ISAs are a technical spec at the foundation of every chip, describing how software controls the chip’s hardware.
In addition to building the chip, Rivos is working on self-contained data center hardware based on the Open Compute Project modular standard, which will effectively serve as plug-and-play chip housing.
Startups by the dozens, meanwhile, are angling for a slice of a custom data center chip market that could reach $10 billion this year and double by 2025.
Habana Labs, the Intel-owned AI chip company, laid off an estimated 10% of its workforce last year.
Kumar wouldn’t talk about customers, and Rivos’ chip isn’t anticipated to reach mass production until sometime next year.
Two internal whistleblowers at Faraday Future claim the troubled EV company has been lying about some of the few sales it has announced to date.
What’s more, they claim Faraday Future has been performing repairs on these early customer vehicles without proper documentation or work authorization, which he says could put the company’s license with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair at risk.
Faraday Future allegedly fired Guerrero on January 18 in retaliation for speaking up, according to his complaint.
Jia’s control over Faraday Future has always been a thorny issue.
Jia is still not CEO, but Guerrero and Xie claim in their lawsuits that he “heads a shadow organization” that controls the company’s destiny.
Indeed, with numbers hovering around 20% globally, it’s difficult to make the case that the company is dominating the competition the way Microsoft did Apple a quarter-century ago.
Apple suggests, however, that the DOJ’s suggestion that its “share of the entire U.S. smartphone market exceeds 65%” is misleading, as it refers to revenue rather than units sold.
It’s here the DOJ suggests that Apple commands 70% of the “performance” smartphone market.
Today, only Samsung and Google remain as meaningful competitors in the U.S. performance smartphone market.
Even Cupertino’s highly paid legal team would struggle to make the case that Apple Watch owners aren’t hamstrung by its iOS exclusivity.
A federal judge sided against Elon Musk today, dismissing a lawsuit brought by Musk and X that targeted a nonprofit that researches online hate.
In the lawsuit, X claimed that it lost “tens of millions of dollars” as a direct result of the CCDH’s research.
Musk, who personally directed the lawsuit, called the CCDH “an evil propaganda machine” in replies on X.
The nonprofit, formed in 2018, researches trends in hate speech, extremism and misinformation on major social networks.
Unlike the CCDH lawsuit, X is suing Media Matters for America in Texas, which doesn’t share California’s protections against frivolous lawsuits designed to stifle free speech.
Apple’s iPhone antitrust lawsuit: Everything we know so far on the DOJ’s case U.S. regulators are accusing Apple of operating like a monopoly, and the implications of the case stretch far beyond iOS and iPhones themselvesApple’s antitrust scrutiny has reached a fever pitch.
We’ll be updating this page as the Apple antitrust case evolves, but keep in mind that there will be little settled in the short term.
The DOJ’s claims against AppleIf you want to dive into legal docs immediately, you can read the DOJ’s lawsuit right here.
The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google, which was filed back in 2020, went to trial last year and could still take a couple more years to reach a conclusion.
For more on Apple’s antitrust lawsuit, check here:
The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Apple over allegedly monopolistic smartphone practices.
The federal agency is not alone in the matter, bringing 15 states and the District of Columbia into the mix as well.
Regulators and tech companies, name a more iconic duo.
But as we’re about to see with Apple, big tech companies are not going to go down without a fight.
For more on Apple’s antitrust lawsuit, check here:
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Apple Thursday, accusing the company led by CEO Tim Cook of engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
The allegations include claims that Apple prevents competitors from accessing certain iPhone features and that the company’s actions impact the “flow of speech” through its streaming service, Apple TV+.
This is not the first time Apple has faced legal action from the DOJ.
In 2012, the agency sued Apple for conspiring with publishers to increase ebook prices, a lawsuit that was not settled until 2016.
Morgan Stanley analysts said Friday that the current lawsuit could also favor Apple, as many similar allegations have already been ruled on by a judge in the Apple vs Epic case, with the ruling stating that Apple does not violate antitrust laws.
Beeper gave up on its mission after Apple blocked the app’s efforts late last year.
Each time Beeper issued workarounds and fixes to keep the service afloat, Apple knocked them down one by one.
“Recently, Apple blocked a third-party developer from fixing the broken cross-platform messaging experience in Apple Messages and providing end-to-end encryption for messages between Apple Messages and Android users,” the DOJ complaint reads.
When Apple launched the Apple Watch the following year, it began limiting third-party access to new and improved APIs for smartwatch functionality.
The DOJ notes that Apple prevents iPhone users from responding to notifications using a third-party smartwatch.
Apple is dubbing the litigation misguided and warning the DOJ risks trashing all the things its customers value about its integrated mobile ecosystem.
In an on-the-record statement provided to TechCrunch, Apple said:This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.
The suit claims Apple holds a more than 70% share of “performance smartphones” and over 65% of the US smartphone market, respectively.
But they are also aggressively briefing that the DOJ case will fail.
In today’s briefing Apple also claimed the DOJ’s case has changed tack multiple times (it suggests at least six) over the four years it’s been in formulation.
But one category in particular caught our attention as the DOJ spends quite a bit of time talking about “green bubbles” and “blue bubbles.”When an iPhone user sends a message to another iPhone user, by default that message is sent using Apple’s iMessage protocol.
If an iPhone user texts an Android user — and vice versa — iOS falls back to the older, less secure but universal SMS protocol.
“Apple makes third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse generally and relative to Apple Messages, Apple’s own messaging app,” the DOJ wrote in its lawsuit.
At this point, you might think: wasn’t the RCS protocol supposed to level up SMS messaging and alleviate these pain points?
It feels a bit odd that the DOJ is front-loading its antitrust lawsuit against Apple with the much talked about “green bubbles” vs. “blue bubbles” debate as there are far more serious and substantive issues.
