dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on March 3, 2019 12:21 pm wrote:
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on March 3, 2019 11:41 am wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 3, 2019 9:13 am wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you give me an example of a fair advantage?
> > > Or are you going to keep dodging all questions and complaining about me using words in "inappropriate ways"?
> >
> > I am not a native English speaker, so may be missed something, but for me it sounded like you intentionally
> > used words that typically have negative connotation within expression with neutral-to-positive connotation.
> > And it seems to me that your intention was partly humorous and partly provocative.
>

Correct, poking a bit of fun at Samsung for just throwing silicon at the problem. Competing with a 6-wide design (M3) against a 2-wide design (A73) is something you can only afford when die space is cheap for you, but not everyone else.

> I find it weird them thinking I'm dodging. It is also I believe a negative word. With that attitude,
> or even if they're just saying things in a way that's strange to me, I think there seems little
> hope of my being able to communicate meaningfully so I think I'll just stop trying.
>
>

You have skipped all paragraphs actually discussing the issue (except once) in favour of going on about your definition of competition where money is irrelevant and products need to be completely equivalent to be able to compete.
By your definition architectural licenses and core IP do not compete with each other. That definition also means that servers and clouds do not compete with each other, part of the market just magically disappears because there is "no requirement" anymore. Nevermind the fact the substitutes aka indirect competition are listed on literally every economic or business definition of the word competition.

I can argue with Doug S because while I don't agree that the Snapdragon to Exynos switch is relevant to the discussion of architectural vs core licensing I can understand his argument (with the mistyped word corrected) without ignoring generally accepted definitions.
Yours would require me to ignore a few things commonly taught in economics 101 about competition and everything based on that, which does seem a little strange to me.