So much for Microsoft, Qualcomm names Mollenkopf as incoming CEO

“Qualcomm Inc named its chief operating officer, Steve Mollenkopf, as its new chief executive, replacing Paul Jacobs, who has led the chip maker since 2005 and is son of the company’s co-founder,” Ben Fox Rubin reports for The Wall Street Journal.

“The move comes amid reports that Mr. Mollenkopf had been a possible contender to succeed Steve Ballmer as chief executive of Microsoft Corp.,” Rubin reports. “Qualcomm on Friday said it appointed Mr. Mollenkopf to the company’s board and promoted him to CEO-elect. He will take over the top management job at the company on March 4. That day, Mr. Jacobs will step down as CEO but keep his chairmanship, assuming the new role of executive chairman.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Bring on The Flop™!

Related article:
Qualcomm COO Mollenkopf added to Microsoft CEO candidate list, sources say – December 12, 2013

24 Comments

  1. I left this question on the Apple Insider site.

    If the iPhone is such a fine smartphone and Apple is such a talented and wealthy company with unlimited resources, why does the President of the U.S. have to use a BlackBerry as the most secure device? Does the U.S. Air Force have to rely on Russian MIGs to defend our airspace? Frankly, I find it embarrassing to hear the President say that the iPhone could be a threat to our national security, and he HAS to rely on a Canadian (BlackBerry) smartphone so there’s no breach in security. I’d like to hear what all the rest of you think about this.

    How can Apple as a leading smartphone company allow something like this to take place? I would think it would be of utmost importance for an American company’s pride to correct this type of humiliation. If the iPhone is supposedly so secure then what exactly is the problem. It seems to me as though Apple isn’t doing the proper job if the U.S. government can’t rely on an American company for a secure smartphone. Am I wrong to question this? Am I going to be accused of trolling for no good reason. Things like this seem to be quite a good reason as to why Apple doesn’t get any respect from the industry or Wall Street. A company sitting on billions of dollars can’t make a secure enough smartphone for POTUS. I’m sorry but as an American, I think this situation sucks.

    It makes me think back to Vietnam and the American soldiers who said that the Russian AK-47 was much more reliable for them than the M-16 because it was less prone to jamming in the wet and sandy conditions of the jungle. That sort of set me to thinking about this present security issue.

    1. I attribute it to bureaucratic IT inertia. It’s easier to make up excuses not to change when you get something working, and avoid the effort to set up and formally do the testing, change the infrastructure, incur the new unknown expenses. I would also guess that more than one IT exec’s career is tied to the legacy setup, so until an Apple champion rises into a prominent IT position and forces the changes, nothing will happen. The President is not an IT wonk, so he’ll just trust the careerists who work for him. It’s not a big enough deal for him direct his IT gurus to change.

      1. The inertia is not down to bureaucracy, it’s down to cost. IT departments are being increasingly asked to deliver more on a smaller budget, even those within the US government. When you only have so many staff to get the work done, and so much money to spend on the required back-end to allow the new devices to work it’s going to take longer.

        Maybe the White House’s IT department should be shifted to the DoD. You’d see laser-guided iPhones in space before you know it, let alone in the hand of the POTUS.

    2. Laughing boy – what about Android (Google) and Windows Phone (Microsoft)? If you are going to take Apple to task on security vs. Blackberry then you really need to include the other American companies in the mix if you are intending to be fair. By singling out Apple you not only draw attention to your post as a potential troll but you also miss the entire point of the article, that Apple is dominating in small and mid-size business.

      If Apple “isn’t doing the proper job” of making a secure smartphone then what about Google and MS? And isn’t that also a good reason for industry and Wall Street not to give them any respect either? As it stands, using market share and market capitalization as metrics, the only company of these four that gets no respect from industry or Wall Street is Blackberry.

      This leads to the question that you really should be asking: “Is the executive branch of the US government the last remaining loyal customer to Blackberry and do they have an exit strategy?”

      1. Because Apple is supposed to have the best smartphones around and Apple has the most money to do whatever it takes. That’s why I’m singling out Apple. To hell with Microsoft and Google because I’m not interested in what they do. I’m an Apple shareholder and I figure if Apple can prove itself to the top security people in the government then Apple should have it made.

    3. I have to agree with LBoy. I thought the same thing when I heard about Obama’s Blackberry. And I don’t think it’s trolling by not mentioning Android and MS. This is an Apple site so our focus is on Apple not Google and MS. I just hope Apple gets into the white house before someone else makes a military version of their products. Like “iOSm” for government and businesses that need top security.

    4. Apple inc. is not desperate for state business. If it were, they would be producing products aimed at the bureaucracy that powers governments, a very niche sector.
      I don’t need to point out the recent failings of RIM globally, but I do feel the need to point out the oft overlooked security that wraps iTunes credit card information. I am talking of the over 500 million credit card customers who include business’s.
      If that is not total security, then I have no idea what the word security stands for.
      Finally, if SMB’s and Big business can author and secure their apps so that only their employees can access their data, why does the government not do the same?
      The pieces are in place, failing to make use of them and then excusing oneself with poor reasoning reflects the type of person who is postulating the excuses.

    5. iPhones, Android phones, and Windows phones are all general purpose mobile computing devices designed to be compatible with a wide range of web resources. Blackberry maintains and curates its own servers with end-to-end encryption. That has always been Blackberry’s strength (and weakness, if its servers go down).

      There are specific design and functional requirements for devices to be eligible to be used for sensitive military and government communications. I imagine that the device requirements are even stricter for the top government officials.

      The President’s use of a BB is due to a lack of ability on the part of Apple. I have no doubt that Apple could tailor the iPhone for this purpose. But it appears that Apple does not choose to do so for business or other reasons.

    6. “How can Apple as a leading smartphone company allow something like this to take place?”

      It is not a matter of anything Apple does or doesn’t do. The present administration is owned by Apple’s competition (Amazon and Google). It will do nothing that benefits Apple, and everything it can to protect its friends.

  2. Old habits die hard. Think it is the secure servers that Blacberry has. However, could be an excuse since the administration hates Apple. By the way, US bought Russian choppers for Afghanistan.

  3. If you recall, when Obama was first elected, he had to jump through many hoops just to get his Blackberry sanctioned for Presidentisl use. It probably is somehow locked down in a special
    way. In the wake of this, I can well-imagine the administrative inertia that prevents a platform
    change. I’m sure it will happen in the future – Blackberry is too far behind Apple and these isolated holdouts to more ubiquitous and modern technology simply can’t survive forever.

    1. I think of the DOJ vs Apple nonsense as the biznizz bozoid members of our Corporate Oligarchy (who essentially own the US government) versus that big fat hyper-profitable rogue company that won’t comply with the biznizz boizoid way of destroying capitalism. IOW: Apple is TOO GOOD and must be destroyed. All the BAD BIZNIZZIZ are jealous and feeling deeply insecure in their decaying world of self-destruction. Creative real business is a danger to them.

      I am of course being snarky/sarcastic. But I very much believe it is all about the insecurity of the corrupt versus the security of the sincere.

  4. A few things. One, as I recall, the Prez’s Blacknberry is not ‘off the shelf.’ It is locked down in ways that make it more secure but less functional. Two, the iPhone does have pentagon approved security clearance (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-17/apple-mobile-devices-cleared-for-use-on-u-s-military-networks.html).

    I suspect if the desire was there by both Apple and the Whitehouse to make a special secure phone for Obama, it could be done. However, it’s capabilities would have to be curtailed to the point that it would not have many of the advantages of having an iPhone- probably no camera, no GPS, no Internet access, no SMS, no apps, no Wifi, etc.

    What would be point?

    1. I have no idea who you are or your qualifications, but I am sure, no matter what, that you can do a better job than Ballmer. So march right into your boss’ office and tell him you are on the short list. Now, I cannot guarantee he won’t laugh his ass off, but that is between the two of you. Good luck!

  5. Thanks for the replies. I was really just curious about this issue. I think there’s a need for national pride for Americans to not have to rely on other countries’ products for our own national security.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.