You mean distributing .mob files on xda-developers and needing to speak with carriers to distribute your app?
There’s a reason most developers moved in droves to Apple ecosystem for amazing APIs, software and hardware, abandoned Symbian/blackberry/etc and had no issues with the 30% fee since they instantly got market access to millions of consumers.
30% was never an issue to begin with. People just feel today that everyone should get access to a marketplace with billion users for free, often forgetting what it took to build this market in the first place.
The confiscation of 30% of all revenue earned online has always been an issue for any company and developer here on planet Earth.
There are countless useful apps and companies that will never serve people's needs because it is not financially feasible to run a business where your total revenue is confiscated to the tune of 30%.
It has always been an issue. It's just better than the status quo before the iPhone.
> People just feel today that everyone should get access to a marketplace with billion users for free, often forgetting what it took to build this market in the first place.
1. It's not for free. Users (and developers) pay for it when they buy the iPhone. iPhone revenue is 3x Apple's R&D expenses. That is, iPhone sales alone cover the R&D on every single of Apple's products: from iPhone and iOS to Macs and MacOS, AppleTV, HomePods, Vision Pro, all of Apple's software running on those devices etc.
2. This market was built in no small part by the actual developers you now so snidely dismiss. iPhone is nothing without the app ecosystem.
> Arm's argument is that the Nuvia license was canceled when it was taken over by Qualcomm.
How could the reporter possibly know one way or another, certainly it depends on the contents of that contract? Has anyone outside these three parties (Qualcomm, Arm, Nuvia) have seen the contract in question?
Yeah, equally there is a document that says what Qualcomm's lawyers want it to say. Sorting through both and providing a summary is part of "journalism".
And a quote from it, where Qualcomm states that it has the rights to use the IP from Nuvia because it has a ARM-license covering the same IP as Nuvia's ARM-license:
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
To this statement of ARM: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So, as an amateur reading through the case, there is sufficient information to conclude that ARM has a contract that limits the use of Nuvia IP to Nuvia alone, and Qualcomm tries to argue that these terms are "offending" and "a threat to the industry".
--> So, there is obviously no disagreement that these crucial terms are in fact part of the ARM/Nuvia License contract.
It will take dozens of lawyers (at least three opinions between any two of them) many months and millions of dollars to figure it out, and you want the journalists to make a call?
The article sums up rough positions of both parties well enough.
I thought the issue with wind in the UK was that its supply is (Scotland) where the demand isn’t (the south). So we’d (a) have to build loads of pylons or expensive underground cables and (b) lose a lot in transmission.
You would have to build lots of transmission, but the losses aren't particularly significant for high voltage lines — it's only about 1000 km from the Shetland islands to Southampton, and HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km. Pricing seems to be a trade secret, but the suggested numbers on the Wikipedia page for the 8 GW cross-channel link were £110M for the converter stations and £1M/km for the undersea cable.
I know that a mere back-of-the-envelope calculation isn't worth much more than the used envelope it was written on (doubly so when it is based on guesstimates of the input numbers), but that would be only £1bn for 8 GW or £4bn for 32 GW (compared to actual average usage of 31.5 GW last year), which is the kind of thing that the British government shouldn't blink at but in practice actually faffs and fails at basically all the time.
(And the sector is theoretically privatised, so this would have to become a business investment, which in turns will have potential investors ask inconvenient questions like "What's the risk we have cheaper options in 10 years that make this power line redundant? And what about those fusion reactors I keep reading about in the Sunday Times? What if Scotland becomes independent and stops selling you the electricity?")
With proper high volatage direct current (HVDC) transmission, the transmission losses transporting electricity from Scotland to the south of England are not very relevant. It's like a couple of percent.
A bigger problem is just the UK's inability to complete infrastructure megaprojects on land, so the connectors would likely need to go in the sea and take a perhaps inefficient route.
There are a number of problems with wind in the UK. NIMBYism means it’s either in the north (nowhere near the consumer) or out in the sea which is both not terribly near the consumer and ferociously expensive to maintain. The UK Energy Catapult estimates that a single service vessel “truck roll” or “boat launch” (I guess) is something like £250K. Probably much more now as that figure is 10 years old. This means that it makes economic sense to wait until you have several broken wind turbines before sending out a service vessel. Couple this with the fact that they dont seem to have as long a lifetime as was promised (various reasons). Finally it is a meteorological reality that when it’s very cold in the UK and energy demands are high… it is also usually very still with no wind, and of course in the middle of winter when there are few hours of daylight helping us with solar generation.
> Finally it is a meteorological reality that when it’s very cold in the UK and energy demands are high… it is also usually very still with no wind, and of course in the middle of winter when there are few hours of daylight helping us with solar generation.
Your meteorological reality seems to not correlate with actual reality. In the UK the highest energy demand is actually correlated with high wind speeds [1]
>This reflects the variation in temperatures and wind speeds with season, with calmer, warmer conditions in summer and cooler, windier conditions in late autumn and early spring. However above the 75th percentile of demand, average wind power reduces, which occurs predominantly in winter and autumn. Understanding this downturn in wind power provides the motivation for this paper. Given our interest in high demand days, which predominantly occur in winter (figure 1, upper right), only winter days are considered.
>The tendency for lower wind power during higher winter demand is shown by the tilt of the density contours of the daily distribution (figure 1, lower left). It is also clearly seen when averaged across days of similar demand (figure 2, left). Average wind power reduces by a third between lower and higher winter demand, from approximately 60% to 40% of rated power.
Look at figure 2. Black is wind power, and the X axis is demand. Wind production capacity is down when demand is high.
Ok my statement was largely based on the abstract, I only skimmed the paper. The abstract refers to the uptick for very high demand percentiles (>90%), which I guess is still much smaller than the downward trend. I apologise I got this wrong.
The vast majority of the UK's cold winter weather comes from wind from the North-East, bringing in the much colder weather from Arctic/Siberian regions.
I frequently hear people bring up transmission losses as a concern, and genuinely curious where this idea comes from? Was this taught in schools or part of some disinformation campaign?
My understanding is that it is "simple" resistance heating of the transmission lines (P = I^2 R). Which is why high voltage lines are good ideas ( V = I R ) -- they lower the current.
Heating can be quite significant. I guess whether or not it’s economically significant depends on your cost of generation. There was a mega-outage which cut off Italy when overheated, sagging cables, struck the treetops in the middle of either another random outage or some scheduled maintenance. It’s been many years since I read the full report on the incident (which was excellent) but there was some great data in there about degrees of heating vs degree of sagging.
From your prior message:
> Carmack called his email completely outdated