Tag Archives: Qualcomm

Call me

There is news, there is always news, yet now we have different news. The news that matters is not the direct given news, it is merely what we see here that becomes a consequence for a longer setting and it has happened before.

We start with Arab News who gives us: ‘Huawei’s US blacklisting row has little impact in Saudi Arabia‘ (at http://www.arabnews.com/node/1503431/saudi-arabia). Yes, there is little impact and that is not weird or amazing, it merely is. Yet the news is still important for other reasons. The quote “The US wants to remain a leading source of technology around the world, even though China is working hard to create a new leadership in (the sector)” by Majed Al-Hedayan is not that accurate, the intent to be a leading source is there, yet the patent applications from the last 5 year show that the US stopped being the leading entity in that regard in 2015, Asia (mainly China) surpassed them with a large and comfortable margin, a big chunk of the Asian patents are with Samsung, which is also important to note.

The issue is not seen here, merely the impact and the response from the consumers. What happens when we combine this with the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/chinas-huawei-signs-deal-to-develop-5g-network-in-russia) giving us: ‘China’s Huawei signs deal to develop 5G network in Russia‘, now it becomes a new stage. It is not easy to explain, however I will get you all there. The first instances of Russian pressures to gain new momentum in the Middle East were seen in March 2018 in ‘The Global Economic Switch‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/03/06/the-global-economic-switch/), we see the first elements of a failing Trump tactic. My quote, which uses some of the source CNBC information gets us: “we are treated to “The partnership with OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, allows Russia to strengthen its hand in the Middle East at the same time the U.S. role has been diminished“, the diminishing of the US as stated by other sources closes doors to the US on several shores, a dangerous change that comes at one of the least fortunate times” that shift grew as President Putin decided to rely on his favourite pit bull (Dmitry Utkin) to make waves in Syria, after which Russia stepped in and decided to ‘assist’ President Bashar Al-Assad. Russia has one advantage; the Syrian army is completely unable to properly wage war which was seen after rebels launched a surprise counter-attack on the village of Kafr Naboudeh. They were presented with well-equipped and troops that were dug in. Yet those were pushed into running like a jackrabbit, rearming the rebels with heavy weapons that they had left behind, weapons that found an eager target in more Syrian troops. Both the fact and the stage are important as it requires Syria to facilitate for Russia in more than one way. In addition I gave the readers initially: “Yevgeniy Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin allegedly have been preparing to grow an ICT/Mobile infrastructure in Syria, that whilst construction fortunes would be coming their way too, the entire growth with Saudi Arabia as an optional side allows those two to split a few billions between the two of them, whilst at the same time growing the other fields they have access to and get a seat at the Saudi Arabian table at the same time“, several analysts laughed and sneered at me with the topic mention that I had no clue what was happening and it would never happen. So now we move to February 2019 (a year later) and we see (at http://scbc.sy/en/2019/02/20/russian-companies-plan-to-build-construction-projects-in-syria/) where the headline ‘Russian Companies Plan to Build Construction Projects in Syria‘ graced us all. So when I read: “Russian construction companies are planning to build three- or four-storey buildings at low prices, all delivered in record time, 37 days for construction“, I must be imagining things. The fact that it was a not a  no-man show, but we see: “In the presence of the Vice-President of the Chamber for International Affairs and Chairman of the Chamber’s Building Committee, Dr. Luai Yousef, Director General of the Russian-Syrian Business Council, discussed with the heads of Russian contracting and reconstruction companies the necessary mechanisms to start the work“, we see ego and profit in place for the right facilitation, so far I am 2-0 on those paid to know this, And I was a year ahead of them.

The second stage

It is here that the Guardian takes its entrance to ‘China’s Huawei signs deal to develop 5G network in Russia‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/chinas-huawei-signs-deal-to-develop-5g-network-in-russia). Now we see: “the development of 5G technologies and the pilot launch of fifth-generation networks in 2019-2020”, MTS said in a statement on Wednesday“. Now the game changes, especially ‘as this has happened before‘. Most might not know this, but in the early 90’s America tried to keep IP progress away from Russia, and as such it was close to impossible to find a decent PC in Russia. That changes when Toshiba decided to do business in Russia. Within 3 years everyone on the planet knew about Toshiba. Rugged laptops that were stern were seen all over Europe and with Russia being an exclusive client the power of Toshiba grew; within 5 years they were in the top 5 of laptops and there they would remain for a while. This situation now repeats itself with Huawei being in Russia and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia & UAE) as well as still growing in Europe. And even as the US will make fun of the fact that there are at least twice as many Americans than Russians, the fact that American companies cannot go to Russia and Huawei is set now in a similar exclusive stage (like Toshiba was) gives rise that the revenues of Huawei will go through the roof this year. It becomes a larger issue as Trump’s ban on Huawei is countered by British officials seeking answers (no real ones will be coming). Huawei has an advantage through Russia giving rise to even more business. The non-tactical option for America to remain the leading technologist was never going to happen, not in the state the US is; with AT&T settling out of court their 5G deceptive conduct. Even as we are told: “we have amicably settled this matter” by an AT&T spokesperson, no one is asking questions on who has an actual full powered 5G in America. That stage is not improving when we see only two months ago: “Trump said the U.S. will cut regulations and free up spectrum for 5G technology amid tight competition with China and other nations to develop the next generation of telecommunications infrastructure“, the fact that this still had to happen 2 months ago shows the lag and the delays that the US faces. The headline ‘FCC Vows 5G Networks Will Be a Private Sector Project‘ does not make matters speed up (source: Forbes). The part everyone (most of them) ignored is that Huawei holds a little over 15% of all the 5G patents that are out there, so anyone who wants to get ahead is either facilitating to Huawei or pretending to be their best friend, obviously the US cannot apply for that position. As I personally see it, America is bogged down on second grade equipment for now and that setback will bite. That was always the setting and now that the push is becoming more and more visible we will see that Russia met with the winning team and thought it was a good deal, for them it is as it opens up all kinds of partnerships with the Middle east in construction and optionally 5G deployment, so Halliburton eat your heart out!

Is it still a surprise why I gave Huawei first option (2nd place went to Google) to my IP?

Until three months ago there was close to little option for Russia to make headway into Saudi Arabia, now with US Senators trying to block arms deals that is no longer a given. If they succeed, the entire collaboration of Huawei and Russia could give more options to Russia down the road. In this American policy has staggered in a stage of ‘Think Local Act Global‘, whilst the world is in a stage of ‘Think Global Act Local‘ and so far American politics has not evolved to the degree that where need to contemplate that there was a price for a decade of complacency, the consequences of these actions is like watching a train called America stuck in Nowhere Town, whilst the express trains called Huawei, China and Russia are now passing them by at high speed towards the destination of a place some call Opportunity city.

Whilst everyone shrugs their shoulders and wonders if it matters, consider that the US has a $22 trillion debt do you think that the US will not feel the pinch of losing billion after billion in trade with Saudi Arabia and the UAE watching their options go to China and Russia? The fact that with every quality delivery Russia gets more and more contracts regarding 5G embedded construction; as well as more Saudi Construction offers for Neom City? When that seriously starts to shift, Saudi Arabia ends up holding one nice Trump card (pun intended), when it comes to Russia, we a nations that driven to pragmatism, so as these offers go their way, there is every chance that Russia will drop Iran like a bad habit, in the end Russia already refused Iran the S-400 solution, which would have struck a positive note in Riyadh, I am certain of that part. Iran is not merely a bad player, they are clueless how to play the game to begin with; their actions involving Hezbollah was evidence of that, now with Russia pushing towards alternative directions Iran will lose more, as does the US, so it would be a win-win for both Russia and China.

A lot of this could have been seen in advance, some of the events were foretold by me a year ago (not the Huawei mess though), with these pieces on the table, why push? I never opposed the view Alex Younger had, because that is a national policy that makes perfect sense (but not the best stage for the UK at present), the American pressure was founded on no evidence and now it could cost them a lot more. There is even a third danger, even as everyone depends on Qualcomm, the stage is now set where Huawei has to design its own version. The problem is that through limitations people find creativity, we saw that in the old 8-bit computer age, the 16 bit added to that and not because of resources. It’s when we are pushed into a box of limitations at that point we will truly focus on innovation. For example Disk Doubler was a direct result of the limitations that a 20MB hard drive had. When you consider that a 10Mb drive on an original PC was $1500, the solution started to make sense really fast. It did not come that early, but in an age where the norm of a drive was 20MB and these drives were $10-$20 per megabyte. So when Huawei gets pushed into a corner, there might be a little lag, but the makers of 5G will find a solution, when that happens Qualcomm will suddenly have a much larger competitor and they aren’t the only player. What most failed to see is that the latest growth of Qualcomm was not them, it was buying others. Since 2011 Qualcomm took over 21 companies. Rapid Bridge, Ubicom, Orb Networks, Stonestreet and CSR pls to name a few for amounts up to $2.5 Billion, that kind of knowledge left them with spillage (unflattering term for lost knowledge), it is corporate brain drain that spillage will find another player and to some degree it will do just that. Now that someone shut the door on them implies that they will need to find alternatives and Huawei is more likely than not doing just that.

Even if their mobile markets does take a temporary dip, their 5G technology does not and in the end Huawei has an advantage, now with the growing partnerships with Russia and the Middle East that advantage might actually grow, and at that point the game changes. The implied evidence is already there, but the actual evidence will have to wait. We should also consider that Qualcomm derives most of its revenue from chip making, whilst the bulk of their profit comes from patent licensing businesses. The fact that patents are the profit is the issue, Huawei has the jump to some degree and should they resolve the patent issue, Qualcomm will see a fast growing drop in revenue, shortening their profits even more, so now they will need to address their cost of doing business and that will bite them hard. No matter how their $22.73 billion revenue continues. The fact that patents are profit and should Huawei find any solution, Qualcomm will face hard hits in an area where being nice was the only option, and it will not be a smooth one, it will hit hard with every patent that Huawei files. Blacklisting Huawei will have a much larger impact than anyone expected. Qualcomm had a -$5 billion in net income last year, so if the patents are their profit and Huawei gets even one patent validated in the field of Qualcomm, how much do you think that impact will be?

Another side is seen through CNBC, where we are confronted with: “They’re making some power moves right now and the ultimate power move would be to ban iPhones. Now if that happens, this thing goes down to $130“. This threat is actually more real than some think and the impact is also larger. We could be faced with an Apple Inc. in dire need as it loses 30% value and that is nothing to be laughing at. The ramifications of that act will be a global one. Samsung as a Korean player will laugh on the side as people will have to make a choice, but damage to Apple to this degree was never considered. And that is not all, there is one more play for China, Business Insider informed us last week (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/china-rare-earth-list-of-us-products-could-affected-2019-5) that ‘Here’s a list of American products that could be affected if China banned rare-earth metal exports to the US as a trade-war weapon’. The realisation that “Eighty per cent of US imports of rare-earth metals come from China, according to the US Geological Survey”, now consider the small fact that “Yttrium, europium, and terbium are used in LED screens, which you can find on most smartphones, tablets, laptops, and flat-screen TVs. Their red-green-blue phosphors help power the display screen, according to a 2014 US Geological Survey fact sheet. Those elements are also used in iPhone batteries and help make the phone vibrate when you get a text, Business Insider’s Jeremy Berke reported.” When you consider these parts and when you realise that Apple has no option to replace those parts at present, in Addition, consider all the other smart devices in circulation that rely on these materials, how infinitely stupid was this trade war to begin with? Oh and that is whilst we take Seagate out of the equation with their drives, which by the way relies heavily on the availability of Dysprosium, which according to Seagate’s CEO, Stephen Luczo gave them a margin issue of close to 20%, that much could be lost to Seagate, and when that material goes, what remains?

In the end, no matter how this plays out, when the Intelligence boffins figure out that they had several elements wrong for over a year, they should call me, they might learn something (which would be novel in its own right).

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Short on sight, darkness without a light

It is the Washington Post who gives (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/22/qualcomm-violated-antitrust-law-judge-rules) a stage that is now three days old, but this is one event that keeps on getting bumped to the top of the list for a long time to come. With ‘Qualcomm violated antitrust law, judge rules‘ we see a dangerous step into a murky road, a road that is all about the bottom dollar and those who are pushing for decisions have not considered the long game and how it ends a lot more. Perhaps you remember the issue with anti-trust, why it came into existence in the first place. With “protect consumers from predatory business practices“, it is the foundation that is at play, especially when we consider the quote “U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Qualcomm had used its monopoly power to bully companies such as Apple into overpaying for royalties on Qualcomm’s wireless inventions, ordering Qualcomm to renegotiate its business deals“. I wonder who she serves in this case, because I am personally getting the feeling that it is not the law, or the case.

To understand that you need to consider a few items, the first is Intellectual Property. Qualcomm has something everyone wants and no one bothered to redesign or improve on it, and now at the start of 5G, the bottom line of Apple, who has always been eager to bleed its consumers dry, they now see the bottom line and they feel wronged. For three generations they became iterative, and as they now have a second iMac, for sale at A$22,197.00, (mainly because of the colour I reckon). That is the joke that once was Apple. A similar PC for High end gaming will remain under $10,000 (and that is with all the bells and whistles. As apple gives us that we must pay for exclusivity, than so must they.

In addition when it comes to royalties, the judge merely needed to look at iTunes to see that the stream income has settled at $0.00735. Artists on Apple Music would need around 200,272 plays to earn the US monthly minimum wage amount. And important side part is that Apple is by no means the worst there. (Google got that distinction).

From what we see, I have a few reservations whether Justice Lucy Koh has a good view on what ‘predatory business practices are. I do not think that Qualcomm is innocent here, yet to see the example “bully companies such as Apple into overpaying for royalties” voiced, whilst from more than one direction we see that this could be a case of the pot calling the kettle Space grey.

The Post also gives us “Qualcomm is the only U.S. company making 5G chips for mobile phones, the components necessary to connect smartphones to cellular networks. The new generation of cell networks might create another round of innovation and economic growth as start-ups figure out how to use it in new products and spur the development of self-driving cars, smart appliances and remote medicine, which rely on a stable Web connection“, as well as the mention of Adam Mossoff, a law professor at George Mason University who gives us: “the FTC’s case against Qualcomm the result of “self-serving arguments by some companies looking to benefit their bottom line.”” and I agree with him. Whilst the FTC was too stupid to sound the horns when iterative technology was the key in ‘their’ profits, others realised that new borders will always come and they will be ruled by the true innovators, as this happened and that firm is not an American one, but a Chinese one. We see these cases come up so that optional momentum can be gained, all whilst Apple had 10 years to find an equal solution, to reengineer technology to equal, they never did that, they merely copied old ideas and let their marketing department spout some innovation story. To their credit Apple Marketing is extremely good at their job, so when we accept: ‘They create something that is designed to improve the lives of their customers. To market that, they create experiences that are memorable and keep people coming back‘. It is brilliant in the now, but innovation is about tomorrow and the Apple board of directors forgot about that part in 2004-2017, so they can only move forward with Qualcomm and that is hitting their bottom dollar hard, especially in 5G. That is the market and the gap between US industry and Huawei is increasing, the US is falling further behind.

Yet the bigger issue is not seen and the article was not about that, so there is no blame. The issue now is that the US is a mere 325 million and they are left in the dark that the larger world with well over 2 billion have (with the exception of politicians kissing US ass) embraced Huawei, equal or better quality at half the price, which is in light with the iMac Pro and normal maximised PC’s. True innovation sells itself, the rest needs marketing to get to the base of their revenue needs. In my case I have an older Huawei, the Nova 3i, it is older than the P30 series, yet still for the most on par with the latest android phones released this year. They learned, when others refused to learn that storage is everything to consumers, so whilst Samsung and LG started jerking around the consumers with ‘sorry, we only have a 32GB model‘, or the ‘that specific model was not available to us‘, Huawei decided to give us 128 GB (Google did a similar thing early on). The rest followed much later. The mobile industry has for the most all been about ‘Iteration to facilitate for exploitation‘ as I personally see it. Both Google and Huawei were instrumental in turning that around. So whilst I can get an iPhone for A$1,299.00, the Huawei I got has the same storage and for the most an equally able phone for A$499 (6 months ago). As we see the issue of ‘bully companies such as Apple into overpaying‘, whilst Apple has been known to be the biggest bully of all (optionally a shared #1 spot with Microsoft). It seems to me that the FTC is about the bottom line and not losing more distance with true innovators like Huawei. So when we look at the FTC and we see: “Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high. By enforcing antitrust laws, the FTC helps ensure that our markets are open and free“, is the Apple iMac pro not a direct violation of that directive?

In addition, as the Trump card of bullying was given regarding Huawei, we see: “Google said complying with the ban would mean future phones sold by Huawei would be without a license for its Android operating software and would have no access to its Play app store, which would render them nearly useless“, so what happens when that becomes actuality? When Huawei has its own ‘app store’ and its own system in place? When hundreds of millions are willing to switch, what would it cost Google? What happens when we demand action on taken paths and Google is seriously impacted? Will the FTC wake up and see the folly that they created?

And let’s be clear, the biggest issue is not the Trump administration. It is the collection of technology dumb fucks (to coin a phrase) that have been so eager to rely on iteration and now that these people no longer matter in their respective board rooms, what remains? Apple relies on computers that almost no one can afford, especially as hundreds of PC assembly providers can build equal powered solutions at less than half the price, that too will impact 5G, because even as we are a mobile planet now, when we are at work (over one third of our daily life), it is the workstation and not the mobile that rules our needs.

So now as we look at the impact that 4G had with: “When the United States took the lead on 4G mobile technology, for example, it gave rise to the app economy, which is still dominated by U.S. firms, according to Cisco“, Cisco is a player there, yet with the severe vulnerabilities it showed and remains showing until the end of the year, they too are in the dump. Even now as TechTarget gives us a mere 9 hours ago: “The Cisco vulnerability fix for thrangrycat could make affected hardware unusable. But the vendor said it’s ready to replace products, if needed.” At what point do you realise when you read the article (at https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/252463965/Cisco-vulnerability-fix-for-thrangrycat-carries-risks) that Cisco is not merely falling behind too, the impact that they have to deal with will hinder them for some time to come. In addition, the quote “If an affected product becomes unusable and requires a hardware replacement, it will be replaced according to the terms of the customer’s support contract or warranty,” gives rise to other considerations too. How many would sue when they lack the support contract or warranty? Let’s not forget that they have advertised for the longest of times on ‘the Trust Anchor‘. It was innovation, true innovation. But there we see how iteration can diminish innovation. Once the feature is surpassed and dealt with, the issue becomes a much larger concern. So as Cisco is trying to deal with the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), Huawei is moving forward another leap. Now, there is no chance that Cisco will be replaced, they are too big and they have good hardware. What do you think happened to the Samsung with their Samsung ISIS (with exploding battery), it took Samsung 2 years to recover and now they are surpassed by Apple and Huawei; that is how the cookie crumbles. Samsung is still in the race and could regain momentum (especially with the power share novelty), but it took them 2 years and now in the start of the 5G dimension, 2 years is a lifetime, it is the difference between the locomotive that drives the innovation and the caboose that gets all kinds of shit. That is the game and the US is in and not in the caboose, but on a hand trolley trying to catch up with the train that has already left the station, the US is in that deep at present.

Oh and when it comes to the FTC, as they see themselves as: ‘The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace‘, so when it comes to AT&T 5G Evolution, how much action has the FTC undertaken, whilst the media in many places have clearly stated it as deceptive conduct. Even whilst AT&T hides behind “5G Evolution is a lot more than just a name“, yet it is not 5G and the FTC remained silent on it all, which as I personally see it is all about the bottom line, as such, how much credibility does America have left? Even as Sprint and AT&T settled, Sprint was not the only player and as far as we can see the FTC did nothing, so when we see (in several sources) ‘speed tests have confirmed that AT&T’s 5GE service is no faster than LTE from Verizon and T-Mobile‘, I merely wonder how the antitrust ruling could be given whilst the market itself is in such disarray that this case should not have made it to the courts for years to come, but that is the problem with a nation that is $22,000,000,000,000 in debt, the bottom line becomes everything and the concept of the rights of any consumer will be hung out to dry until that noose has been removed from the neck of the US economy. Too bad they relied on iteration; a nation that relies on innovation might be able to move forward on its merits, an option the US seemingly no longer has at present.

So what happens when the next step is open to all non-Americans? What happens when one of the 10 competitors does come with a truly innovative step? You see that is the nice part of true innovation, what goes down, might come up, so if the setting changes and for example the Kodenshi AUK Group finds some solution in 5G that the others did not consider, how will that play out? There is a long term short sighted approach to IP and the drive to truly push it forward in a non-iterative way. The 5G players will soon and quickly learn that 5G will not have space for iteration; it would almost literally play out as: here today, gone tomorrow.

I don’t think that technological America realises that danger to the degree it needs to, that is the vibe I have been getting for a while now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Epee and quarterstaff

It is an old riddle that goes back to the renaissance: ‘What do the Epee and quarterstaff have in common?’ The answer is that they extent reach. The lesson is that everything has its reach and the power remains when you do not exceed the 90% of it until you are either forced, or if you have a 100% certainty of causing a fatal hit. Making the mistake in those days meant certain death. Those days were not about points, it was not about bragging on besting a person, it was kill or be killed, plain and simple. A lesson that is 500 years old and Apple apparently never learned it. So in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/30/apple-iphone-sales-first-quarter-earnings) we see ‘Apple’s iPhone sales fall 17% in first quarter as flagship product struggles‘, what was interesting was: “The company made a profit of $11.6bn – ahead of expectations. But this quarter marked another quarterly decline in profit and revenue as the company struggled to move beyond the iPhone“, even as Apple is in a buyback phase to regain its heralded one trillion dollar company, there are still clouds in the background. It starts with the iPhone, an iPhone Xr 128GB is $1299, the not most powerful version of the iPhone Xs is $2049. Yet the competing Androids are $1499 (Google Pixel 3), $1599 (Huawei P30 pro) and $1699 (Samsung S10), those are all on the same, or in some regards on a more superior level; if we are concerned consumers and we are willing to step down a little we can get decently competitive phones for $449, that is what Apple is up against, you can shout all you want on how refined, elitist and top range your phone is, but the amount of people with that kind of cash available is dwindling down and Apple is realising that buying back stock and take control of the smacking they are about to get is indeed a wise choice, but so far my prediction remains that Apple is heading towards a 30% decline of net value is not unrealistic at all. Then there are the issues on the computer side of apple too. What Digital Trends called ‘Flexgate’ last January is still on the mind of many, and as they gave us the quote: “the stage light effect is caused by flaws with a cabling system that Apple uses to attach each MacBook display to the internals of the laptop. In MacBook models from 2016 and newer, Apple switched to a new flexible and thin ribbon cable, which over a long period of time can face fatigue and eventually tear as the lid is repeatedly opened and closed on the laptop” with additional information (at https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/flexgate-issue-plaguing-some-macbook-pro-owners/) we see that Apple has played the ‘presentation innovation’ card slightly too visible, so now there is a backlash. Then there is bendgate (iPad Pro bending), then we get in addition the May 2018 class-action lawsuit that alleges that Apple has “failed and continues to fail to disclose” problems with its butterfly keyboard. It says Apple’s actions are violating several competition and regulatory laws, including California’s Unfair Competition Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The lawsuit is seeking damages for the class, as well as an acknowledgement by Apple that there’s a problem with its keyboard design. This case is not over and done with, because it will be a global problem soon enough, so the steps that Apple has to take will take a massive chunk on their value and profit reporting within the coming year. Al these actions whilst they have plenty more issues coming their way. Now in their defence, the entire Flexgate could have happened to anyone, but proper testing does give light to these dangers, it is interesting to note that IKEA might have a better quality testing department than Apple does, which shows that Scandinavians optionally have a better idea towards exceeding customer service and keeping proper tabs on quality. This all before you realise that Tech Insider reported ‘Apple is squirrelling away money to pay for lawsuits related to its iPhone ‘batterygate’ throttling scandal‘ (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/iphone-batterygate-lawsuits-cause-apple-to-set-aside-money-2019-2) an issue that is still not done with and might not be done with until 2020. So when you see that list costing them optional billions, do you think that my view was unrealistic?

As they give us: “previous class-action suits have resulted in $US450 million judgments against the iPhone maker“, I feel certain that this will not get it done in this case and if they are really really lucky, it might only cost them $45 billion, you forget that the Euro courts are snapping at the heels of Apple as well, 27 nations all with a score of angry customers, we realise that there is always a cost to doing business and there is premium to pay when the limelight is set on what might call ‘intentional deceptive conduct’ and ‘batterygate’ fits that bill and then some. This is not the end; there is also indirect damage to come. This was given by Apple Insider with ‘Latest Facebook-related security breach finds millions of records exposed on Amazon servers‘, there we see (at https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/03/latest-facebook-related-security-breach-finds-millions-of-records-exposed-on-amazon-servers) that Apple was connected: “These include data sharing deals with companies like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Sony, plus people being able to look up strangers based on phone numbers submitted for two-factor authentication“, so when we see data-sharing, we think it is only Facebook, but sharing goes in many directions and what did Apple share? the entire ‘people being able to look up strangers based on phone numbers submitted for two-factor authentication‘ implies that Apple optionally has a decent amount to answer for, or perhaps better stated, there is plenty of issues brought to light that the Apple legal teams need to ignore, deny or carefully phrase into another direction, there is only so many fines any company can live with before the larger population bails and if that happens before December 2019 than my prediction of 30% could end up being way too optimistic, but I keep a conservative view on the matters for now. Consider the steps that Apple has been making, their ‘new’ iMac Pro, it is a computer that starts at $7,299, whilst the normal new iMac, a computer that would satisfy 95% of all Apple users is a mere $2,799. Now, I am not opposed to an overpowered computer, but consider the cost of creating it, redesigning parts and making it look more expensive, do the amount of buyers rectify for that? Is the ROI curve not massively overstated and when we realise that, is a company where its marketing is insisting on annual innovation not out of control? What is the price tag of that you reckon? It becomes even more laughable when we consider a review (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YwYZvmYecI) where we see the MacRumors channel giving us at 5:30 that the iMac Pro (2017 model) exports 4K video in 2:44, whilst the normal iMac (2019 model) does the same thing in 2:31, it seems trivial, yet remember that there is a $7,299 versus $2,799 in play and within 2 years the value of $4,500 was lost to the user, as such the life time value of an iMac has pretty much gone into the basement taking out customer loyalty overnight. the last time I looked, looking cool for a year at the price of $4,500 was decently overrated for most people, and it makes for a business case that the iMac pro could be regarded as wasted investment for its consumers soon thereafter (in some places they refer to that as: ‘warranty until you exit the premises‘.

These are some of the issues that Apple is facing and there are a lot more issues (yet most of those are actually trivial). It is there that we return to the Guardian with: ‘the company struggled to move beyond the iPhone‘, that and the 2018 iPad Pro Bendgate issue does not help any and that is where we see that quality assessment has failed miserably. The need to look innovative, lighter and thinner means that testing becomes more and more important. So when the consumer was treated to ‘Apple releases an official statement on reports that some iPad Pros have come bent right out of the box’ on January 2019 with: “Relative to the issue you referenced regarding the new iPad Pro, its unibody design meets or exceeds all of Apple’s high quality standards of design and precision manufacturing.”, and as such the consumer feels duped to say the least. One source also gives us: “Apple claims that the bending can’t exceed more than 400 micron–“the width of fewer than four sheets of paper at most,” which is a “tighter specification for flatness than previous generations,” the note says.

The tech note further states that the antenna splits “may make subtle deviations in flatness more visible only from certain viewing angles that are imperceptible during normal use.”“, whilst the image from MacRumors (at https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ipad-pro-2018-bending-issue/) shows a bending issue close to 1,000% of what they claim, making the issue rise to the surface and also gives a much larger light of additional class actions that might be filed later this year if Apple does not change policy immediately, so is my 30% drop still off? I already gave some visibility to that (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/02/24/future-through-the-sub-line/) almost 3 months ago, and I have not noticed any clear loud actions by Apple Marketing to counter the damage that this issue was bringing.

It is not what Apple claims to do, it is the failing on a few levels, the marketing on several product lines and the neglect of services that shows that not only is it struggling to move beyond the iPhone, at present they have very few options left to them in any of the product lines to set any stage of ‘moving beyond’ and that too will suppress growth to a much larger degree, and optionally for a much longer time. All that whilst they should have known when they started the Pro and high priced iPhone series that they are selling to people who demand perfection and high end quality especially at the prices that they are selling it at, at that point your QA department is the most important department you have, not your marketing department.

It is the direct visibility when you extent beyond your reach, you get hammered down and you get hammered down hard, in the renaissance that apple individual would not be defeated, that person would merely be dead and forgotten, I hope that this is the lessons that apple takes to heart because the treasures of 5G are looming and Apple might be out in the cold soon enough. I reckon that the $4.5 billion payment to Qualcomm is making that obvious and clear to all, which is news that was released only hours ago with: “As pointed out by Axios, Qualcomm will record $4.5 to $4.7 billion in revenue from the Apple settlement, which includes a “cash payment from Apple and the release of related liabilities.”” (Source: MacRumors).

Apple still has a long way to go to get back on top, I wonder if they ever will.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

When the numbers are…..

So what happens when the numbers are up for reporting? Samsung now joins Apple with the setting of: “Samsung has issued a surprise profit warning, blaming a slump in memory chip prices and slowing demand for display panels. It is the latest sign that technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown“. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/26/samsung-surprises-market-with-first-quarter-profit-warning) is all about image and not incorrect mind you, yet has anyone considered the stage where they are both losing massively against Huawei? There is a reason why a Samsung $1899 and an Apple $2365 lose against the Huawei Nova 3i ($499). Yes, technologically they both are slightly more advanced, yet with a difference of $1400 and $1900 the technological difference is way too small to take the expensive option. The phone was strikingly advanced on many levels. From my less than a day P7, I have moved to a 2 day battery Huawei Nova 3i and I am loving the speed and added options, options that might have been a little luxurious to the basic user, yet as my P7 passed away due to a dead battery and a 24:7 service that almost lasted 4 years (a missed target by 6 weeks). I had no option but to find the cheapest realistic solution and only Huawei catered to that. With the previous phone over proving its value there was no competition. So when I see ‘technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown‘, we see the impact of ‘overpriced’ in a time of dire budgeting that is missed in several plays and fields. We do not have that much to spend nowadays. Even now, working casual hours I hope that I will have a nice birthday (in 5 weeks) by treating myself to a yummy Nintendo Switch for my birthday, my one little treat in almost 2 years. It is the reality for many people and the number of people having to move into such a budget push s increasing, so even as all of them (including Huawei) are moving to 5G foldable phones, he pricing will make them not an option for close to 60$ of the people, or it is done under hefty locked down telecom contracts. Samsung had that benefit 1-2 years ago when a wave of people needed a new phone. Now we see that the bulk of these people are unwilling to make another $1900 jump, it cools down to a phone bill and a $79 extra a month to look cool and the people are realising that realism and pragmatism is the only way forward in mobile land, especially as the empire of 5G is coming and the next wave of phones will not support both 4G and 5G, that is the reality.

We might give light to: “Weaker smartphone sales and fewer orders from data-centred companies such as Amazon and Google have led to a glut of memory chips and sent prices sliding“, yet we forget the impending changes, changes that are noticeable in patent land. Even as they are all walking the walk, we see that the patent changes are pushing towards generic hardware and the distinguished changes that will be pushed through by using specifically designed software. It sounds weird, but part of it was introduced through software and video games. As a game was sold, we see that people could buy an additional season pass for all the additional gaming parts, yet in more than one case we learned that the ‘added’ software was already on the software but required a code to unlock and mobile phones are moving into this changed atmosphere at this very moment. I believe that all manufacturers will be changing the setup by not having 4 models, but one model that has the 4 elements unlocked through codes. It makes sense in a few ways. Having one hardware option is easier and cheaper and having the software set and staged to unlock the ability buy a code has been the corner stone with places like IBM for the longest of times. GEOINT software solutions have had them as well for close to a decade and telecom devices are up for that very same change in the near future.

I also believe that this will be the final push to amend international patent laws to make software a patentable item as well. So even as we are given “Samsung was forecast to make a 7.2tn won (£4.66bn) operating profit between January and March, less than half the 15.6tn won a year ago. Sales were expected to fall to 53.7tn won from 60.6tn won a year ago“, we see that the push for generic hardware to be a lot more generic soon enough. In addition, there is a danger of a cartel push as Apple and Samsung have elements both needs (displays with one and software with the other), we see that those who were riding that wave will have added value soon enough. Huawei is on that same wave, especially in 5G and now that the alpha will be containing the Huawei OS, we see a first stage where Android will be losing some market share. I wonder if Samsung will make a deal to kick Google in the nuts (for Android bolts only), yet that stage is now in view with some clarity. There is no way that this is a given, but the stage is open for it and that puts the light in a different setting. Everyone is making some speech on how ‘Smart Switch’ is all about on transferring files, yet the entire setting could equally apply to set the stage of moving Android devices towards iOS, and even as there are a few videos on it, we see a lack of IT places looking deeper at this. Some make fun, some are quirky, yet there is an undeniable stage that there is a push both externally and internally to make Samsung an iOS solution, whether straight out of the box, or conversion, Android will be under attack from more than one direction in the next few years.

It is up to Samsung to decide what path they want to be on and it is their right. Yet in this, when we see the long term options, as well as the optional changes that are coming, is another scenario still an option. when we realise ‘patent protection can be obtained, for example, for inventions implemented by computer programs‘ in places that originally denied software patents, is a larger change. It sets the stage for generic telecom hardware faster and more direct, whilst with the stage of software setting the device to its options, unlocks a much larger field, upgrading of hardware, opening options on hardware will all become commercial tracks holding customers under corporate grasp for a much longer period of time. In addition, switching out of a contract could come with additional costs and an optional cost of switching, and element consumers are not ready for, or better stated, the cost of doing business will be lacking larger size of awareness in all this. Even as I foresaw that change 3 years ago, I am still amazed that they got here so fast. I had expected this move in 2-3 years, yet as it seemingly shows, there is every indication that the next wave of phones might have some of these solutions already in place.

It also implies that there is an optional danger of phones and bricking, or jacking. As people want to get things cheap, they will at times rely on ‘friends’ having a solution that gives them options they never paid for and in the process their phone will be jacked in other ways too. When they find out the cost of doing business too late, they end up with a brick and have to buy new hardware, or factory reset at a cost.

All that from a mere loss of revenue tale?

No, not really, the numbers have been out for a while, yet the dependency of Samsung on their displays, and the income warnings will open the field to make the shifts that were in the wind a lot sooner and to appease shareholders, we will optionally see that hardware move faster. The US trade wars made it essential for Huawei not to be caught with their pants down, so they have been working on their own OS for a year, with a much stronger push in the last 6 months. In addition, the parts I casually mentioned yesterday, we now see (source: The Guardian) give us: “a financial app claiming to be “the most significant change in the credit card industry for 50 years”, and also extended sections on an app that will curate the best of international magazines, and a new range of video games“, this is a form of financial facilitation that goes beyond normal facilitation. In addition we see the shaky fields of data information that an American firm like Apple has never had any access to, as such the people signing up for it with a few baubles (read: perks) will find that their financial history and future will be up for scrutiny by all kind of sources that they are not aware of at present or in the immediate future. A change that will impact finances on a global scale, so whilst we see nations with encryption bills and all kinds of ‘national security’ poohaa, we see the people just signing over their data like it is Facebook day zero. As Apple sweetens the deal by linking options as streaming and gaming, we see new levels of facilitation that we had not seen before and all that intersects with new mobile modes and new stages of generic device hardware now depending on device software in the near future.

So whilst we all seem to think that this is a ‘great’ idea, some might not have noticed “the use of the Apple TV app for navigating and curating content from theoretically rival streamers, including Amazon Prime, HBO, Showtime, and, strikingly for UK viewers, BritBox, the planned new BBC/ITV product“. The younglings might not catch on, but this is a new level of localisation. Just like Netflix does not globally release events, we see levels of localisation (Europe, America, Asia, and Australia) and in the other part we will see this more localised. the foundation is a return to a local, national release of issues, an issue we have been aggravated by in the past when movies had a local release date, so like America had Star Wars Episode one, the Dutch population had to wait well over 26 weeks to see that movie, now we see a danger to return to an optimised marketing driven releases on Gaming, TV shows, movies and services as digital marketing prepares algorithm that optimises the value of whatever is released, wherever the market took them. That stage is not a given, but the elements give rise to the danger of it and even when we get some memo through any shady media corporation (Sony 2012), the outcome is less clear when there was a seeming miscommunication. The fact that none of them gave light to the fact that the Terms of Service is a legal binding contract and a memo is a piece of paper that can be rewritten at any given moment.

And as it is all to be patented, the larger corporations will now do whatever they like and open markets will be niched or denied entry. So even as we are given: “While both companies have blamed China’s slowdown, Apple and Samsung are also facing fierce competition from numerous rivals around the world, including firms in China that can match their hardware quality and produce cheaper phones“, we might notice that he name Huawei (and Oppo) are not specifically mentioned. As I personally see it, it will not be about restraining their access, it will be to deny the smaller firms as start-up contenders, when they cannot compete in any way, those markets will be pushed towards other players and for now both Samsung and Apple will be dependent on what Huawei has for the next 3 years, after that the bigger ones will have caught on. And that part is not sitting still either, Forbes revealed three days ago: ‘Samsung Suddenly Launches Galaxy S10 Ultimate Edition‘, where one of the important quotes is: “the Galaxy S10 5G delivers key upgrades in almost every area and for a significantly lower price than expected“, the Key Note?

It was not suddenly, or ill conceived, the partial plan that Huawei was too much of a danger was a given a year ago. I believe that it was never about: ‘surprises market with first-quarter profit warning‘, it was not about the profit warning, it was about knowingly taking a hit. The entire “for a significantly lower price than expected” is a hit, a hit taken to lower the advantage of Huawei and the setting for a stage for a much longer time. It is a brilliant move and Samsung knows and has seen the impact of taking a loss in the teeth now to gain the upper hand in the long term play and it is well played. The elements are clearly in the field, yet we see very little reporting on that and as the commitment is give, the long term profit is there.

There is a second part to this. The Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282700/apple-vs-qualcomm-patent-infringement-iphone-import-ban) implies it (does not say it is so), yet when we see: “A US trade judge has found Apple guilty of infringing on two Qualcomm patents related to power management and data download speeds. As a result, the judge — International Trade Commission Judge MaryJoan McNamara — says some iPhone models containing competing Intel modems might be blocked from shipping from China, where they’re manufactured, to the US“, we will soon see a very different situation, when the hardware/software part is distilled and separated, we see a setting where a generic device could not be hindered and until software evidence is given linking the two, we see the setting where the verdict would be quite different indeed. the second part is given through: “The two companies previously had an exclusive licensing arrangement for the iPhone to use Qualcomm-made modems that are integral to bringing mobile devices online. In recent years, Apple has brought Intel into the fold as a modem supplier, and it appears that decision has had cascading effects that have led to today’s complex web of lawsuits. Qualcomm has also made the blockbuster claim that Apple effectively stole its technology and gave it to Intel, violating its patents in the process” the statement is not new, we have seen it, yet the tactic of generic device that is patented software driven would make for a much harder case for any player like Qualcomm to win. Depending on the hardware and the links to Samsung, QUALCOMM would be in a much tougher position, in addition the contracts would be dangerously precise, so either there would be an 800% increase in contracts, or a smaller amount of messy ones, which would reveal massive holes making the contract a lot less effective.

Contract Shmontract

Part of this is not seen, but a speculated change that Cnet reported almost two weeks ago. With “The Japan Fair Trade Commission this week cancelled a cease-and-desist order from 2009 that affected Qualcomm licensing in Japan, effectively declaring that Qualcomm wasn’t guilty of the charges against it. JFTC officials said the decision is “unusual,” according to a report from Nippon, and that this is the first time it’s revoked a cease-and-desist order since 2012“. I believe that the change that I speculated on is part of this. The larger layers are stopping to bicker over crumbs. In the stage of the generic device solution, we see a setting where Samsung and QUALCOMM would be the cornerstone of EVERY device produced lowering the cost of making and therefore driving overall profits for all of them. These contacts and cases are just in the way, so expect to see a lot more ‘amiable’ solutions to be posted in the news broadcasters in the near future. Yet the partial danger is missed, when 5 players set the 80% stage, what innovations will we miss out on? More important, what levels or which amount of choices will be denied to consumers?

The numbers as we see them are merely the start of much larger changes. Players like Huawei are not out of the race as their power is in another angle and they can still hold a much larger slice of cake in all this, with their victory in Europe they are still in the race, especially as the US has never been able to prove any issue of national security, so as the US is going that part alone (for the most) we will see more shifts towards protectionist solutions like the Generic software locked devices making that solution a much larger stage for profits for those players. So even as we laugh at people like Randall Stephenson (AT&T CEO) giving us: “Huawei is not allowing interoperability to 5G — meaning if you are 4G, you are stuck with Huawei for 5G,” he said during the speech. “When the Europeans say we got a problem — that’s their problem. They really don’t have an option to go to somebody else” a person who is flogging 4G LTE as 5G Evolution is telling us about a stage that players like IBM have played for decades, so he is calling a Chinese firm to be the same as players like IBM? How was that news? Yet when he is asked on why 5G Evolution is not, he is seemingly dragging his feet. Or perhaps he has already addressed the Verge giving us: ‘Study confirms AT&T’s fake 5G E network is no faster than Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint 4G

Why does THAT matter?

Well that is the hindsight of all this. you see when the switch is complete we will get new issues on hardware versions bought and how the software will employ the wrong connection symbol, because that too is the impact of what you buy, the issue of profit will come with additional dangers of miscommunication of your own device. That too will be a future impact we all face, so there are intentional and unintentional (cause and effect) issues in play soon hereafter. The impact rises a lot faster, even now we might think that Samsung is on top with at present 1166 patents, yet when we see China where ZTE and Huawei combine 1629 patents, we see a trailing 794 patents and QUALCOMM with a mere 730 patents, this now optionally indicates (optionally as it remains to be seen where the crunch is) that QUALCOMM requires a solution that opens the market, not close it off, in one side the Japanese change opens their options and their larger need to be part of the generic devices becomes an essential step for them and now we see the predicament for Apple, they do not get mentioned in that part at all. So either Apple is already on another horse (the generic solution), or we see that Apple is in a lot more upcoming hardship than we realise and these are December 2018 numbers. the fact that Inter Digital Technology Corp (18 patents) is on that list and Apple is not makes for a much larger issue and so the previous Apple marketing noise of preferring to trail on 5G could be seen in a very different sight. And when we accept previous news from Apple Insider: ‘A 5G iPhone will cost Apple about $21 in licensing fees to Nokia, Qualcomm, and others‘, implies that Apple waited for much too long and now they are dependent on the other players making a much larger case for the future of Apple to be towards the generic devices, where they optionally will hold the software patents. It is speculative, yet based on the insight of the information that is for the most readily available, so when the numbers are up, they are not on the rise, they are merely up for review and scrutiny and in that light, we see that the first impact of a decrease of 50% from the trillion dollar value they held was not even close to the most negative view the people can hold.

There will be a larger scrutiny over the next three years, what is definitely up for the bulk is that the power of 5G will be Asian to a much larger degree, the fact that the US has faltered in this field shows that there is a lot more hardship on the horizon in the future. That part is seen when we consider Forbes giving us: “Our telecommunication industry never arrived at a single competitive standard for 5G technology, and our efforts to get allies like Britain and Germany to reconsider their support for Huawei, have been ineffectual. At the Mobile World Congress last month, the efforts were pathetic“, which now opens the doors on why on earth America remained complacent in the international needs for this long a time, perhaps hiring capable engineers might have been a first step. It is too late on several steps and the comment ‘leadership from the Trump administration will be essential from Forbes should be regarded as a statement from a most prestigious BS department, Trump did not fail, the failure started before the Obama administration and their lack of success in that department merely increased the losses that America will face.

The information is not that hard to come by, most of it can be to some degree distilled form the patent waves, waves lacking in the US and that lack now shows the downturn in an age where activity would have been everything, which is good for Sweden with their Ericsson as well as Finland with their Nokia, so let’s end this article with:

Nokia 5G -yhteydellä on tieto tulevaisuus (it would have been too easy in English or Swedish)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Plan(e)s of deception

We have been on the 5G track for a while and now, as players have been very adamant of taking the wind out of the sails of Huawei, we need to realise what they have, or merely what they have left. So to play nice with the Americans (and a few other governments), we have been drowning in all these new 5G devices, and close to exactly 2018 years after a girl named Mary forked out a little bub named Jesus of Nazareth, we were treated to all kinds of news like ‘New evidence confirms Samsung’s 5G smartphone for Verizon, codename Bolt‘, it seems that the writer Cosmin Vasile was on the ball, and I stipulate only seemed to be. For a former PR person claiming to be a tech journalist we gave him an initial pass. And when he gives us “However, Verizon announced early this month that it has teamed with Samsung to release a 5G smartphone in the United States in the first half of 2019. Now, we have more info that confirms the carrier’s statement” we get the image that there is something happening. It is only now that content creator Joshua Swingle gives us ‘Verizon’s 5G Samsung “Bolt” is actually a mobile hotspot, not a phone‘, so there we see the two parts that matter the most. The first “In actuality, Samsung’s upcoming device is a battery-powered mobile 5G hotspot. At the moment, details are pretty scarce, but a pair of Wi-Fi certifications (via VentureBeat) suggest there are two variants under development right now with the model numbers SM-V570N and SM-V570V“, and the second is “The Verizon model, on the other hand, makes use of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X50 modem. This means it’ll be compatible with the radio frequencies used by the carrier for 5G in the US. While “Bolt” may not be the 5G smartphone everyone was expecting, Verizon customers won’t be missing out on anything. The number one carrier is still expected to offer a compatible version of Samsung’s 5G Galaxy S10 model when it launches“, the problem is that both sources are relying on Verizon to honestly inform them and that is where the problem starts, Verizon is in over their heads plain and simple. It is up against AT&T who rebranded some version of 4G as ‘5G Evolution’ and they are up against Huawei who is a lot more advanced at present, whether or not in America, others can judge Verizon for lagging behind foreign providers soon enough and that amounts to a multi-billion dollar fiasco. In addition, USA Today is giving the people “top executives from wireless powerhouses Verizon and AT&T will give keynote speeches where they are expected to outline why 5G will change the world. Both have launched limited 5G service in select cities, as consumers await the release of mass-market phones that can access the faster 5G signals. The talk will continue to heat up in February in Barcelona for the Mobile World Congress show, where more manufacturers are expected to show off new 5G phones“, we can argue how valid ‘limited 5G’ is, and whether it is actually a valid version of 5G, but that is a debate for later time.

The issue of Verizon becomes more apparent when we consider GSM Arena, which in the past was a really reliable site (and it might still be), however (at https://www.gsmarena.com/there_could_be_as_many_as_five_galaxy_s10_models_lite_vanilla_plus_and_two_5g_ones-news-34909.php), we clearly see the S10 Bolt as a 5G mobile phone. I am willing to accept that GSM Arena is working on good faith with supplied information, in all this we need to wonder whether it is Verizon handing different sources different information, especially in light of: “the Beyond Bolt (Galaxy S10 Bolt) will be a Verizon-exclusive (and will feature a larger battery, though exact numbers are unknown at this point)“, which seen against Venturebeat (at https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/04/samsung-bolt-gets-wi-fi-certification-as-a-5g-hotspot-not-a-galaxy-phone/) where the people get: ‘Samsung Bolt gets Wi-Fi certification as a 5G hotspot, not a Galaxy phone‘, even as we cannot state for certainty how this all started, it seems that there is a clear path of deceptive conduct on a few levels. The entire deception part becomes more polarised when we look at Tom’s Guide who gives us “The fifth device will be known as the Galaxy S10 Bolt, Dutch blog TechTastic is reporting, citing sources. It’s unclear exactly how it’ll get its name, but some important features might tell the story. For one, it’ll work over 5G, allowing you to access the ultra-fast network in areas where it’s available this year. Additionally, Samsung will bundle a larger battery in the Bolt, according to the report. Lastly, it’ll be exclusive to Verizon.” The story (at https://www.tomsguide.com/us/samsung-galaxy-s10-bolt,news-28967.html) gives us a Dutch blogger as the source and they all repeat one another, so as Venturebeat is opening the eyes of many, we see that this game of deception is played on a much larger stage, optionally implying that Samsung and Verizon are working together to create visibility by trying to take it away from Huawei (which in the end is a valid marketing ploy).

It is Forbes that give us clarity by not giving us any. It makes sense and when we see: “both Verizon and AT&T have announced a partnership with Samsung to deliver a ‘5G Galaxy smartphone’ in the first half of 2019. And yes, we know exactly what this is. “5G is going to be about more than just a network. Customers will eventually be able to connect in near real-time to unforeseen possibilities,” said David Christopher, president of AT&T Mobility and Entertainment. “Together with Samsung, we plan to bring the best in technology and innovation to our customers. The future we imagine with 5G is just beginning, and it is a great time to be a consumer.”” Forbes gave us the goods, as others are talking about the 5G Bolt part, Forbes gives us David Christopher who is seemingly informing us on how great it is to be a consumer, he leaves out the part where the consumers are getting misinformed. For the most we want to blame bloggers and technology reporters validly hiding behind words like ‘likely’ and ‘we expect to see’. Yet until the official unveiling in Spain at the end of February we will not actually know what is real and what is not.

So how come that they all got it wrong?

Well, they all merely seem to mimic and user each other as sources, propelling the fable forward (as I personally see it), Venturebeat did their homework and gives us (at https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?sort_by=certified&sort_order=desc&keywords=SM-V570V,SM-V570&companies=362) the certification sources. There we see (see image) and more important, we see that both are: ‘Category: Mobile Access Point (battery powered)‘, there we see the adults and the children separated, from what I can tell Venturebeat did its homework, the rest got used as the tools they seemingly are.

Is that fair?

That remains to be seen, unless we see at the end of February that Samsung is revealing an actual S10 bolt as a 5G mobile phone, these writers were tools to be used for the entertainment of Verizon, to create a marketing hype on a false product, if there is an actual S10 bolt being released, it also implies Samsung to be part of all this. You see, you do not give two different devices the same name that is a marketing no-no on a very high level. So far we have seen the actions by AT&T and now Verizon as well to be hiding behind the ‘be first’ tactic and not actually being there. It is as I wrote yesterday (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/01/04/dianhua-x2-xinche-xing/), “these players are putting it all one the table, betting everything they have to make a 5G turnaround whilst there is more than one indicating chance that this will falter. That is the gambling stage and all this is done without realising that Huawei does not need to bet, they merely have to deliver what they are promising making the others fold, losing it all over hardware that they cannot provide, or even better are already failing to manufacture“, and by the way, my premise was supported by quotes in the Wall Street Journal, and a few other highly respectable publications on the global scale, I knew what I was looking into. I partially hoped to have been wrong, yet less than 24 hours later we see additional sources merely proving my point. In addition, PC Magazine gives us only 9 hours ago (at https://www.pcmag.com/news/365649/surecalls-5g-booster-cant-extend-at-t-verizon): “AT&T is flat-out calling gigabit 4G “5GE.” Real 5G—5G NR—is coming on a range of frequency bands up and down the spectrum, with the first round of 5G phones and hotspots only supporting some of them“, as well as “Those bands, called millimeter wave, are what Verizon and AT&T are launching first, and they provide tremendous speeds but at very limited range. Unfortunately, the FCC hasn’t even set the rules for millimeter-wave boosters yet, according to SureCall CEO Hongtao Zhan, so those will probably come next year. “I don’t believe we’re the bottleneck of this. There’s no rule, there’s no standard, there’s nothing,” he says. Millimeter-wave boosters can’t be built yet, but Zhan says that’s where we’re really going to need boosters. Millimeter-wave frequencies have trouble penetrating walls. “There will be zero signal inside your buildings; it’s going to be horrible. Something has to be done to solve that problem”“, so not only is 5G a mess, there will seemingly be no reception in the building, so why buy into 5G for now? And is it not interesting that the consumer is mostly unaware to all this? In support we also get: “In my experience, he’s 80 percent right. Verizon has shown me millimeter-wave signal penetrating at least somewhat into buildings, but it drops off pretty quickly. There will definitely need to be some sort of in-building booster for millimeter wave, if the carriers want that frequency’s advantages to work inside.” All that information is missing form so many sources. At least, for me personally there is an upside, with all these additional needs, the need (and value) for my IP is growing close to exponentially, so I feel decent for now. Yet, the people who seem to adhere to David Christopher, president of AT&T Mobility and Entertainment and his view of “a great time to be a consumer” with all the non-given information, at what point will we use these publications to start up class actions against certain players to get 100% refund on hardware we get to keep? What level of punitive damages with the US courts and other courts define as ‘non damage’ and therefor non claimable just to keep AT&T and Verizon afloat?

America is all about suing people, not about holding them accountable and that is something we might see change in 2019, the entire 5G mess is becoming a plane of deception giving rise to certain people and their plans of deception to keep the interest focussed away from other players in this field. And that is not even the start of the failing we see in the US, according to the Gulf Times (at https://www.gulf-times.com/story/617959/Vodafone-one-of-the-first-to-go-live-with-5G-comme) where we see: “From today, GBI will be the first entity to be commercially connected to Vodafone’s 5G network. Moreover, Vodafone Qatar will be the first to commercially connect several consumer customers to its 5G network across Doha starting today. “We are proud to have been the first company to experience the power of Vodafone’s 5G network and now look forward to benefit from it commercially to enhance our operations. We congratulate Vodafone on officially receiving its 5G licence and extend our full support in the journey to accelerate the country towards becoming one of the most technologically advanced in the world,” said Abdulla al-Ruwali, GBI executive director and managing director“, and it is not AT&T, or Verizon. It is Vodafone of all places that has switched it on, completely licensed. Now, this is merely one source, although I got it via Reuters, there are optionally still issues in place and the debate is not over, but there you have it, the US claiming all kinds of stuff and the 5G trophy goes to the Middle East, how is that for a reality check?

The 5G market is a Wild West stage and now we see (or are implied to be notified of the fact) that the camel jockeys and not the cowboys (or Indians for that matter) that seemingly take the victory cake home for now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tic Toc Ruination

There is always a next deadline, a next target and a next threshold. When we see that point, some see obstacles, some see challenges and others await opportunities. It has always been this way. In the past we had 3G, Telstra could not keep up and gave us 3.5G and called it something else. The audience was deceived and has been deceived for a while in many ways. In Australia, as I personally see it, too many politicians dance to the needs of Telstra and as such, in the long run nothing was done. As 4G matured on a global level we saw the eCommerce run and we saw growth everywhere. And as the 5G moment grew near too many were sitting on the sidelines, all talk and no hard work. Huawei, Ericsson and a few more worked hard because he fin-tech term ‘be there first‘ applied a hundred times more to mobile technologies and we saw the escalation as China went ahead of the curve. Suddenly Huawei 5G technology got banned, a bankrupt America started and soon most nations followed, now, or at least 5 hours ago, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/05/bt-removing-huawei-equipment-from-parts-of-4g-network) reported one additional move ‘BT removing Huawei equipment from parts of 4G network‘, we see “In a statement, the UK telecoms group has confirmed it is in the process of removing Huawei equipment from the key parts of its 3G and 4G networks to meet an existing internal policy not to have the Chinese firm at the centre of its infrastructure“, all at the behest of spymaster incredibili Alex Younger. Yet actual evidence of Chinese activities was never given in evidence. Alex does something else and in retrospect to his French, American and Canadian peers something that is actually intelligent. He gives us: “the UK needed to decide if it was “comfortable” with Chinese ownership of the technology being used.” OK, in opposition of American stupidity making claims they cannot support, Alex is giving us the national need and the premise that another government should not have ownership of infrastructure this important. I can accept that, yet in that same light, that equipment should not be American or Russian either. He also gives us: “We have to keep adapting … we are evolving again to meet the threats of the hybrid age … our task now is to master the covert action of the data age“, and he is correct. It does not state that Huawei is a danger, a risk or actively undermining the UK. I get the setting of national security first and in this Huawei might optionally in the future be that risk, it is not the same setting the yanks gave us.

Yet there is the opposition as well. At present not only is Huawei ahead by a fair bit, Engineering and Technology (at https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/12/china-continues-to-dominate-worldwide-patent-applications/) give us: ‘China continues to dominate worldwide patent applications‘, it is a lot larger than Huawei, yet the stage we need to comprehend is “China submitted 1.38 million of the total 3.17 million patent applications submitted“, and a chunk of that 43.5% is mobile and 5G technology. China is ahead in the race and as some people start living in denial, the stage we will see in 2020 is not that America will start its 5G part, there will be a moment when China lodges IP cases that oppose patents, and the optional proven stage of patent violations. At that point the nations moving in silly ways will learn the hard way that whatever they tried to overcome will cost them 200%-550% more that they thought it would. The entire patent system will be upside down as technology makers will be found to be technology breakers and that is one side why the US is so opposed to certain levels of protectionism (apart from their pharmaceutical patents). To give you a perspective, China applied for more patents than the US, Japan, South Korea and the European Patent Office combined, the difference is that big, there is a second benefit to a worldwide growth in IP filings and some technology offices will soon encounter the receiving side of a desist to move forward lawsuit. The Apple Samsung war in patents has shown that impact for years and when any firm is stopped in their tracks, for any 5G violation, you can flush that 5G implementation timeline down the toilet.

ZDNet gives us: “Sprint announced that it is now the fastest mobile carrier across New York City, providing customers with access to its gigabit-speed LTE services after upgrading its network in preparation for 5G services going live next year“, which sounds nice, yet when we see: “launching a 5G mobile service there in the first half of 2019“, the way the dates were given last week personally implies to me that any setback gives reason that there will be no 5G before Q3 2019. Now, I might be wrong here, yet in the past we have seen again and again that these timelines were never met and the pressure is really on this time around, making setbacks and delays even more likely. So a we see New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Washington DC, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Indianapolis, and Phoenix moving into the 5G realm, we now see the absence of an earlier mentioned Boston, Sacramento, Dallas, Houston, So as we see San Francisco, I see no Mountain view, no Palo Alto and no San Jose (consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnzTgUc5ycc, just a little Helix for the fans). So will San Francisco get 5G, or will Google and Facebook infested Mountain View get the5G? The problem is not whether it comes now or later, the fact remains that implementation and deployment had to be done and be past the 100% deployment preparations 6 months ago and the players left it to the final moment, whilst some of the infrastructure should have been available a long while ago.

The setting is not merely 5G, it is the availability that is connected to all this that follows. Part of this situation is given weight to issues when we consider Telecom Lead giving us (at https://www.telecomlead.com/5g/192-operators-start-5g-network-investment-gsa-87745). The quote: “192 mobile operators in 81 countries are investing in 5G network as compared with 154 operators in 66 countries in July 2018, according to the latest GSA report released in November 2018” shows us that 15 countries are already late to the start and it involves 38 operators. Now, that might be valid as some are not in the size to be the initial adopters, yet it is merely the top of the iceberg. This Titanic is showing a leak when we get to “GSA also said 80 telecom operators in 46 countries have announced their plan to launch 5G to their customers between 2018 and 2022. 37 networks will launch 5G services in 2020 alone“. If this is the stage knowing that you are in one of the 37 countries. The 9 countries that are optionally launching between 2018 and 2020 might have a local advantage, yet which of these 9 are starting fist, or get to start between 2021 and 2022 is equally an issue to explore. We see: “Telstra, TeliaSonera Finland, Ooredoo Kuwait and Qatar, Zain Kuwait, and STC Saudi Arabia have done 5G deployments using commercial 5G base stations but are waiting for devices to enable service introduction“, here we see Australia to be ahead of the curve, yet waiting for devices implies that it goes beyond the mobile phones, I reckon that there is something else missing, yet what it is and when it comes is not given. The article also gives us the entire 5G trap and the Verizon steps that are in question. It is the reason why I mentioned Telstra 3.5G in the first place. We are given “Verizon’s network is not yet 3GPP compliant. It uses Verizon’s own 5G specification, but will be upgraded to be 3GPP compliant in the future“, so does that mean that it is merely a Verizon issue opening the market for Sprint, or are they both involved in that same pool of marketed pool to some form of ‘5G’ branding, and not the standard?

If that is truly the case, if this is truly verified, will the day that the 5G switch is turned on in the US, Japan and Saudi Arabia show that Saudi Arabia and Japan gives the people true 5G and America does not, does that make them the loser in the 5G race on day one? The question now becomes is Sprint 3GPP compliant, and more important what is the failing of 3GPP compliant bringing to the table?

When I look at the data opportunities that 5G brings, the opportunities that blockchain technology can revolutionise (especially in America) in retail with 5G are unheard of. There is a true growth of investment options available, yet are these opportunities seen as such?

So where is the ruination?

You see, this is the first time in history where high-tech is running ahead in China. In the past, America had the radio, they had the TV, they had video, DVD, Japan brought the Blu-Ray, and the US had 4G first; yet it all falters when we realise that this time around China is not merely on par, they are optionally ahead in the next technology wave, we have never seen this advantage from China before, and at the speed at how they caught up in the past, is worrying many nations as they are now ahead and optionally they can create more headway as they start giving the US less and less advantages, optionally resulting in greater economic advantages for China as America ends up having to catch up now, an advantage of being first which is now optionally no longer with the US.

The question becomes, will the consumers have to pay for that lack of headway? Even as we push for the comparison in the past app stage of 4G, we see that the IP war can become a much larger headache when you are not China, it might be good, it will most likely be bad and in the end we might benefit yet the reality is that massive amount of money will start going to the far east (China) and it will impact all manners of ecommerce soon enough. Yet will that happen? We might know tomorrow as the techboys (and one techgirl), AKA Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Ginni Rometty, Safra Katz and Steve Mollenkopf meet with White House officials later today. So as Google, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and Qualcomm decide on what happens (or needs to happen) in the next 24 hours, I wonder what concessions they will get from the White House as long as they all finish second to none and give America the 5G pole position result. Ego comes at a price and I reckon that we get to know the cost of White House ego tripping before the end of the year.

In all this, I wonder, can I make matters worse when I ‘give’ 2 billion in IP value to Huawei? When we are pushed, should we not push back? When the others face too late the element of delay by not adhering to logic, and by ignoring common sense, should I give them consideration? That is actually a main point here, as technology becomes the main political pawn, how should we react? We can agree with Alex Younger that any nation needs to negate technological risk, we could consider that he seemingly had the only valid opposition against Huawei, as it was not directed at Huawei, but at the fact that the tech is not British, the others did not work that path, and as we see that technology is cornered by the big 7, those in the White House with an absent person from both Apple and Huawei. We have accepted the changed stage of technology and that might not have been a good thing (especially in light of all the cyber-crimes out there), also a larger diverse supplier group might have addressed other weak spot via their own internal policies, another path optionally not averted. So as we focus on national needs (which is always a valid path), should I hand that 2 billion dollar patent to Australia, who is too often in the pocket of Telstra (as I personally see it), or put it on the market for any to buy it, when that happens, do I create opportunity or limitations?

That is a question that most of us did not consider as the tech market had been global for the longest of times, yet as 5G comes into play, that might soon change and with that we will get new answers, new challenges and a lot more diversity (whilst having to entertain a whole range of new limitations as well). In my view there is an unseen balance between ruination and opportunity, yet this is where time is not a factor, it will be about the connectivity that one offers another and that is when we see that time influences it, but it is not the larger factor of influence. It is a market where diversity becomes an enabler against time (partially in opposition of time). I stated this before. As 4G gave us the golden path towards ‘wherever we are‘, 5G will be largely about ‘whenever we want it‘. It affects ‘on demand’, it enables ‘I need it now’ and it gives rise to security, automation and non-repudiation to a much larger extent. We have clearly seen that Huawei and China are in pole position of that race, and we must wonder who of the other players can catch up in time offering the full 5G with all elements validly in place (not using Verizon’s own 5G specification, or a version thereof).

I look forward to 2019 as I have already found 2 optional gaps; I wonder how many more I will find.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

A new danger

There is a setting of dangers, the dangers are not merely setting, and for the US it is inequal discussion on how many allies they have left in the near future. It is not a new danger; the actions have been under scrutiny for some time. Yet last night something changed. We understand that electing the 45th president, a ‘former’ greed driven billionaire would always have consequences, yet the amount of consequences shown is now escalating.

The Washington Post gave uis 90 minutes ago ‘GOP fundraiser Broidy under investigation for alleged effort to sell government influence, people familiar with probe say‘, the article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-fundraiser-broidy-under-investigation-for-alleged-effort-to-sell-government-influence-people-familiar-with-probe-say/2018/08/17/c9e55792-a185-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.774c7a3358da) a different setting. We always knew that there are two sides and the ‘less progressive’ republican side was always a little of a hot potato to some. Yet with “The Justice Department is investigating whether longtime Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy sought to sell his influence with the Trump administration by offering to deliver U.S. government actions for foreign officials in exchange for tens of millions of dollars“, that hot potato has now turned into a handgranate. With the quote “As part of their efforts, prosecutors have subpoenaed casino magnate Steve Wynn, the former RNC finance chairman and longtime Trump friend, for copies of records and communications related to Broidy” we see that there is a much larger net being used. It is not merely about Broidy, with names like Steve Wynn we see that there are several names involved, all people with almost direct access to the President of the United States, and with names like Jho Low and Guo Wengui we see another side of ‘entrepreneurship’ hitting the limelight.

Yet how real is the setting?

Part of it is seen in the Wall Street Journal, and with “through June and into July, Mr. Low had been living freely in China, a person aware of his travels said”, as well as “Mr. Low had a close relationship with former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who in turn was courted by China. Malaysia’s new government suspects Mr. Low helped arrange infrastructure projects, financed by China, from which funds were diverted to cover debts”, the second part now giving us that America as well as other players wanted access to Mr. Low, yet that in itself is not evidence against Elliott Broidy. What it does tell us that multiple players want access to this billionaire, all for their own reasons and with the US with a debt surpassing 21 trillion, we can only wonder what some people want Mr. Low for. The additional part is that Malaysia is now pulling all the plugs. This is seen as Channel NewsAsia is reprting that “The Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft, estimated to cost US$35 million was allegedly bought with money belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)” (at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-to-prove-jho-low-private-jet-bought-stolen-money-1mdb-10621726). It seems so flaky and weird to merely focus on one plane. The amounts are massively larger then the $35 million, so in that case, if that evidence falls over, will the case on that side against Jho Low collapse? When we look in that direction and look at Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, we see that hsi platform is set upon anti-Chinese activities and when we see the accusation “critic on Chinese ventures in his home country for being too expensive and has suspended three China-backed projects worth around $22 billion that were signed under the previous administration”, we see that there might be  case in that part, yet why focus on $35 million in a $22,000 million setting? We also see an additional stage in “Explaining his decision at a news conference last month, the veteran politician said the contract and loan terms behind the deals were unfair, noting that the interest rates on China’s loans were much higher than the 3 percent figure at which the government normally borrowed, the Associate Press reported“, is this all about the money, or merely a way to set the stage for re-negotiation. In that setting, the sound strategy becomes that Elliott Broidy was setting the stage for the United States to poach the finance deals away from China and in that setting, getting Jho Low to give the goods would help the US pretty decent. In addition, when we look at the education of Jho Low, we see that he is an alumni of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the same school that has President Trump, as well as the bulk of CEO’s that at one stage were the captains of the Fortune 500 lists, it includes dozens of airline CEO’s, so in that setting the Malaysian government goes looking for a $35 million plane?

So what is exactly the danger?

It is not on merely the setting of Elliott Broidy in all this, it is the setting where we all need to realise that there is a cost to doing business and it has transgressed borders for the longest of times that, whilst we accepted that in Europe to some degree, Americans never accepted or comprehended that. The media players used that part in all kinds of election setting and fear mongering for the longest of times. From my point of view (optionally a wrong one), we see how people like John Brennan is a danger to that setting. People dedicated to the protection of that their nation will not accept the global cost of doing business; they are in line with monarchists and devoted workers to their nations like we see in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, as well as Canada. In republics, republicans are in a setting that this time is gone; it is the age of the corporate setting of common sense towards pragmatism. The problem as I see it is that those of no use to the needs of such a republic lose value overnight, that whilst the monarchist setting is to embrace all the citizens and protect them all. It is done at a cost, one that those people tend to accept. Yet in the republican view, these costs are counterproductive to corporate profit, the non-consumers are a cancer, needed to be cut out. When globalisation sets in to the business degree that will be a lot easier and that is where we see the stage. So when we see “In the 48 hours since President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, over 70 former intelligence officers and leaders have come forward denouncing the president’s decision to revoke or threaten to take away security clearances from former government officials, including a list of 60 former CIA officers who signed a statement today, obtained by Axios“, we also see that America (or is that Wall Street) are confronted with a change no one was ready for, so the economy becomes a stagnant danger to them, one where they do not make profit.

When we see names like:

  • Jeremy Bash, former CIA and DoD chief of staff
  • Bob Flores, former CIA chief technology officer
  • Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer for East Asia and CIA director of public affairs
  • George Little, former chief spokesman, CIA and DoD
  • Phillip Mudd, former CIA analyst
  • John Nixon, former CIA analyst
  • Greg Vogel, former CIA deputy director for operations

We see that the USA is in an upcoming setting of polarisation and that is just within the republican side of government and its administration. There is a change coming and the outcome is hoped for (on both sides) but the outcry gives us that this is a round that Wall Street is likely to lose this battle and that changes the game. In addition, when we see the required application of intelligence data and who gets access to it sets a new border, the fact that others (like France and UK) need to realise that shared intelligence data is no longer safe, because the data shared within corporations while used to set a very different stage of what is regarded as needed for security. The corporate side is already countering the advantage that a national intelligence system has. We see this in part when we look at Business Wire (at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180806005526/en/Global-Database-Valuable-Italian-Business-Intelligence-Data), where we see ‘Global Database Makes Valuable Italian Business Intelligence Data Available – Completely Free‘, before you dismiss this, also consider that “Any registered user can now access key information about 7,564.575 registered companies in Italy“, registration is free and that is merely one of close to a dozen places where this is happening. All connected, it is an optional setting of open source intelligence that is merely a foundation pillar. You merely have to add LinkedIn and Facebook to have a dataset that will allow you to extrapolate data that will make plenty of intelligence groups envious. You see, this is not about finding the criminal, or the terrorist. They are either known or not an issue. This is the setting of finding economic opportunities, the setting to see who is connected and interacting with the alumni of places like the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A group of people with connection and access to funds totaling well over 157 trillion Euro, so whilst we wonder on the fear of where is the terrorist (whilst the danger of getting run over in the street is 20 times more likely, we forgot that our futures, any future is set in the stage where there is economic viability and availability.

That is the part that we see to forget, or even worse actively avoid contemplating. In the time when we are led to believe that there is economic upturn everywhere, we seem to forget that as the river of economy changes, we will either be in a place of plenty, or we are set into the next stage of drought and it will be the one view we have until the end of our lives. It is about ability to live with a level of expected comfort which is likely no longer set to national boundaries, it will be set to the boundary of the corporation or business group that we work for and facilitate for, it will be as cold as that, and until we get past this greying generation, which is optional until 2035, that is how it will be for those in this era. The man behind the Global Database, namely Nicolae Buldumac has figured parts of that out, so that is why he and 30 others in London are doing this. When we look at the article (at https://medium.com/@buldumak/cookie-audience-vs-data-audience-which-is-better-44971ad12ee4), we also see ‘Cookie Audience Vs Data Audience: Which is Better?‘, he found a way to not create the best of both worlds, he found out how he can make both work for him and that is where he created more than economic opportunity. He has found the stage where he can optionally get the facilitators work for him and that seems to be exactly what he is doing. When he is done he will have a similar setting for France, Germany, the UK and Spain. So basically the 5 largest European economies are opportunities where he has the keys and data to.

So when we get to look at the US again, do you think that this will be about Elliott Broidy or people like him in an outdated setting? No, they are the garnishing of economic times that surpassed them and it is the data makers and facilitators like Nicolae Buldumac where the republican mindset of corporations will rely on next, they are the future and their path for enablement is what sets the stage for Europe. This is not clever technology (well in a way it is), it is about the quality of data and what it allows for and that is where we see that the moment that data hits a critical point, it will equal the value of Facebook or more. Some will argue that most of that is all in any Chamber of Commerce and they would be right, but those entities do not talk to each other, they are founded on borders of a national level or lower and in the entire euro setting they for the most never aligned, so someone did it for them and on their own dime, optionally replacing them, or better stated, reducing those previous players to mere data entry points. Governments had to realign their data dimensionality a decade ago, but everyone was so busy keeping their own pond clean that they forgot that the pond is only important to the land surrounding it, when that floods, the ponds become merely crevices of a lake, Lake Europa, that is where Nicolae Buldumac it taking them, so soon others (like Asia and America) they will look at the parts of Lake Europa and see where fishing is the best, those land borders no longer matter and that is the stage we find ourselves in. A changing setting of what sets the identity.

Am I the first?

Hell no! This was all done before. Forbes in 2013 gave us an article by George Bradt. The article called ‘How Army Intelligence Techniques Apply to Business Leads‘. Here we see “Marketing may have a bias to giving sales people a large number of leads, while sales people seek potential customers they can engage with. The answer is to move from big, unstructured data sets to “finding that guy” that really cares. This was Mishor’s ah-ha moment, realizing that army intelligence techniques could be applied to business“, yet it goes further, when you consider one, and the other, you should also realise that the parameters are bidirectional with the proper data flags. So when we see the two streams lead to the same insight. “On the one hand, Mishor is creating value with a systemic, scalable way to connect seemingly unconnected data to identify the most valuable target customers. On the other hand, Mishor built his business by connecting seemingly unconnected hopes and needs of his prospects” we see the solution at both ends, and in addition we see that we can define the need much more precise. From my point of view we can see a third direction. That part is not easily seen, so I will give an alternative example.

In factor analyses we go from many to one. We get the setting that the numbers equate to a factor, it is basic statistics. When we go into the other direction we see the foundation of a discriminant analyses. The third part is seen in that the data setting when something is proven in a factor analyses, it should almost always fail as a discriminant analyses and vice versa. I tend to use humour on that and state ‘It is sarcasm, when it backfires it is merely irony‘. The intelligence data was always on finding the person, yet in a stage of lacking resources, being able to safely remove a person as a threat is equally valuable. If you cannot find that one person, reducing the 5,000,000 stack to a mere 5,000 with 99% certainty is just as valuable, because the one final link could reduce that to 50 whilst not having to revisit the previous 4,995,000 considerations. As I see it in this day and age, not only is the stage of military intelligence and business intelligence not mutually exclusive, they are more and more overlapping. The overlapping field becomes an insightful pool of data where it will no longer be about the one person, it will be more and more about a setting where the value of Analysis of covariance will be important.

In the intelligence it could be seen that it is not merely about the terrorist and its connections. It will be about the moneyman and who else links, both optionally to the mastermind. In business intelligence that setting is not merely see as to where a person studied. It is more and more important on where the patents are and who has them as well as the people creating those patents. In this economy the economic value of a patent over overwhelmingly important. That part is seen when we get back to the 5G race, we saw that last march when we were confronted with “U.S. President Donald Trump has blocked microchip maker Broadcom Ltd’s (AVGO.O) $117 billion takeover of rival Qualcomm (QCOM.O) amid concerns that it would give China the upper hand in the next generation of mobile communications, or 5G“, in addition Forbes gives us within the article ‘Ericsson Vs Huawei: Who’s Winning The 5G Race?‘ Yet there we see two parts. The first is “However, two of particularly significant scale and market presence are Ericsson and Huawei. Will one conquer overall?“, as well as “Financial strength matters. Ericsson will have to turn the ship towards profitability and growth waters, in order to continue the required investment in product development”, which relies on “Ericsson recently announced what seems on the surface to be an impressive 5G patent application. Calling it an “end-to-end” submission, the filing combines the work of 130 Ericsson inventors and promises to include everything needed to build a complete 5G network“, the ability to set 600 million will give the optional 60 billion in return and it will in addition set the stage for European growth to a recently unprecedented (or was that non-presidential?) scale and America wants slices of that pie, if not the whole pie. The stage of corporate setting versus national setting in direct exposure of what is to come and the 5G battle theatre will be a big one, because the winners there will be the next kingmakers and everyone will want parts of it; that was never in doubt. The evidence is all over the place.

Forbes also gives us the new danger setting with the question ‘Does a global geographic footprint matter?‘ It is close to everything in this game, if only that the global footprint lets corporations walk all over government. Amazon, Apple, IBM and Microsoft have been doing that for the longest of times.

There is one part with Forbes that I do not agree with. They state “I would give Ericsson the edge here, considering its global presence includes North America“, I believe that Europe is the much larger powerhouse. You see, America is a mere 325 million, whilst the EU represents 512 million with direct access to India, China and Russia. All stages that America denied itself; if the setting of data (amounts and quality) determines their value; which players and where would they be able to grow this path the fastest and longer? The fact that Ericsson is not merely in the US, but they are showboating in Saudi Arabia is also a sign that they realise that stronger growth everywhere matters, the presented quote “Saudi telecom operator Mobily and Ericsson held a 5G demo at the Mall of Arabia in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, showcasing the functionalities of the next-generation mobile technology. Ericsson supplied Mobily with a standalone 5G system, including a prototype 3.5GHz radio, baseband, and prototype UE device for the 5G demo, which showcased 5G throughput, targeting speeds of up to 1Gbps. The demo is part of Mobily’s plan to highlight expected 5G benefits consumers and industries across Saudi Arabia“, is merely one of many.

The question now becomes: ‘is exponential growth, growing too fast in all directions not a danger all on itself?’

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Military, Politics, Science