Now when lenovo is mentioned, the first impression that may appear in many people's minds is not the products released over the years, but the title of "AMERICAN IMPERIALIST CONSCIENCE THOUGHT".
Why is Lenovo called "American Imperialist Conscience Thought"? Is Lenovo really "the conscience of american imperialism"?
Not really.
Many netizens said that Lenovo is "the conscience of the US imperialists", mainly based on two aspects, one is that Lenovo has made a lot of unintelligible riot operations, and the other is that after the rumors appear on the Internet, Lenovo did not respond in time and debunked the rumors, resulting in a relatively poor inherent impression.
For example, when 5G first appeared, many people guided public opinion on the network, saying that the main reason why Huawei Polar code failed to become a 5G standard code was that Lenovo voted for Qualcomm at the 3GPP meeting, so that Huawei lost with a vote difference.
However, in fact, the three 5G meetings of the 3GPP 86, 86b and 87 were only discussed and did not vote.
Therefore, "because Lenovo voted for Qualcomm, Huawei lost the election by one vote" This matter is completely fictitious.
LDPC code
LDPC code is indeed led by Qualcomm, but in the most heated discussion of 86b and the final result of the 87 meetings, the leading sponsor of the LDPC code camp is not Qualcomm, but Samsung.
Why Qualcomm itself does not propose LDPC codes, from the number of patents, Samsung's technical accumulation in LDPC codes is far more than Qualcomm.
More notably, what kind of coding is a technical standard also involves the vital interests of each family. LDPC code was invented by Dr. Robert Gallager in the United States in 1963, the patent protection period is usually 20 years, which means that a large number of basic patents of LPDC code have long expired, and some derivative patents are also on the verge of expiration, choosing LDPC code as a standard, using enterprises can pay a lot less patent fees.
In addition, under the LDPC code, the number of Samsung patent applications ranked first with 216, Qualcomm ranked fourth with 57, and Huawei ranked fifth with 51.
So it's clear that LDPC is not Qualcomm's LDPC, nor is it Qualcomm's private property.
In addition, the reliability of LDPC coding technology has been effectively verified in the earlier 3G/4G era, so LPDC coding with low patent fees and guaranteed technical reliability is naturally more favored by enterprises.
Polar code
In the field of Polar coding technology, Huawei has the first number of patent applications, Ericsson second, InterDigital third, and Qualcomm fourth.
Polar code does not belong entirely to Huawei, each company has research and development, but Huawei technology patents are more and more powerful.
Polar was proposed by a Turkish professor in 2008 and has only been 14 years now, which means that a large number of basic patents are still in the protection period throughout the 5G life cycle.
If polar code becomes the standard, not only will everyone have to pay more patent fees, but the technical reliability has not been verified by practice for a long time.
In addition, LPDC code has been around for decades, and many Chinese companies have more or less technical accumulation in related aspects, and Polar code, as a newly proposed coding method, has not accumulated enough technology in Chinese enterprises except Huawei, and the investment is not much.
Therefore, choosing Polar code as the encoding method is only beneficial to Huawei, and it is not good for other domestic companies.
Therefore, based on technical reliability, price and its own technology accumulation, LPDC codes are supported at 86 meetings, including ZTE, vivo, and xiaomi.
At the 86b meeting, the meeting reached a preliminary consensus - LDPC code is used as a long code, including Huawei terminals and HiSilicon Semiconductor are supporting LPDC, as to whether the short code uses LPDC, Polar or Turbo, there is no conclusion.
At the 87th meeting, Huawei proposed to use LPDC code + Polar code as an eMBB data channel coding scheme, and after communicating with Huawei, Lenovo also joined the support camp, but the proposal was explicitly opposed by 14 companies including Qualcomm, LG, Samsung, and Intel, and the proposal was stranded.
Subsequently, Huawei no longer pursued data channel coding and turned to the control channel digital to use Polar, and finally the meeting reached a consensus - the data channel uses LPDC as the unique code, but does not rule out the possibility of subsequent use of other codes, Polar as the unique codec of the control channel.
It is true that the data channel is much more important than the control channel, but Huawei is not grainy.
So regardless of whether that "key vote" exists, and even if it exists, this is just a preliminary choice made by Lenovo based on the combination of technical reliability, price and its own technology accumulation, like other Chinese companies.
Can't everyone support the solution that knows that they have no technology accumulation, patent fee explosion, and brainless support for Huawei, right?
If Huawei wants to develop, other domestic companies also need to develop!
Since the "voting incident" is illusory, why did Lenovo not come out at the stage of development of the matter to refute the rumors, the official reason was that at that time, in the context of trade frictions, ZTE was sanctioned, and the US operators abandoned Huawei products, in order to avoid this matter being amplified, lenovo chose the most restrained response at that time.
Associating the negative way of coping, the direct result of the yellow mud falling into the crotch of the pants - not is also, and when you want to refute the rumors, everyone's inherent impression has been formed, and it is difficult to change this impression.
Is lenovo self-inflicted?
What do you think of this, welcome to leave a comment, we will see you in the comment area.