Pinned Tweet
Glad to be quoted in this excellent @Reuters article by @chernandburn & @StephenNellis on @Arm's plight to change its biz model...
reut.rs/4g4FCbe
"It was news to me that $Arm is even thinking about (making its own chip)," said @TantraAnalyst founder Prakash Sangam, who attended the trial. "It should send a chill down the spine of their customers."
As often happens, public trials expose lots of confidential information about companies. The details in the article came from its trial against @Qualcomm.
@ReutersBiz #qcomtrial
Prakash Sangam retweeted
A new frontier for on-device speech.
We're open-sourcing Phonon, a suite of TTS models under 50m parameters, setting a new standard for naturalness and accuracy across languages, with the broadest inference support to date.
Phonon-31m is available under Apache 2.0.
gradium.ai/phonon🧵
Glasses are a perfect device for running AI agents for autonomous hands-free operations...
I ditched my phone at Meta Connect 2026 and spent the entire day with Meta's new AI glasses.
Also sat down with Alex Himel, Meta's VP of Wearables. The man runs his personal AI agent across 3 phones and 23 pairs of smart glasses.
Full video is live. Here's everything we covered:
00:00 Can AI glasses replace your phone? The 24-hour challenge
00:51 Morning at Meta Connect 2026
01:56 Unboxing Meta's new AI glasses
02:38 Alex Himel on why glasses are the future of AI
05:19 Exploring Meta's newest smart glasses
06:15 Trying Meta's display glasses
06:59 Live AI translation demo
08:52 The viral leaked glasses and Project Hatch
10:01 Rapid fire with Alex Himel
11:50 Meta glasses Gen 2 vs Gen 3
13:52 Secret Meta VR glasses demo
14:17 Always-on AI, privacy and the Limitless deal
17:16 Testing Meta Muse on smart glasses
19:02 Behind the scenes at Meta Connect
20:12 Zuckerberg's keynote and the Muse Charm reveal
21:23 Why computer use matters for AI agents
22:06 Muse voice mode and why Meta could win AI
23:31 Why Meta built camera-free AI glasses
24:54 Alex's AI agent setup: 23 pairs of glasses
25:47 What AGI means to Meta's VP of Wearables
26:15 The one thing he'd never let AI do
26:34 The future of AI glasses
The latest edition of my #TantrasMantra #podcast is out:
go.tantraanalyst.com/Tantras…
In this episode, I talk to Thomas Barber of @GlobalFoundries about the evolution of the #datacenter #interconnect landscape, how quickly the speed and latency requirements within racks are increasing, from 200 Gbps to 1.6 Tbps and beyond, how optical connectivity is fast becoming a basic need: the “Copper where you can and optical where you must” approach, evolution from today’s optical pluggable to Co-Packaged Optics (#CPO), and more.
We also explore the role of a foundry like $GFS in CPO, its SCALE OCI CPO Module, the proprietary vs. standard-based solutions dilemma in the optical scale-up space, and what's next.
Index:
00:00 - Intro
02:40 - Guest intro (Thomas Barber, VP Comms - Infra & Data Center)
03:00 - AI changed data center function from data storage and retrieval to high-intensity compute, and moving data within the data center
04:05 - Changed scale-up definitions - from within a server to within a rack, expanding to multiple racks
05:08 - How long will "use copper where you can and optical where you must"
hold? Will most connectivity move to optical?
06:44 - Are active electrical cables (#AEC) for short term or long term too?
07:50 - Considerations for moving to fully optical - reliability of Direct Attach Copper (#DAC) vs. link flap of optical, cost & power
10:46 - Current state of Co-Packaged Optics (CPO); Pluggable vs. CPO
13:00 - All of today's CPO products are proprietary
14:07 - GlobalFoundries' industry's first SCALE CPO OCI MSA-compliant light module
17:20 - OCI MSA only defines optical; electrical left to implementation (members: $AMD , @Broadcom, @Meta, @Microsoft, @OpenAI, $NVDA)
18:25 - Will proprietary solutions coexist or merge with standard-based solutions in the long run?
21:46 - Both @nvidia's #NVLink and open #UALink supported by @AMD & others, can use #OCIMSA optical layer for transport
22:17 - Role of Global Foundries in CPO - from @IBM Microelectronics legacy to building complex solutions at scale
26:50 - Market impetus toward standard CPO solutions
29:44 - What's next in the evolution of CPO
33:27 - AI infra is not just #GPUs, but interconnect is also critical
34:57 - Closing
@TantraAnalyst #OCPSummit26
My thoughts on the jury verdict in the @Qualcomm vs. @Arm case:
The Judgment Day: Qualcomm wins ALA and Interference/Unfair Competition Claims, Arm Prevails in TLA Claim
bit.ly/3VLECUR
tl;dr Summary:
Despite the case's complexity and the even more complex verdict form, the jury made a quick decision. Unlike the last case, they were also decisive. Qualcomm won on its two most important claims, which its lawyer said were crucial to the company's future: breach of the ALA and interference and unfair competition. As their lawyer Karen Dunn put it in the closing argument, this was a case of principles and, if nothing else, the jury should side with Qualcomm and award nominal monetary compensation. And that’s exactly what they did.
Arm prevailed on the TLA claim, which is extremely important to them, because the vast majority of their customers have TLAs. They also felt vindicated with the mere $2 of total damages. All along, their lawyers had argued that there was no significant material harm.
Not to gloat, but this is exactly what I had predicted in my last day’s blog (Check Day 5 blog bit.ly/4jaEDLL):
“…Here is my take on the jury trials, FWIW:
1. On the ALA breach case, Qualcomm has made a strong case, except for Arm’s last-minute “customization” argument…
2. On the TLA breach, …Arm has brought some interesting questions on motivation, etc., to sow doubt in the jury’s mind…
3. On the interference claim, Qualcomm has an airtight case, with solid arguments and proof…”
$QCOM $ARM #qcomarm @TantraAnalyst
This is pretty important. The biggest challenge running multiple subagents is access.... all of them colliding and locking files, ports, and databases.
Providing a computer for each of them, with a sandbox that is a copy of the box...
Lots of subagents with such a setup can definitely beat large models...
I am on the way back home from the @Qualcomm vs. @arm trial. While the jury is cooling their heels and gets back to deliberating on Tuesday, check out what has happened so far on my #TantraNotes #blog:
bit.ly/TA-Notes
Day 1: Opening Statements, CEOs take the stand
bit.ly/4zk6nSY
Day 2: ALA Commitments and Bloomberg leak in focus
bit.ly/4ARZedV
Day 3: Focus on License Rates, Judge’s Questions on Remedy, and XXXXXX
bit.ly/3Uflcar
Day 4: More XXXXX, Companies Rest Their Case, and Other Considerations
bit.ly/4yeso4D
Day 5: Case in Jury’s Hands, Arguments Conclude in Bench Trial, My Final Take
bit.ly/4jaEDLL
$QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm Case - Updates from Day 5 on my #TantrasMantra #blog:
bit.ly/4jaEDLL
tldr: Summary of Day 5:
The day began with closing statements from the plaintiff, Qualcomm, followed by defendant Arm. Qualcomm’s statement was presented jointly by Karen Dunn and Bill Isaacson. Karen made a rather emotional and animated presentation. The lawyers reiterated the allegations against Arm:
1) Breach of ALA by not offering OOBs and patches;
2) Breach of TLA by not offering the license in a timely manner, and when offered, it was not in good faith, and charged more than 10% of the previous best deal; 3) Interfering with Qualcomm’s business with Meta by sending letters to its customers and leaking its termination letter to Bloomberg. The statement was sprinkled with key highlights and findings from the testimonies, along with the damage claims. Karen also said this was a fight of principles for Qualcomm.
Arm’s closing statement was presented by its lawyer Gregg LoCascio. His presentation was more businesslike, reiterating Arm’s points denying Qualcomm’s claims:
1) Made a rather new argument that was not ever made during the arguments—OOBs and patches are customizations, and are part of the support and maintenance contract, not ALA;
2) TLA didn’t have the option to request license offers after the first year of the contract; even then, Arm offered the license in good faith, and Arm didn’t overcharge Qualcomm;
3) Arm’s publicizing of the license letter didn’t harm Qualcomm at Meta, and whatever damage Qualcomm showed was because of other factors. Arm’s statement also included key highlights from the testimony.
The jury received a long, complex verdict sheet with more than 30 questions and options. They spent a few hours deliberating till end of the day and will continue Tuesday.
While the jury deliberated, the bench trial resumed with testimony from Qualcomm economics expert Eric Posner on “Input Foreclosure,” damage expert Patrick Kennedy, and Arm’s Chief Legal Officer Spencer Collins (both sealed). It concluded with testimony from Arm’s economic expert, Timothy Simcoe.
Both Qualcomm and Arm CEOs and their General Counsels were present today, underscoring the case's importance to both companies.
$QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
I attended the @Qualcomm vs. @Arm court case at the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, DE, today.
Check out my #TantrasMantra #Blog for details:
bit.ly/4zk6nSY
#tldr Summary of 1st day:
Both companies presented their opening statements, and CEOs took the witness stand.
Qualcomm, as the plaintiff, went first and claimed that Arm failed to provide certain software packages and patches required to ensure compliance with Arm Instruction Set Architecture (ISA). They also claimed that Arm leaked the letter canceling Qualcomm’s contract to the media and misled Samsung, Meta, and its other customers regarding the situation. Additionally, it claimed that Arm didn’t offer or negotiate the V10 license in good faith.
In its opening statement, Arm rejected these claims. It stated that the packages and patches were not required under the contract. It also said sharing information about the license cancellation letter with the media is normal corporate practice for many companies. Regarding v10 licensing, it claimed it had made the offer to Qualcomm, but the rates Qualcomm asked for were unreasonable.
Cristiano Amon, CEO of Qualcomm, and Rene Haas, CEO of Arm, took the stand and reiterated their companies' positions.
#qcomarm $QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm second case,., Check out the proceedings from Day 2, on #TantrasNotes #Blog:
bit.ly/4ARZedV
tldr : Summary of the day:
Today’s testimonies were mainly focused on the ALA commitments and the circumstances around the leak of Arm’s notice to @Bloomberg News. The day included in-person testimonies from CEOs Rene Haas and Cristiano Amon, Arm’s Chief Architect Richard Grisenthwaite, then account manager Lynn Couillard, Qualcomm’s Sr. Director of Verification Jignesh Trivedi, as well as video testimonies from Arm’s CMO Ami Badani, product manager Martin Weidmann, PR agency FGS Global’s Paul Kranhold, and Morrison & Foerster LLP’s Kenneth Siegel.
Through various testimonies, Qualcomm reiterated that Arm’s commitment to ALA is faltering, and OOBs and patches were part of the contract deliverables. Arm pushed back, saying it was looking to revise ALA contracts to reflect current market realities, and OOBs and patches were not mandatory contract deliverables, and that Qualcomm didn’t show any harm.
The discussion around the Bloomberg leak got a lot of attention today. Qualcomm did a great job showing that the leak was planned through Arm’s PR agency and timed to align with Qualcomm’s #SnapdragonSummit. #qcomarm
$QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm Case - Updates from Day 3 on my #TantrasMantra #blog:
Focus on license rates, Judge’s Questions on Remedy, and XXXXXXXXXX
bit.ly/3Uflcar
tldr: Summary of Day 3:
Today was the most interesting day of the trial so far. So many things happened today. I witnessed some, but others were inside a sealed courtroom. The most interesting and likely consequential was Rene Haas’ testimony during a bench trial (without the jury), during which Judge Noreika asked Rene how she should believe his testimony that Arm wanted to work with Qualcomm to fight against the common enemy x86, in the wake of such negativity in the evidence presented (e.g., mentions of “enemy, ending ALA, etc.). Many interesting nuggets of information were also revealed during that testimony.
During a break, the Judge also asked Qualcomm what remedy it would seek if it won the ALA/TLA breach claims. She made it clear she would not be interested in setting the royalty rates. Qualcomm's lawyer promised a comprehensive reply tomorrow.
Another interesting point was that the courtroom was sealed several times at the request of @Meta, @Apple, @Samsung, and @Renesas’ representatives ((Hence the "xxxx" in the title!). including during testimony about the harm Qualcomm claimed at Meta.
Apart from that, today’s discussion focused mostly on how Arm calculated the licensing rates for the offer it presented to Qualcomm, the harm Qualcomm claims Arm’s letter and the @Bloomberg leak created at Meta, Arm’s view on the ALA licensing process, and more. The testimonies included Arm’s chief legal officer Spenser Collins, licensing rate expert Karthik Shivashankar, Qualcomm’s advisor Paul Wisener, Meta account lead Pavan Mulabagal, and, of course, the final session of Rene Haas.
$QCOM $ARM @TantraAnalyst #licensing
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm Case - Updates from Day 4 on my #TantrasMantra #blog:
More XXXXX, Companies Rest Their Case, and Other Considerations
bit.ly/4yeso4D
tldr: Summary of Day 4:
Most of the day was spent in a sealed courtroom, where the court likely discussed the harm Qualcomm claimed from an alleged ALA & TLA breach and tortious interference (Arm publicizing the license notice). The other topics discussed were Arm trying to prove that Qualcomm’s request for a TLA license extension was a ploy to get peripheral IP, and Qualcomm rebutting it, as well as Arm showing that it didn’t compete with Qualcomm for Meta data center business, as the former didn’t know Qualcomm’s data center chip plans.
Both parties rested their case, and Arm moved a motion for judgment in its favor, claiming Qualcomm did not meet its burden of proof. Qualcomm obviously opposed it, claiming there was enough evidence of harm. Finally, the day ended with Judge Noreika hashing out the jury instructions and verdict form.
Today’s testimony included Qualcomm’s damage expert Patrick Kennedy, chip roadmap lead Manju Varma, and Arm’s EVP Mohamed Awad, all in person, and Qualcomm General Counsel Ann Chaplin, SVP Ziad Asghar, IP sourcing lead Kurt Wolf, CPU lead Gerard Williams, and CPU tester Jeff Golden, all on video.
Both parties will present their closing statements tomorrow, and the jury will begin deliberations and, hopefully, reach a verdict.
#qcomarm $QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm Case - Updates from Day 4 on my #TantrasMantra #blog:
More XXXXX, Companies Rest Their Case, and Other Considerations
bit.ly/4yeso4D
tldr: Summary of Day 4:
Most of the day was spent in a sealed courtroom, where the court likely discussed the harm Qualcomm claimed from an alleged ALA & TLA breach and tortious interference (Arm publicizing the license notice). The other topics discussed were Arm trying to prove that Qualcomm’s request for a TLA license extension was a ploy to get peripheral IP, and Qualcomm rebutting it, as well as Arm showing that it didn’t compete with Qualcomm for Meta data center business, as the former didn’t know Qualcomm’s data center chip plans.
Both parties rested their case, and Arm moved a motion for judgment in its favor, claiming Qualcomm did not meet its burden of proof. Qualcomm obviously opposed it, claiming there was enough evidence of harm. Finally, the day ended with Judge Noreika hashing out the jury instructions and verdict form.
Today’s testimony included Qualcomm’s damage expert Patrick Kennedy, chip roadmap lead Manju Varma, and Arm’s EVP Mohamed Awad, all in person, and Qualcomm General Counsel Ann Chaplin, SVP Ziad Asghar, IP sourcing lead Kurt Wolf, CPU lead Gerard Williams, and CPU tester Jeff Golden, all on video.
Both parties will present their closing statements tomorrow, and the jury will begin deliberations and, hopefully, reach a verdict.
#qcomarm $QCOM $ARM #licensing @TantraAnalyst
.@Qualcomm vs. @Arm Case - Updates from Day 3 on my #TantrasMantra #blog:
Focus on license rates, Judge’s Questions on Remedy, and XXXXXXXXXX
bit.ly/3Uflcar
tldr: Summary of Day 3:
Today was the most interesting day of the trial so far. So many things happened today. I witnessed some, but others were inside a sealed courtroom. The most interesting and likely consequential was Rene Haas’ testimony during a bench trial (without the jury), during which Judge Noreika asked Rene how she should believe his testimony that Arm wanted to work with Qualcomm to fight against the common enemy x86, in the wake of such negativity in the evidence presented (e.g., mentions of “enemy, ending ALA, etc.). Many interesting nuggets of information were also revealed during that testimony.
During a break, the Judge also asked Qualcomm what remedy it would seek if it won the ALA/TLA breach claims. She made it clear she would not be interested in setting the royalty rates. Qualcomm's lawyer promised a comprehensive reply tomorrow.
Another interesting point was that the courtroom was sealed several times at the request of @Meta, @Apple, @Samsung, and @Renesas’ representatives ((Hence the "xxxx" in the title!). including during testimony about the harm Qualcomm claimed at Meta.
Apart from that, today’s discussion focused mostly on how Arm calculated the licensing rates for the offer it presented to Qualcomm, the harm Qualcomm claims Arm’s letter and the @Bloomberg leak created at Meta, Arm’s view on the ALA licensing process, and more. The testimonies included Arm’s chief legal officer Spenser Collins, licensing rate expert Karthik Shivashankar, Qualcomm’s advisor Paul Wisener, Meta account lead Pavan Mulabagal, and, of course, the final session of Rene Haas.
$QCOM $ARM @TantraAnalyst #licensing