Talk:Broadcom Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Broadcom and Intel are involved with a dispute with China concerning WiFi and proprietorship. Both Broadcom and Intel are playing significant roles in the openning up of the Chinese industry, especially the wireless industry. (As of the Feb? 2004)

What about the lack of Linux drivers for devices with the Broadcom chipset? Can anyone speak credibly about this?-

yes check there site, good luck finding a driver; and search online, you will find many woes about it.

  • This company's drivers, like those of many competitors, are not designed to run on consumer Linux boxes. While this may be aggravating, this level of detail hardly belongs in a high-level article about the corporate entity itself. I would encourage you to check out the linux_sta or bcm43xx drivers, as most people have had success with one or the other. Or, vote with your feet, and select a chipset that has better software support under your OS of choice. --BsdIsDying 02:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the Google search results for "broadcom wireless" are related to the company's refusal to release open source drivers or accommodate GNU/Linux users, would anyone have any issues with creating a section regarding this ongoing issue? Perhaps "Linux Driver Controversy", or a "Criticism" section? --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Linksys (802.11G) wireless routers allow a greater degree of customization and configurability, through the loading of third-party open-source firmware."

Now I know what we're trying to say here, but what on earth do linksys's 802.11G routers have to do with the price of tea in china? This sentence needs to somehow relate itself to Broadcom.--24.117.45.211 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcom purchase of Percello is missing[edit]

Hi,

It seems that you forgot to add to the list of Broadcom purchase of Percelo:

http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s523205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.162.1 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moves?[edit]

I propose we move this article to Broadcom Corporation and move Avago to Broadcom Limited. Thoughts? Talk to SageGreenRider 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Broadcom (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make two moves[edit]

Requested move 10 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus from over a month of being open. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Broadcom Limited is the surviving entity from Avago's acquisition of Broadcom Corporation and Avago's subsequent name change to Broadcom Limited. Therefore, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic of the term "Broadcom" has shifted from the now defunct entity Broadcom Corporation to Broadcom Limited. This proposal reflects this new status quo. Note My prior proposal was discussed here (userfied version) and here and failed to gain consensus. This new proposal came up during that discussion. Talk to SageGreenRider 15:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - Looking at the old conversation, User:James Allison brought up the WP:COMMONNAME issue (rightly I think); after pondering this a little, I think this would be covered by the WP:NAMECHANGES provision in COMMONNAME. It strikes me as sorta common sense that RS's are going to start using the term "Broadcom" to refer to the new company, not the old one. I haven't actually tested this, but I'm have difficulty believing it could be otherwise. Why shouldn't we just follow the sources on this? NickCT (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per prior discussions. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 02:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - @James Allison: please could you give a more specific reason why the common name arguments put forward by SageGreenRider and NickCT are not valid? I'm not sure which prior discussions you mean, and I think more clarity is needed to assess whether there is any argument against the move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a review of external sources, it appears to me that "Broadcom" is the common name for the "old" company, and "Broadcom Limited" is the common name for the "new" one. I was referring to both prior discussions that the nom links to in their proposal, community consensus has been against this proposal both times. The community has spoken; I see no reason to rehash the same arguments so soon after two failed attempts at this proposal that had more participation than this current discussion. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give us the specifics of your review of external sources? Are they current or historical? A cursory review of Google over the past 30 days suggests otherwise. In addition it seems logical to me that our readers are looking for the surviving entity rather than the defunct one. The previous debates were for a different proposal and therefore not germane to this one. Talk to SageGreenRider 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
James Allison, the old discussion doesn't really have much there.. For the moment, I'm supporting a move as it does seem to follow the sources that I've found and WP:COMMONNAMES. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that, for encyclopedic purposes, we should be treating these as if they were unrelated entities. Almost any major company has gone through some change of ownership or phase of reorganization or the like, but a good encyclopedia article would capture the entire narrative of the company as a continuing core entity through those superficial changes. bd2412 T 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BD2412. I think it's confusing to split this into two articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging the two articles is impractical because there are two histories, one for Avago, one for Broadcom Corporation, that are indeed unrelated until 2016. It isn't simply a "change of ownership" because the Broadcom Limited article contains the history of Avago before 2016 and the on going history of the merged surviving entity. The situation here is similar to AT&T and SBC and the moves here will follow that template. Talk to SageGreenRider 11:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broadcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Broadcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Broadcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni[edit]

Broadcom is notable, not just for its influence in the semiconductor industry, but the people who come from Broadcom and go on to lead new businesses - I've started a small list here, but it would be good to have other names added.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended scope of this article?[edit]

I get that this article is supposed to cover the original Broadcom through 2016 and that the Broadcom Inc. article is supposed to cover the new merged company from 2016 forward. But where should post-2016 developments with the Broadcom semiconductor/wireless/broadband subsidiary go, here or there? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any responses, I will posit that all post-2016 content should go to the other article and that this article should full stop at 2016. That's the simplest for editors to maintain and the easiest for readers to understand. I will move/merge the post-2016 content that's currently here, to there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broadcom_Corporation&oldid=1191905909"