aren't supported by the citations. For example, were in the wiki article you posted does it mention Intel /at all/? Not to mention your claim that Google and Intel are developing a new processor together, which you claim the article supports?

Here's one more recently announced hardware partnership between Intel and Amazon. That doesn't mean that one is giving up to the other, as you claimed I stated between Google and Intel. I made no such statements.

Intel taps Amazon amid strategic corporate IoT reshuffle - Rethink IoTRethink Internet of Things ? IoT News and Analysis

You made the claim that Intel will go vertical and exclude companies like Google. All these recent posts you've made are about collaborations between hardware (Intel) and software (Google, Amazon). Sure doesn't sound like Intel is going vertical.

[stlabrat]

platform alignment between various companies are having large impact on the hardware/software landscape. with limited knowledge in the field (i am out of the field for few years - that are generations behind in terms knowledge), ibm team up with samsung Fab is one group, intel work with apple is another... apple also has a sweift team at ibm site ... before it become standard, you don't put all your eggs in one basket... once your platform is set to work, little you can change - remember the Mac change from Motorola processor to Intel? you don't make announcement until it is a done deal. before that, you want to be partnership with as many as possible (you need to select the best platform to your advantage... you need to understand all possible platform and scale up capability for few generation downt o the road before you make decision). some stuff you don't have to do it yourself: if integrated at module level, such as RF module/amp, etc. but foot print left you with limited choice to comply with other chaps design - get your handset very similar to the other design for example. Partnership will provide you with info and early input, the verticle integration will solidify your input become tangible design advantage since the other party (IC FAB) is depend on their customer to utilize their latest chip set superiority compare to the others, in order to dominate the market... IMHO,

[sorinv]

I don't think you know what expletives are...

You've posted many citations, but then extrapolate and make conjectures that aren't supported by the citations. For example, were in the wiki article you posted does it mention Intel /at all/? Not to mention your claim that Google and Intel are developing a new processor together, which you claim the article supports?



You made the claim that Intel will go vertical and exclude companies like Google. All these recent posts you've made are about collaborations between hardware (Intel) and software (Google, Amazon). Sure doesn't sound like Intel is going vertical.

Intel and Google are collaborating and Google has processors in Intel's process.

I did not make any statements that Intel would exclude others.
Intel did that in the past when they did not allow others to design in their CMOS processes. They are still very selective with whom they allow to design in their CMOS process.

What I did say was that whoever would remain in the advanced foundry business would be able to dictate and control who gets to fab.
That's always been the case.

A software-only company cannot dictate the hardware unless they satisfy the terms of the hardware company.
Software has a lower barrier of entry than a 10nm CMOS fab.

It's easier and less costly for Intel to hire a software team to develop whatever software they need, than it is for Google to hire a process development team and develop a 10nm CMOS process.
Instead, Google may decide to acquire someone like Intel or partner with them, as they seem to be doing.

In all the news links posted, Google is Intel's customer or partners to tailor an Intel product to their need. Intel sells to Google, not the other way around.

Posted via CB10

[DiegoV_G]

Hmm I doubt that's the real Blackberry's instagram page lol

Posted via Passport SE

[conite]

Hmm I doubt that's the real Blackberry's instagram page lol

Posted via Passport SE

It is.

[cbvinh]

Intel and Google are collaborating and Google has processors in Intel's process.

I did not make any statements that Intel would exclude others.
Intel did that in the past when they did not allow others to design in their CMOS processes. They are still very selective with whom they allow to design in their CMOS process.

What I did say was that whoever would remain in the advanced foundry business would be able to dictate and control who gets to fab.
That's always been the case.

A software-only company cannot dictate the hardware unless they satisfy the terms of the hardware company.
Software has a lower barrier of entry than a 10nm CMOS fab.

It's easier and less costly for Intel to hire a software team to develop whatever software they need, than it is for Google to hire a process development team and develop a 10nm CMOS process.
Instead, Google may decide to acquire someone like Intel or partner with them, as they seem to be doing.

In all the news links posted, Google is Intel's customer or partners to tailor an Intel product to their need. Intel sells to Google, not the other way around.

It sure sounds like Google has already spec'ed hardware and made it without Intel. Now, the two are collaborating, and it sounds like Intel is hoping Google will use Intel's hardware instead of venturing off on their own. Seems more like Google has the "dictating" powers, rather than Intel, the fab company.

Lower cost of entry does not mean it's easy to become a success. If Intel could simply start developing software tomorrow and compete with Google /and/ be a success, they would have already done it. The notion that you can just start a software company and become successful is silly. Intel knows where its strengths are and that's why they haven't made a search engine to compete with Google, nor produce a multitude of products like Google, Apple or Microsoft.

Yep, Intel sells to Google, which means Google gets to ask for /what it wants/. It's not Intel dictating to Google or other software developers. This is contrary to what you're saying.

[sorinv]

It sure sounds like Google has already spec'ed hardware and made it without Intel. Now, the two are collaborating, and it sounds like Intel is hoping Google will use Intel's hardware instead of venturing off on their own. Seems more like Google has the "dictating" powers, rather than Intel, the fab company.

Lower cost of entry does not mean it's easy to become a success. If Intel could simply start developing software tomorrow and compete with Google /and/ be a success, they would have already done it. The notion that you can just start a software company and become successful is silly. Intel knows where its strengths are and that's why they haven't made a search engine to compete with Google, nor produce a multitude of products like Google, Apple or Microsoft.

Intel makes many products, including the software they need for their products.

Google does not make/develop semiconductor technologies because it knows it can't. It also knows it failed at hardware repeatedly, so they now partner with others for hardware, including Intel.

The same goes with Qualcomm. They develop the software needed for their ICs. They don't need to partner with software houses to develop software for their own hardware.

Google has chosen to partner with others to develop the hardware needed to speed up their software.

Posted via CB10

[stlabrat]

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware. " -by Alan Key...