prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the main advantage of a horizontal business model for mobile devices?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: The future of mobile CPUs, part 1: Today’s fork in the road | Ars Technica
2013 may be a big year for the evolution of smartphones and tablets 
Mobile computing's rise from niche market to the mainstream is among the most significant technological trends in our lifetimes  And to a large extent, it's been driven by the bounty of Moore’s Law—the rule that transistor density doubles every 24 months  Initially, most mobile devices relied on highly specialized hardware to meet stringent power and size budgets  But with so many transistors available, devices inevitably grew general-purpose capabilities  Most likely, that wasn't even the real motivation  The initial desire was probably to reduce costs by creating a more flexible software ecosystem with better re-use and faster time to market  As such, the first smartphones were very much a novelty, and it took many years before the world realized the potential of such devices  Apple played a major role by creating innovative smartphones that consumers craved and quickly adopted 
To some extent, this is where we still stand today  Smartphones are still (relatively) expensive and primarily interesting to the developed world  But over the next 10 years, this too will change  As Moore’s Law rolls on, the cost of a low-end smartphone will decline  At some point, the incremental cost will be quite minimal and many feature phones of today will be supplanted by smartphones  A $650 unsubsidized phone is well beyond the reach of most of the world compared to a $20 feature phone, but a $30 to $40 smartphone would naturally be very popular 
In this grand progression, 2013 will certainly be a significant milestone for mobile devices, smartphones and beyond  It's likely to be the first year in which tablets out-ship notebooks in the US  And in the coming years, this will lead to a confluence of high-end tablets and ultra-mobile notebooks as the world figures out how these devices co-exist, blend, hybridize, and/or merge 
Against this backdrop, in this two-part series, we'll explore the major trends and evolution for mobile SoCs  More importantly, we'll look to where the major vendors are likely going in the next several years 
Tablet and phone divergence
While phones and tablets are mobile devices that often share a great deal of software, it's becoming increasingly clear the two are very different products  These two markets have started to diverge and will continue doing so over time 
From a technical perspective, smartphones are far more compact and power constrained  Smartphone SoCs are limited to around 1W, both by batteries and by thermal dissipation  The raison d’etre of a smartphone is connectivity, so a cellular modem is an absolute necessity  For the cost sensitive-models that make up the vast majority of the market, the modem is integrated into the SoC itself  High-end designs favor discrete modems with a greater power budget instead  The main smartphone OSes today are iOS and Android, though Windows is beginning to make an appearance (perhaps with Linux or BlackBerry on the horizon)  Just as importantly, phone vendors like HTC must pass government certification and win the approval of carriers  There is very much a walled-garden aspect, where carriers control which devices can be attached to their networks, and in some cases devices can only be sold through a certain carrier  The business model places consumers quite far removed from the actual hardware 
In contrast, tablets are far more akin to the PC both technically and economically  The power budget for tablet SoCs is much greater, up to 4W for a passively cooled device and as high as 7-8W for systems with fans  This alone means there is a much wider range of tablet designs than smartphones  Moreover, the default connectivity for tablets is Wi-Fi rather than a cellular modem  The vast majority of tablets do not have cellular modems, and even fewer customers actually purchase a wireless data plan  As a result, cellular modems are almost always optional discrete components of the platform  The software ecosystem is relatively similar, with Microsoft, Apple, and Google OSes available  Because tablets eschew cellular modems, the time to market is faster, and they are much more commonly sold directly to consumers rather than through carriers  In terms of usage models, tablets are much more PC-like, with reasonable-sized screens that make games and media more attractive 
Looking forward, these distinctions will likely become more pronounced  Many tablets today use high-end smartphone SoCs, but the difference in power targets and expected performance is quite large  As the markets grow in volume, SoCs will inevitably bifurcate to focus on one market or the other  Even today, Apple is doing so, with the A6 for phones and the larger A6X for tablets  Other vendors may need to wait a few years to have the requisite volume, but eventually the two markets will be clearly separate 
Horizontal business model evolution
Another aspect of the mobile device market that is currently in flux and likely to change in the coming years is the business model for the chip and system vendors  Currently, Apple is the only company truly pursuing a vertically integrated model, where all phones and tablets are based on Apple’s own SoC designs and iOS  The tight integration between hardware and software has been a huge boon for Apple, and it has yielded superb products 
Samsung is one of the few others companies that takes a vertically integrated approach to phones and tablets, although in truth its strategy seems to be ambivalent on that point  Unlike Apple, Samsung’s SoCs are readily available to third parties, and some Samsung devices, such as the S7562 Galaxy S Duos, use SoCs from competitors  More recently though, there has been a trend of Samsung devices using Samsung SoCs, at least for the premier products  For the moment, Samsung’s approach is best characterized as a hybrid, particularly as the company lacks a bespoke OS 
The rest of the major SoC vendors (e g , Intel, Qualcomm, Nvidia, TI, Mediatek, etc ) have stayed pretty far away from actual mobile devices  These companies tend to focus on horizontal business models that avoid competing with customers or suppliers 
In the long term, mobile devices are likely to evolve similarly to the PC and favor a horizontal business model  The real advantage is one of flexibility; as costs drop and the market expands, it will be increasingly necessary for vendors like HTC to offer a wide range of phones based on radically different SoCs  While a vertically integrated company like Apple can focus and maintain leadership in a specific (and highly lucrative) niche, it would be very difficult to expand in many growing areas of the market  The differences between an iPhone 6 and a $20 feature phone are tremendous and would be very difficult for a single company to bridge 
However, SoC vendors will attempt to reap the benefits of vertical integration by providing complete reference platforms to OEMs  Conceptually, this is a form of "optional" system integration, where the phone vendor or carrier can get the entire platform from the SoC supplier  This has the principal advantages of reducing time to market while also providing a baseline quality and experience for consumers  Currently, this approach has mostly been tested in emerging markets, but it's likely to become more common over time  There is a crucial distinction between reference platforms and vertical integration  Namely, OEMs can always choose to customize a platform to differentiate, and the SoC vendor avoids dealing with consumers directly  Typically, most of the customization is in terms of software on top of a base operating system 
Quote:Moreover, that will make the transition to a 10nm node even more difficult, as the foundries will have to move from 20nm interconnects to 10nm interconnects and skip a generation The advances in technology lately allowing components on such a small scale to even be envisioned, much less planned for, are truly amazing 
Off topic: show
I present the first generation 'non-technical' rock:
I don't think your horizontal market development theory is supported by facts  Samsung and Apple are more vertically oriented than their competition, for starters  I know this article is narrowly focused on the hardware, but MS and Intel getting into hardware, Amazon getting into hardware, Google buying Moto, this is all vertical integration  How can you support the idea that this trend will be reversed with no real justification? I'm sure mobile chips will continue to specialize, but I don't think this means what you think it means  Automobile companies started making their own engines and with rare exceptions, never went back to being more horizontal  Same with retail and their store brands  Same with cloud companies and their servers  Same with mobile companies and their OSs  The horizontal market of PCs created by long-lasting standards and loose hegemony is the exception, not the norm 
Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?
I'm not so sure about several things:1- Moore's law's relevance  Moore's Law is about ICs  ICs are not as big a part of mobile computers as they are of desktops, even of laptops: screens, batteries, radios are a huge part of tablets' and phones' costs, as opposed to the bare SoC + RAM 2- The tablet vs phone dichotomy  For some reason (probably price insensitivity due to subsidies), Phones have a tendency to be more powerful than Tablets, ie phone SoCs are more than good enough for tablets  Since the OS and peripherals are the same, it makes more sense to design and build just one type of SoC, and just disable the phone-modem part of it (even the other radios are still required: BT, Wifi, GPS   ), same as Intel disable cache and cores for their entry-level CPUs  Once you're fabbing a SoC, it makes more sense to make more of the same than to setup a separate run of a cut-down SoC on an older process, unless volumes are huge  We might still be getting previous-generation, well amortized SoCs in cheaper tablets, though 3- On the contrary, I see a tablet and phone convergence (the ugly phablet)  I'm patiently waiting for the new 6"+ phones to replace my Nook Color and Galaxy Note 1 with a single device 4- The advantage of diversity ? Software is becoming ever more important than hardware  Multiplying SoCs means multiplying product development costs, making support and updates more difficult    Again, unless volumes are huge, OEMs are probaly better off going the way of the car industry and using modular "platforms" housed in different chassis with various screen sizes, keyboards, radios, digitizers   I'm wondering why the "single device" trend does not figure in your analysis  Is it stillborn ? Does it have no impact nor dependency on/with SoCs ?
Samsung has its own bespoke OS: Bada and it is used on an extensive line of devices  I think there are numbers somewhere that it outsold Windows Phone 7 for a time 
gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?First mover advantage 
SoC? System on a Chip I guess?
You're way off on the Moore's Law/cost of smartphones point  The processors used in today's high-end smartphones are already cheap, around $25  And there are less expensive options if you want a lower end product  In fact, the hardware in the whole smartphone is relatively cheap  Analyst's estimate the Z10's materials cost around $160, the iPhone 5 around $140  They're using expensive glass and metals, then there's the battery, memory, etc  which means the processor is a small factor of the cost And then there's the jump from $140 in materials to the unsubsidized costs  The reason these phones cost $650 is because of the high margins these companies are able to get and the high cost of hardware design and/or software development  But the point is that making the processors 4 times better/cheaper isn't going to change the economics of the smartphone  What will change the economics is commoditized designs and software and cheaper materials all around  Then you'll have a $50 smartphone that's decent 
Last edited by ggeezz on Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:17 am
bigterp wrote:SoC? System on a Chip I guess?Yup 
gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?Money and momentum, the x86 market is a huge money maker for Intel so it is able to recoup its huge investments for advanced foundries 
Quote:Currently, the only products using 3D integration are FPGAs from Xilinx,Doesn't Sony use it in the PS Vita? I thought I read somewhere that they had the CPU, main memory (2 dies) and video memory, so 4 dies in total, sitting on top of each other all on the same chip 
renoX wrote:gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?Money and momentum, the x86 market is a huge money maker for Intel so it is able to recoup its huge investments for advanced foundries Exactly and I would clarify that it's all about margins, the difference between what it costs to make a chip and what it sells for  The margins for desktop and server processors is huge because a) the whole product is expensive so $200 to $1000 for the chip is acceptable, and b) Intel has huge advantages in that space and little competition So Intel can afford to do the R&D to stay ahead of the curve and keep their position  When your smartphone chip sells for $25 you can't do the R&D to leapfrog a company that sells Xeons for $1000 and Core i5's for $200 
I am happy to see Kanter here at Ars, I like his writing and he maintains Real World Tech, where Linus Torvalds often shows up to comment on CPU arch and other interesting topics 
ggeezz wrote:renoX wrote:gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?Money and momentum, the x86 market is a huge money maker for Intel so it is able to recoup its huge investments for advanced foundries Exactly and I would clarify that it's all about margins, the difference between what it costs to make a chip and what it sells for  The margins for desktop and server processors is huge because a) the whole product is expensive so $200 to $1000 for the chip is acceptable, and b) Intel has huge advantages in that space and little competition So Intel can afford to do the R&D to stay ahead of the curve and keep their position  When your smartphone chip sells for $25 you can't do the R&D to leapfrog a company that sells Xeons for $1000 and Core i5's for $200 Spot on Intel are able to piggyback other development efforts off the highly lucrative mainstream x86 market which generates the huge sums of money to fund their amazing fab technology The question for the future is how the economics will stack up when overall device costs fall significantly and there is a big downward pressure on SoC prices  In that situation, can Intel still justify bringing their A-game to a market where products are essentially commoditised and you have processors selling for a only a few dollars each?The lesson from their previous involvement in the DRAM market is that they probably won't want to be involved because there isn't enough money to be made to justify manufacturing phone SoCs on a cutting edge, or near cutting edge process  In that scenario, Intel may not totally abandon the market but they might just stick to manufacturing SoCs on nodes that are a step or two behind the state of the art 
solomonrex wrote:I don't think your horizontal market development theory is supported by facts  Samsung and Apple are more vertically oriented than their competition, for starters  I know this article is narrowly focused on the hardware, but MS and Intel getting into hardware, Amazon getting into hardware, Google buying Moto, this is all vertical integration  How can you support the idea that this trend will be reversed with no real justification? I'm sure mobile chips will continue to specialize, but I don't think this means what you think it means  Automobile companies started making their own engines and with rare exceptions, never went back to being more horizontal  Same with retail and their store brands  Same with cloud companies and their servers  Same with mobile companies and their OSs  The horizontal market of PCs created by long-lasting standards and loose hegemony is the exception, not the norm Yea, each year Amazon, MS, Apple and Google look more and more the same 
Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that 
gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?Intel's called Chipzilla for a reason up
Lagrange wrote:The question for the future is how the economics will stack up when overall device costs fall significantly and there is a big downward pressure on SoC prices  In that situation, can Intel still justify bringing their A-game to a market where products are essentially commoditised and you have processors selling for a only a few dollars each?The lesson from their previous involvement in the DRAM market is that they probably won't want to be involved because there isn't enough money to be made to justify manufacturing phone SoCs on a cutting edge, or near cutting edge process  In that scenario, Intel may not totally abandon the market but they might just stick to manufacturing SoCs on nodes that are a step or two behind the state of the art I think the processing is a bigger advantage than many realize  If Intel can stay ahead in process design - which this article seems to indicate - they should have a major advantage  All else being equal a 14nm chip should be significantly faster and more efficient than the same chip at 22nm  Add in the fact that yields increase geometrically - you can fit a lot more 14nm chips on a given wafer size vs 22nm (or 32nm for the other manufacturers ) and you have a very appealing proposition  And then add in the fact that Intel actually has a pretty good graphics stack and IP  It's not a sure thing by any means, but I suspect ARM may have just prodded a sleeping giant edit: Also worth noting, Intel, TSMC, and Samsung are the only manufacturers who are building out 450nm wafers  This will increase yields dramatically  Of course Samsung and TSMC will build ARM out, but it definitely puts quite a bit of pressure on all other manufacturers  As the article mentions Intel and Samsung are the only ones who control production top to bottom, and Samsung must share some of the benefits with ARM 
As someone who has worked in the semiconductor industry for longer than contemporary fanboys have existed, I'm getting a bit fed-up seeing many of these articles which rewrite history with analyses distorted by the lens of the contemporary Apple or Samsung fanboy The mobile industry moved to horizontal integration a long time ago  Better indicators than these odd contemporary obsessions with the relatively non-innovative Samsung and Apple where when Motorola spun out its semiconductor division as Freescale, Nokia stopped making it's own custom designs with TI and ST, and Ericsson spun out it's Ericsson Mobile Platforms division and formed ST-Ericsson with ST The true innovation in the mobile market was done a decade or more ago mainly by Moto/Nokia/Ericsson/TI/Qualcomm, and Samsung and Apple had little to do with it  Under the hood most stuff has been on a simple linear evolutionary path by the SoC providers since then  The phone manufacturers have then mainly been simply sticking these off-the-shelf SoCs (and their included low-level software stacks) in a box, a job made all the easier with the SoC manufacturer collaboration providing the bulk of the work for the AOSP 
Last edited by paul5ra on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:06 am
introiboad wrote:I am happy to see Kanter here at Ars, I like his writing and he maintains Real World Tech, where Linus Torvalds often shows up to comment on CPU arch and other interesting topics Indeed  Most tech writing in this area is atrocious  This piece is one of the few well informed articles I've read in a long time 
ggeezz wrote:Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that The word you're looking for is Haswell, as far as I know 
Mabsark
ggeezz wrote:Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that Actually, that trend will not simply keep increasing going forward  The reason desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing is due to the fact that most people already have one and therefore don't need to buy another one  The exact same thing will happen with tablets as well  Sales are increasing now because people without tablets are buying them  When most people already own a tablet, they won't be buying a new one every year and therefore sales will stagnate/decrease The PC market is saturated and in a couple of years, the tablet market will be saturated too  Basically, in order to increase sales in a saturated market, you need to increase the population growth or decrease the longevity of the product 
gypsumfantastic wrote:Why wouldn't the foundries be able close the process gap with Intel? Is it a matter of money? Scale?Probably a mix of a lot of things  One big thing was during this recession, Intel was the ONLY fab company that didn't scale back their R&D  That alone gave Intel a large advantage Intel has almost always been ahead  One of the reasons could be that Intel works with much higher margins than many of the commodity companies like Samsung and TSMC Outside of the P4 flop and some of the monopolistic abuses, Intel has typically been selling to high end customers that are willing to pay a premium for "the best" Intel has a large benefit of having a relatively "good name" when it comes to CPUs, so they can effectively charge a brand-name premium I'm sure there are other reasons, and probably better reasons, but these are the main ones that I think of 
Mabsark wrote:Actually, that trend will not simply keep increasing going forward  The reason desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing is due to the fact that most people already have one and therefore don't need to buy another one  The exact same thing will happen with tablets as well  Sales are increasing now because people without tablets are buying them  When most people already own a tablet, they won't be buying a new one every year and therefore sales will stagnate/decrease The PC market is saturated and in a couple of years, the tablet market will be saturated too  Basically, in order to increase sales in a saturated market, you need to increase the population growth or decrease the longevity of the product That's true as long as most people are still buying both a tablet and a laptop when each needs to be replaced  I think the assumption is that, as you say, the tablet market will saturate, with people just replacing existing ones, but the desktop/laptop market could decrease much farther than that, if most people stop replacing them at all  I'm not sure of the likelihood of that, but I think that's where this idea comes from 
ggeezz wrote:Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that The upcoming Haswell chip is showing to consume 1/3 the power of IvyBridge at peak, consumes 1/20th the power at idle, all the while maintaining Identical or better performance This chip should actually compete with ARM CPUs on both power/performance and idle I am expecting a large war 
Apple once again is dictating the performance in the mobile industry  Nice to see others being able to keep the pace, as well 
paul5ra wrote:As someone who has worked in the semiconductor industry for longer than contemporary fanboys have existed, I'm getting a bit fed-up seeing many of these articles which rewrite history with analyses distorted by the lens of the contemporary Apple or Samsung fanboy The mobile industry moved to horizontal integration a long time ago  Better indicators than these odd contemporary obsessions with the relatively non-innovative Samsung and Apple where when Motorola spun out its semiconductor division as Freescale, Nokia stopped making it's own custom designs with TI and ST, and Ericsson spun out it's Ericsson Mobile Platforms division and formed ST-Ericsson with ST The true innovation in the mobile market was done a decade or more ago mainly by Moto/Nokia/Ericsson/TI/Qualcomm, and Samsung and Apple had little to do with it  Under the hood most stuff has been on a simple evolutionary path by the SoC providers since then Yeah, and most of the innovation in the automobile industry came about before Henry Ford came into the business  Doesn't change the fact that cars would probably have been an asterisk in the history books under "toys for rich people" if it weren't for him The same applies to to mobile computing for Apple, Samsung, et al 
SheldonRoss wrote:Lagrange wrote:The question for the future is how the economics will stack up when overall device costs fall significantly and there is a big downward pressure on SoC prices  In that situation, can Intel still justify bringing their A-game to a market where products are essentially commoditised and you have processors selling for a only a few dollars each?The lesson from their previous involvement in the DRAM market is that they probably won't want to be involved because there isn't enough money to be made to justify manufacturing phone SoCs on a cutting edge, or near cutting edge process  In that scenario, Intel may not totally abandon the market but they might just stick to manufacturing SoCs on nodes that are a step or two behind the state of the art I think the processing is a bigger advantage than many realize  If Intel can stay ahead in process design - which this article seems to indicate - they should have a major advantage  All else being equal a 14nm chip should be significantly faster and more efficient than the same chip at 22nm  Add in the fact that yields increase geometrically - you can fit a lot more 14nm chips on a given wafer size vs 22nm (or 32nm for the other manufacturers ) and you have a very appealing proposition  And then add in the fact that Intel actually has a pretty good graphics stack and IP  My point was that Intel might have a one or two process advantage over the rest of the industry at the cutting edge but that doesn't mean that they can afford to manufacture on those processes for very low margin parts  If the SoC market becomes increasingly commoditised, there isn't going to be the money to justify making them in a state of the art fab Remember that one of the big selling points of Itanium was that it would make use of process advantages that were effectively paid for by the mainstream x86 market  That didn't quite work out in practice and Itanium processors were often well behind Xeons in process technology 
paul5ra wrote:As someone who has worked in the semiconductor industry for longer than contemporary fanboys have existed, I'm getting a bit fed-up seeing many of these articles which rewrite history with analyses distorted by the lens of the contemporary Apple or Samsung fanboy The mobile industry moved to horizontal integration a long time ago  Better indicators than these odd contemporary obsessions with the relatively non-innovative Samsung and Apple where when Motorola spun out its semiconductor division as Freescale, Nokia stopped making it's own custom designs with TI and ST, and Ericsson spun out it's Ericsson Mobile Platforms division and formed ST-Ericsson with ST The true innovation in the mobile market was done a decade or more ago mainly by Moto/Nokia/Ericsson/TI/Qualcomm, and Samsung and Apple had little to do with it  Under the hood most stuff has been on a simple linear evolutionary path by the SoC providers since then  The phone manufacturers have then mainly been simply sticking these off-the-shelf SoCs (and their included low-level software stacks) in a box, a job made all the easier with the SoC manufacturer collaboration providing the bulk of the work for the AOSP Just goes to show that people who have worked in an industry for a long time don't always understand what that industry is doing You haven't been working in it long enough to seem to know that it was Acorn and Apple that invented the mobile ARM CPU in the first place  All those companies you've mentioned have just been working off Acorn and Apple's pioneering work  Now, Apple is back at it again, very successfully, and all the companies you mentioned that produce chips with ARM IP in them are licensing them from the company Acorn and Apple formed—ARM 
Last edited by melgross on Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:13 am
Mark Havel wrote:ggeezz wrote:Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that The word you're looking for is Haswell, as far as I know If tablets move into the $100-200 range, is there going to be room for Haswell?So long as there is a higher-end tablet market, then Haswell will be able to shine, but it's going to be a much more powerful and costly part than the sort of ARM based hardware that often runs tablets  If we see a race to the bottom where price is the dominant motivator behind purchases, then a high performance SoC will struggle to make its mark 
melgross wrote:paul5ra wrote:As someone who has worked in the semiconductor industry for longer than contemporary fanboys have existed, I'm getting a bit fed-up seeing many of these articles which rewrite history with analyses distorted by the lens of the contemporary Apple or Samsung fanboy The mobile industry moved to horizontal integration a long time ago  Better indicators than these odd contemporary obsessions with the relatively non-innovative Samsung and Apple where when Motorola spun out its semiconductor division as Freescale, Nokia stopped making it's own custom designs with TI and ST, and Ericsson spun out it's Ericsson Mobile Platforms division and formed ST-Ericsson with ST The true innovation in the mobile market was done a decade or more ago mainly by Moto/Nokia/Ericsson/TI/Qualcomm, and Samsung and Apple had little to do with it  Under the hood most stuff has been on a simple linear evolutionary path by the SoC providers since then  The phone manufacturers have then mainly been simply sticking these off-the-shelf SoCs (and their included low-level software stacks) in a box, a job made all the easier with the SoC manufacturer collaboration providing the bulk of the work for the AOSP Just goes to show that people who have worked in an industry for a long time don't always understand what that industry is doing You haven't been working in it long enough to seem to know that it was Acorn and Apple that invented the mobile ARM CPU in the first place  All those companies you've mentioned have just been working off Acorn and Apple's pioneering work  Now, Apple is back at it again, very successfully, and all the companies you mentioned that produce chips with ARM IP in them are licensing them from the company Acorn and Apple formed—ARM Of course I realise ARM IP has indeed been a major driving factor too (though only one if several architectures before ARM became dominant), though I see ARM's influence on the mobile industry as having nothing to do with modern day Apple and only one small piece of the puzzle  My point is that the hard electrical engineering, mathematics, DSP, semiconductor physics/chemistry, RF engineering, analogue design, CAD etc  that make modern telecommunications possible has very little to do with the fashion companies who consumers (and unfortunately much of the tech media) associate with it and give the credit (though in this respect Samsung does deserve a bit more credit for their work on NAND flash and displays)  The industry simply would not exist TODAY without the overwhelming horizontal integration that already dominates 
Quote:In the long term, mobile devices are likely to evolve similarly to the PC and favor a horizontal business model  The real advantage is one of flexibility; as costs drop and the market expands, it will be increasingly necessary for vendors like HTC to offer a wide range of phones based on radically different SoCs  You don't mention in the article that each SoC necessarily requires a bit of parallel dev work unlike the PC  In the PC world there is a standard BIOS and HW architecture that allows for pluggable designs  On a highly integrated SoC this is untrue  HTC suffers because it has to support radically different SoCs, their drivers and boot loaders, etc  Quote:While a vertically integrated company like Apple can focus and maintain leadership in a specific (and highly lucrative) niche, it would be very difficult to expand in many growing areas of the market  The differences between an iPhone 6 and a $20 feature phone are tremendous and would be very difficult for a single company to bridge It's only difficult because Apple chooses to ignore that market, not because they can't  If they can release a $99 Apple TV, they can surely cobble together a $20 feature phone if they chose to eschew 8GB of NAND, BT, WiFi, a specialized dock connector, LTE, and their specialized processors  In other words, build the equivalent of an iPod shuffle with a horrible screen and no OS to speak of 
paul5ra wrote:melgross wrote:paul5ra wrote:As someone who has worked in the semiconductor industry for longer than contemporary fanboys have existed, I'm getting a bit fed-up seeing many of these articles which rewrite history with analyses distorted by the lens of the contemporary Apple or Samsung fanboy The mobile industry moved to horizontal integration a long time ago  Better indicators than these odd contemporary obsessions with the relatively non-innovative Samsung and Apple where when Motorola spun out its semiconductor division as Freescale, Nokia stopped making it's own custom designs with TI and ST, and Ericsson spun out it's Ericsson Mobile Platforms division and formed ST-Ericsson with ST The true innovation in the mobile market was done a decade or more ago mainly by Moto/Nokia/Ericsson/TI/Qualcomm, and Samsung and Apple had little to do with it  Under the hood most stuff has been on a simple linear evolutionary path by the SoC providers since then  The phone manufacturers have then mainly been simply sticking these off-the-shelf SoCs (and their included low-level software stacks) in a box, a job made all the easier with the SoC manufacturer collaboration providing the bulk of the work for the AOSP Just goes to show that people who have worked in an industry for a long time don't always understand what that industry is doing You haven't been working in it long enough to seem to know that it was Acorn and Apple that invented the mobile ARM CPU in the first place  All those companies you've mentioned have just been working off Acorn and Apple's pioneering work  Now, Apple is back at it again, very successfully, and all the companies you mentioned that produce chips with ARM IP in them are licensing them from the company Acorn and Apple formed—ARM Of course I realise ARM IP has indeed been a major driving factor too (though only one if several architectures before ARM became dominant), though I see ARM's influence on the mobile industry as having nothing to do with modern day Apple and only one piece of the puzzle  My point is that the hard electrical engineering, mathematics, DSP, semiconductor physics/chemistry, RF engineering, analogue design,etc  that make modern telecommunications possible has very little to do with the fashion companies who consumers (and unfortunately much of the tech media) associate with it and give the credit (though in this respect Samsung does deserve a bit more credit for their work on NAND flash and displays)  The industry simply would not exist TODAY without the overwhelming horizontal integration that already dominates Yes the efforts of these companies getting cellular communications standardized were immense  And the technology matured  And then they didn't do much with it  It took some youngin's to look at the problem fresh and add the UI that make today's smartphones work  As we have all seen, the moment your technology has matured is the moment you are screwed because someone else now has the opportunity to look at it as a black box and make something new  Each of those manufacturers knew that smartphones would eventually be awesome, but none of them had the UI and software design to make a truly breakout product  Imagine if Motorola would have been smart enough to buy the Android guys instead of Google  Instead, Google bought a bunch of patents on that cellular black box to try to defend it's platform And when you think about it, which consumes more man years of engineering effort per year at this point     iterating that cellular black box or developing the OS, services and apps that power today's smartphones?
Intel had better decide that they are competing in this space "for real", or they are screwed  They've already let the Atom languish for five years, during which ARM has completely caught up in performance Just like Tim Cook said, if you don't cannibalize your own markets someone else will do it for you Whether Intel will embrace that concept in time remains to be seen  Personally, I hope they don't; if Intel transforms into a chipless Fab company (like TSMC) everyone benefits 
I still think Samsung has the advantage long term because they have both the SOC and the memory products  As mentioned in the article, TSV's (Through Silicon Via's) are going to be quite a disruption  Today, people normally stack an LPDDR2 package on top of their SOC package (POP or Package On Package)  Within the LPDDR2 package, you could have a stack of DRAM die typically with wire bonding connecting the die within the package Once you more to TSV's, you can have a LOT more connections between the SOC and its DRAM's  While this is being standardized through JEDEC (http://www jedec org/category/technolog     a/3d-ics-0), Samsung has all the pieces in house to do whatever they want  You could see a 512 bit or higher bus from the SOC to the memory  The trick is that the memory and the SOC need to line up with each other when you stack them  This gives Samsung an inherent advantage This isn't just going to impact mobile either  Take a look at that JEDEC link  It also lists High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)  This is a 1024 bit bus that provides 128GBytes/s to 256GBytes/s of bandwidth to a stack of up to 8 DRAM's  Here is your processor that includes 8-16 cores and 4GBytes of really, really, fast DRAM    No DIMMs required  How many of them do you want in your server rack?If I was Intel or Apple, I would be thinking seriously about making some investments in Micron to guarantee they make some compelling DRAM's to integrate with their SOC's and processors    otherwise Samsung is going to blow them out of the water on bandwidth 
Great_Scott wrote:Intel had better decide that they are competing in this space "for real", or they are screwed  They've already let the Atom languish for five years, during which ARM has completely caught up in performance Just like Tim Cook said, if you don't cannibalize your own markets someone else will do it for you Whether Intel will embrace that concept in time remains to be seen  Personally, I hope they don't; if Intel transforms into a chipless Fab company (like TSMC) everyone benefits It's true that Atom has stood still for too long, but honestly it's pretty amazing how Atom is still competitive with current ARM chips  The Z2760 is even 32nm vs 28nm of the latest Krait and A15 chips But that's all changing with Atom moving to the tick tock schedule this year  It wouldn't even surprise me to see Apple move to Intel chips for IOS And I don't see how Intel moving to a chipless Fab company would help everyone  It certainly wouldn't help Intel 
Mabsark wrote:ggeezz wrote:Intel cannot abandon the phone/tablet market  Desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing and phones/tablets are on the rise  This trend is only going to increase going forward But you're right, they're going to have use their fabs that are a step or two behind the cutting the edge  But they're going to have to up their game in the tablet space to even be able to do that Actually, that trend will not simply keep increasing going forward  The reason desktop/laptop sales are stagnating/decreasing is due to the fact that most people already have one and therefore don't need to buy another one  The exact same thing will happen with tablets as well  Sales are increasing now because people without tablets are buying them  When most people already own a tablet, they won't be buying a new one every year and therefore sales will stagnate/decrease The PC market is saturated and in a couple of years, the tablet market will be saturated too  Basically, in order to increase sales in a saturated market, you need to increase the population growth or decrease the longevity of the product Yes and no  I'm not sure the tablet market will saturate in a "couple of years " It may be more like 5 years  But that's a quibble Here's the real issue  Right now Apple wants you to own an iPhone AND iPad AND Macbook AND iWatch AND Apple TV  Microsoft, OTOH, is making the Surface so that you could ditch your laptop and just use a Surface  Not everyone, but some people If 5 years from now, we're in a world where a significant number of people use a Surface-type device instead of a laptop, then the PC market is going to contract significantly  Maybe some of the tablet-like devices will use moderately expensive Intel chips, but some of them are going to use cheaper chips 
GravyGraphics wrote:I still think Samsung has the advantage long term because they have both the SOC and the memory products  As mentioned in the article, TSV's (Through Silicon Via's) are going to be quite a disruption  Today, people normally stack an LPDDR2 package on top of their SOC package (POP or Package On Package)  Within the LPDDR2 package, you could have a stack of DRAM die typically with wire bonding connecting the die within the package Once you more to TSV's, you can have a LOT more connections between the SOC and its DRAM's  While this is being standardized through JEDEC (http://www jedec org/category/technolog     a/3d-ics-0), Samsung has all the pieces in house to do whatever they want  You could see a 512 bit or higher bus from the SOC to the memory  The trick is that the memory and the SOC need to line up with each other when you stack them  This gives Samsung an inherent advantage This isn't just going to impact mobile either  Take a look at that JEDEC link  It also lists High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)  This is a 1024 bit bus that provides 128GBytes/s to 256GBytes/s of bandwidth to a stack of up to 8 DRAM's  Here is your processor that includes 8-16 cores and 4GBytes of really, really, fast DRAM    No DIMMs required  How many of them do you want in your server rack?If I was Intel or Apple, I would be thinking seriously about making some investments in Micron to guarantee they make some compelling DRAM's to integrate with their SOC's and processors    otherwise Samsung is going to blow them out of the water on bandwidth Why not AMD? Last I checked they still made memory   and processors/GPUs 
Context 2: Margaret Way (b  Brisbane d  Cleveland, Queensland, Australia ) was an Australian writer of romance novels and women's fiction  A prolific author, Way wrote more than 120 novels since 1970, many through Mills & Boon, a romance imprint of British publisher Harlequin UK Ltd , owned by Harlequin Enterprises 

Biography
Before her marriage, she was a well-known pianist, teacher, vocal coach and accompanist  She began writing when her son, Laurence Way, was born, a friend took a pile of Mills & Boon books to her, she read all and decided that she also could write these types of novels  She began to write and promote her country with her stories set in Australia  She sold her first novels in 1970  Margaret Way lives with her family in her native Brisbane  Beginning in 2013, Margaret began to self-publish, releasing her first "e-book" mid-July 

Margaret died on the 10th of August 2022 in Cleveland, Queensland 

Bibliography

Single Novels
King Country (1970)
Blaze of Silk (1970)
The Time of the Jacaranda (1970)
Bauhinia Junction (1971)
Man from Bahl Bahla (1971)
Summer Magic (1971)
Return to Belle Amber (1971)
Ring of Jade (1972)
Copper Moon (1972)
Rainbow Bird (1972)
Man Like Daintree (1972)
Noonfire (1972)
Storm Over Mandargi (1973)
Wind River (1973)
Love Theme (1974)
McCabe's Kingdom (1974)
Sweet Sundown (1974)
Reeds of Honey (1975)
Storm Flower (1975)
Lesson in Loving (1975)
Flight into Yesterday (1976)
Red Cliffs of Malpara (1976)
Man on Half-moon (1976)
Swan's Reach (1976)
Mutiny in Paradise (1977)
One Way Ticket (1977)
Portrait of Jaime (1977)
Black Ingo (1977)
Awakening Flame (1978)
Wild Swan (1978)
Ring of Fire (1978)
Wake the Sleeping Tiger (1978)
Valley of the Moon (1979)
White Magnolia (1979)
Winds of Heaven (1979)
Blue Lotus (1979)
Butterfly and the Baron (1979)
Golden Puma (1980)
Temple of Fire (1980)
Lord of the High Valley (1980)
Flamingo Park (1980)
North of Capricorn (1981)
Season for Change (1981)
Shadow Dance (1981)
McIvor Affair (1981)
Home to Morning Star (1981)
Broken Rhapsody (1982)
The Silver Veil (1982)
Spellbound (1982)
Hunter's Moon (1982)
Girl at Cobalt Creek (1983)
No Alternative (1983)
House of Memories (1983)
Almost a Stranger (1984)
A place called Rambulara (1984)
Fallen Idol (1984)
Hunt the Sun (1985)
Eagle's Ridge (1985)
The Tiger's Cage (1986)
Innocent in Eden (1986)
Diamond Valley (1986)
Morning Glory (1988)
Devil Moon (1988)
Mowana Magic (1988)
Hungry Heart (1988)
Rise of an Eagle (1988)
One Fateful Summer (1993)
The Carradine Brand (1994)
Holding on to Alex (1997)
The Australian Heiress (1997)
Claiming His Child (1999)
The Cattleman's Bride (2000)
The Cattle Baron (2001)
The Husbands of the Outback (2001)
Secrets of the Outback (2002)
With This Ring (2003)
Innocent Mistress (2004)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)
Outback Marriages (2007)
Promoted: Nanny to Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Secret Son (2007)
Genni's Dilemma (2008)
Bride At Briar Ridge (2009)
Outback Heiress, Surprise Proposal (2009)
Cattle Baron, Nanny Needed (2009)

Legends of the Outback Series
Mail Order Marriage (1999)
The Bridesmaid's Wedding (2000)
The English Bride (2000)
A Wife at Kimbara (2000)

Koomera Crossing Series
Sarah's Baby (2003)
Runaway Wife (2003)
Outback Bridegroom (2003)
Outback Surrender (2003)
Home to Eden (2004)

McIvor Sisters Series
The Outback Engagement (2005)
Marriage at Murraree (2005)

Men Of The Outback Series
The Cattleman (2006)
The Cattle Baron's Bride (2006)
Her Outback Protector (2006)
The Horseman (2006)

Outback Marriages Series
Outback Man Seeks Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)

Barons of the Outback Series Multi-Author
Wedding At Wangaree Valley (2008)
Bride At Briar's Ridge (2008)

Family Ties Multi-Author
Once Burned (1995)

Hitched! Multi-Author
A Faulkner Possession (1996)

Simply the Best Multi-Author
Georgia and the Tycoon (1997)

The Big Event Multi-Author
Beresford's Bride (1998)

Guardian Angels Multi-Author
Gabriel's Mission (1998)

Australians Series Multi-Author
7  Her Outback Man (1998)
17  Master of Maramba (2001)
19  Outback Fire (2001)
22  Mistaken Mistress (2002)
24  Outback Angel (2002)
33  The Australian Tycoon's Proposal (2004)
35  His Heiress Wife (2004)

Marrying the Boss Series Multi-Author
Boardroom Proposal (1999)

Contract Brides Series Multi-Author
Strategy for Marriage (2002)

Everlasting Love Series Multi-Author
Hidden Legacy (2008)

Diamond Brides Series Multi-Author
The Australian's Society Bride (2008)

Collections
Summer Magic / Ring of Jade / Noonfire (1981)
Wife at Kimbara / Bridesmaid's Wedding (2005)

Omnibus in Collaboration
Pretty Witch / Without Any Amazement / Storm Over Mandargi (1977) (with Lucy Gillen and Margaret Malcolm)
Dear Caliban / Heart of the Eagle / Swans' Reach (1978) (with Jane Donnelly and Elizabeth Graham)
The Bonds of Matrimony / Dragon Island / Reeds of Honey (1979) (with Elizabeth Hunter and Henrietta Reid)
The Man Outside / Castles in Spain / McCabe's Kingdom (1979) (with Jane Donnelly and Rebecca Stratton)
Winds From The Sea / Island of Darkness / Wind River (1979) (with Margaret Pargeter and Rebecca Stratton)
Moorland Magic / Tree of Idleness / Sweet Sundown (1980) (with Elizabeth Ashton and Elizabeth Hunter)
The Shifting Sands / Portrait of Jaime / Touched by Fire (1982) (with Jane Donnelly and Kay Thorpe)
Head of Chancery / Wild Heart / One-Way Ticket (1986) (with Betty Beaty and Doris Smith)
Heart of the Scorpion / The Winds of Heaven / Sweet Compulsion (1987) (with Janice Gray and Victoria Woolf)
One Brief Sweet Hour / Once More With Feeling / Blue Lotus (1990) (with Jane Arbor and Natalie Sparks)
Marry Me Cowboy (1995) (with Janet Dailey, Susan Fox and Anne McAllister)
Husbands on Horseback (1996) (with Diana Palmer)
Wedlocked (1999) (with Day Leclaire and Anne McAllister)
Mistletoe Magic (1999) (with Betty Neels and Rebecca Winters)
The Australians (2000) (with Helen Bianchin and Miranda Lee)
Weddings Down Under (2001) (with Helen Bianchin and Jessica Hart)
Outback Husbands (2002) (with Marion Lennox)
The Mother's Day Collection (2002) (with Helen Dickson and Kate Hoffmann)
Australian Nights (2003) (with Miranda Lee)
Outback Weddings (2003) (with Barbara Hannay)
Australian Playboys (2003) (with Helen Bianchin and Marion Lennox)
Australian Tycoons (2004) (with Emma Darcy and Marion Lennox)
A Mother's Day Gift (2004) (with Anne Ashley and Lucy Monroe)
White Wedding (2004) (with Judy Christenberry and Jessica Steele)
A Christmas Engagement (2004) (with Sara Craven and Jessica Matthews)
A Very Special Mother's Day (2005) (with Anne Herries)
All I Want for Christmas    (2005) (with Betty Neels and Jessica Steele)
The Mills and Boon Collection (2006) (with Caroline Anderson and Penny Jordan)
Outback Desire (2006) (with Emma Darcy and Carol Marinelli)
To Mum, with Love (2006) (with Rebecca Winters)
Australian Heroes (2007) (with Marion Lennox and Fiona McArthur)
Tall, Dark and Sexy (2008) (with Caroline Anderson and Helen Bianchin)
The Boss's Proposal (2008) (with Jessica Steele and Patricia Thayer)
Island Heat / Outback Man Seeks Wife / Prince's Forbidden Virgin / One Night Before Marriage / Their Lost-and-found Family / Single Dad's Marriage Wish (2008) (with Robyn Donald, Marion Lennox, Carol Marinelli, Sarah Mayberry and Anne Oliver)
Australian Billionaires (2009) (with Jennie Adams and Amy Andrews)
Cattle Baron : Nanny Needed / Bachelor Dad on Her Doorstep (2009) (with Michelle Douglas)

External links
Margaret Way at Harlequin Enterprises Ltd

Australian romantic fiction writers
Australian women novelists
Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Women romantic fiction writers
Context 3: Hugh Hilton Goodwin (December 21, 1900 – February 25, 1980) was a decorated officer in the United States Navy with the rank of Vice Admiral  A veteran of both World Wars, he commanded escort carrier  during the Mariana Islands campaign  Goodwin then served consecutively as Chief of Staff, Carrier Strike Group 6 and as Air Officer, Philippine Sea Frontier and participated in the Philippines campaign in the later part of the War 

Following the War, he remained in the Navy and rose to the flag rank and held several important commands including Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service, Commander, Carrier Division Two and Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command 

Early life and career

Hugh H  Goodwin was born on December 21, 1900, in Monroe, Louisiana and attended Monroe High School there (now Neville High School)  Following the United States' entry into World War I in April 1917, Goodwin left the school without receiving the diploma in order to see some combat and enlisted the United States Navy on May 7, 1917  He completed basic training and was assigned to the battleship   Goodwin participated in the training of armed guard crews and engine room personnel as the Atlantic Fleet prepared to go to war and in November 1917, he sailed with the rest of Battleship Division 9, bound for Britain to reinforce the Grand Fleet in the North Sea 

Although he did not complete the last year of high school, Goodwin was able to earn an appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in June 1918  While at the academy, he earned a nickname "Huge" and among his classmates were several future admirals and generals including: Hyman G  Rickover, Milton E  Miles, Robert E  Blick Jr , Herbert S  Duckworth, Clayton C  Jerome, James P  Riseley, James A  Stuart, Frank Peak Akers, Sherman Clark, Raymond P  Coffman, Delbert S  Cornwell, Frederick J  Eckhoff, Ralph B  DeWitt, John Higgins, Vernon Huber, Albert K  Morehouse, Harold F  Pullen, Michael J  Malanaphy, William S  Parsons, Harold R  Stevens, John P  Whitney, Lyman G  Miller and George J  O'Shea 

Goodwin graduated with Bachelor of Science degree on June 3, 1922, and was commissioned Ensign in the United States Navy  He was subsequently assigned to the battleship  and took part in the voyage to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, before he was ordered to the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island for submarine instruction in June 1923  Goodwin completed the training several weeks later and was attached to the submarine   He then continued his further training aboard submarine  and following his promotion to Lieutenant (junior grade) on June 3, 1925, he qualified as submariner 

He then served aboard submarine  off the coast of California, before he was ordered for the recruiting duty to San Francisco in September 1927  While in this capacity, Goodwin applied for naval aviation training which was ultimately approved and he was ordered to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in August 1928  Toward the end of the training, he was promoted to lieutenant on December 11, 1928, and upon the completion of the training in January 1929, he was designated Naval aviator 

Goodwin was subsequently attached to the Observation Squadron aboard the aircraft carrier  and participated in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean  He was transferred to the Bureau of Aeronautics in Washington, D C  in August 1931 and served consecutively under the architect of naval aviation William A



ground_truth: Flexibility.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What genre did Margaret Way write in?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Moffett and future Chief of Naval Operations Ernest J  King 

In June 1933, Goodwin was ordered to the Naval War College at Newport, Rhode Island, where he completed junior course in May of the following year  He subsequently joined the crew of aircraft carrier  and served under Captain Arthur B  Cook and took part in the Fleet exercises in the Caribbean and off the East Coast of the United States 

He was ordered back to the Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida in June 1936 and was attached to the staff of the Base Commandant, then-Captain Charles A  Blakely  When Blakely was succeeded by William F  Halsey in June 1937, Goodwin remained in Halsey's staff and was promoted to Lieutenant Commander on December 1, 1937  He also completed correspondence course in International law at the Naval War College 

Goodwin was appointed Commanding officer of the Observation Squadron 1 in June 1938 and attached to the battleship  he took part in the patrolling of the Pacific and 
West Coast of the United States until September 1938, when he assumed command of the Observation Squadron 2 attached to the battleship  

When his old superior from Lexington, now Rear Admiral Arthur B  Cook, was appointed Commander Aircraft, Scouting Force in June 1939, he requested Goodwin as his Aide and Flag Secretary  He became Admiral Cook's protégé and after year and half of service in the Pacific, he continued as his Aide and Flag Secretary, when Cook was appointed Commander Aircraft, Atlantic Fleet in November 1940 

World War II

Following the United States' entry into World War II, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Commander on January 1, 1942, and assumed duty as advisor to the Argentine Navy  His promotion was made permanent two months later and he returned to the United States in early 1943 for duty as assistant director of Planning in the Bureau of Aeronautics under Rear admiral John S  McCain  While still in Argentina, Goodwin was promoted to the temporary rank of Captain on June 21, 1942 

By the end of December 1943, Goodwin was ordered to Astoria, Oregon, where he assumed command of newly commissioned escort carrier USS Gambier Bay  He was responsible for the initial training of the crew and was known as a strict disciplinarian, but the crew appreciated the skills he taught them that prepared them for combat  Goodwin insisted that everyone aboard has to do every job right every time and made us fight our ship at her best 

During the first half of 1944, Gambier Bay was tasked with ferrying aircraft for repairs and qualified carrier pilots from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, before departed on May 1, 1944, to join Rear admiral Harold B  Sallada's Carrier Support Group 2, staging in the Marshalls for the invasion of the Marianas 

The air unit, VC-10 Squadron, under Goodwin's command gave close air support to the initial landings of Marines on Saipan on June 15, 1944, destroying enemy gun emplacements, troops, tanks, and trucks  On the 17th, her combat air patrol (CAP) shot down or turned back all but a handful of 47 enemy planes headed for her task group and her gunners shot down two of the three planes that did break through to attack her 

Goodwin's carrier continued in providing of close ground support operations at Tinian during the end of July 1944, then turned her attention to Guam, where she gave identical aid to invading troops until mid-August that year  For his service during the Mariana Islands campaign, Goodwin was decorated with Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" 

He was succeeded by Captain Walter V  R  Vieweg on August 18, 1944, and appointed Chief of Staff, Carrier Division Six under Rear admiral Arthur W  Radford  The Gambier Bay was sunk in the Battle off Samar on October 25, 1944, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf after helping turn back a much larger attacking Japanese surface force 

Goodwin served with Carrier Division Six during the Bonin Islands raids, the naval operations at Palau and took part in the Battle of Leyte Gulf and operations supporting Leyte landings in late 1944  He was later appointed Air Officer of the Philippine Sea Frontier under Rear admiral James L  Kauffman and remained with that command until the end of hostilities  For his service in the later part of World War II, Goodwin was decorated with Legion of Merit with Combat "V"  He was also entitled to wear two Navy Presidential Unit Citations and Navy Unit Commendation 

Postwar service

Following the surrender of Japan, Goodwin assumed command of Light aircraft carrier  on August 24, 1945  The ship was tasked with air missions over Japan became mercy flights over Allied prisoner-of-war camps, dropping food and medicine until the men could be rescued  She was also present at Tokyo Bay for the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 

Goodwin returned with San Jacinto to the United States in mid-September 1945 and he was detached in January 1946  He subsequently served in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations until May that year, when he entered the instruction at National War College



ground_truth: Romance novels and women's fiction.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What was Hugh H. Goodwin's rank in the United States Navy?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Goodwin graduated in June 1947 and served on Secretary's committee for Research on Reorganization  Upon promotion to Rear admiral on April 1, 1949, Goodwin was appointed Chief of Staff and Aide to Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet under Admiral William H  P  Blandy 

Revolt of the Admirals

In April 1949, the budget's cuts and proposed reorganization of the United States Armed Forces by the Secretary of Defense Louis A  Johnson launched the wave of discontent between senior commanders in the United States Navy  Johnson proposed the merging of the Marine Corps into the Army, and reduce the Navy to a convoy-escort force 

Goodwin's superior officer, Admiral Blandy was call to testify before the House Committee on Armed Services and his harsh statements for the defense of the Navy, costed him his career  Goodwin shared his views and openly criticized Secretary Johnson for having power concentrated in a single civilian executive, who is an appointee of the Government and not an elected representative of the people  He also criticized aspects of defense unification which permitted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to vote on arms policies of individual services, and thus "rob" the branches of autonomy 

The outbreak of the Korean War in summer 1950 proved the proposal of Secretary Johnson as incorrect and he resigned in September that year  Also Secretary of the Navy, Francis P  Matthews resigned one month earlier 

Later service

Due to the Revolts of the admirals, Blandy was forced to retire in February 1950 and Goodwin was ordered to Newport, Rhode Island for temporary duty as Chief of Staff and Aide to the President of the Naval War College under Vice admiral Donald B  Beary in April 1950  Goodwin was detached from that assignment two months and appointed member of the General Board of the Navy  He was shortly thereafter appointed acting Navy Chief of Public Information, as the substitute for Rear Admiral Russell S  Berkey, who was relieved of illness, but returned to the General Board of the Navy in July that year  Goodwin served in that capacity until February 1951, when he relieved his Academy class, Rear admiral John P  Whitney as Vice Commander, Military Air Transport Service (MATS) 

While in this capacity, Goodwin served under Lieutenant general Laurence S  Kuter and was co-responsible for the logistical support of United Nations troops fighting in Korea  The MATS operated from the United States to Japan and Goodwin served in this capacity until August 1953, when he was appointed Commander Carrier Division Two  While in this assignment, he took part in the Operation Mariner, Joint Anglo-American exercise which encountered very heavy seas over a two-week period in fall 1953 

Goodwin was ordered to the Philippines in May 1954 and assumed duty as Commander, U S  Naval Forces in the Philippines with headquarters at Naval Station Sangley Point near Cavite  He held that command in the period of tensions between Taiwan and China and publicly declared shortly after his arrival, that any attack on Taiwan by the Chinese Communists on the mainland would result in US participation in the conflict  The naval fighter planes under his command also provided escort for passing commercial planes  Goodwin worked together with retired Admiral Raymond A  Spruance, then-Ambassador to the Philippines, and accompanied him during the visits to Singapore, Bangkok and Saigon in January 1955 

On December 18, 1955, Goodwin's classmate Rear admiral Albert K  Morehouse, then serving as Commander, Naval Air Forces, Continental Air Defense Command (CONAD), died of heart attack and Goodwin was ordered to CONAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado to assume Morehouse's position  While in this capacity, he was subordinated to Army General Earle E  Partridge and was responsible for the Naval and Marine Forces allocated to the command designated for the defense of the Continental United States 

Retirement

Goodwin retired on June 1, 1957, after 40 years of active service and was advanced to the rank of Vice admiral on the retired list for having been specially commended in combat  A week later, he was invited back to his Monroe High School (now Neville High School) and handed a diploma showing that he had been graduated with the class of 1918  He then settled in Monterey, California where he taught American history at Stevenson school and was a member of the Naval Order of the United States 

Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin died at his home on February 25, 1980, aged 79  He was survived by his wife, Eleanor with whom he had two children, a daughter Sidney and a son Hugh Jr , who graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1948, but died one year later, when the Hellcat fighter he was piloting collided with another over the Gulf of Mexico during training 

Decorations

Here is the ribbon bar of Vice admiral Hugh H  Goodwin:

References

1900 births
1980 deaths
People from Monroe, Louisiana
Military personnel from Louisiana
United States Naval Academy alumni
Naval War College alumni
United States Naval Aviators
United States Navy personnel of World War I
United States Navy World War II admirals
United States Navy vice admirals
United States submarine commanders
Recipients of the Legion of Merit



ground_truth: Vice Admiral.