Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Feb 2013 08:44 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 553287
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 20th Feb 2013 22:51
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by moondevil on Thu 21st Feb 2013 20:22
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by chithanh on Thu 21st Feb 2013 23:25
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Has there been any explanation for that?
Explanation for what? Samsung's behavior? That is pretty typical for a company which does not have a developed open source culture. You see this sometimes when companies try to get their hardware supported in Linux: they dump a huge load of driver code onto the kernel maintainers which more often than not is so messy that it is rewritten entirely before being accepted. Or explanation for Intel's desperation? Mobile is the future, and their execs have recognized this. The PC business is contracting and will never again reach today's levels. Intel's position in mobile is laughable, and they badly need to become relevant there - or else become irrelevant altogether.





Member since:
2006-06-18
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIwMDU
But Intel are desperate to get into the mobile business and so they keep on coming back. How desperate is illustrated by the fact that Qualcomm passed Intel in market cap last year.