Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 314 posts

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#11

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

CharlesW wrote: post #7
zeveb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.

In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer.

Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#12

Post by rstupek »

sundvor wrote: post #8
Veen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?

Then why are we seeing eg https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains... ? Regardless, their behaviour with their own Dev relations is very much like what they're accusing Qualcomm of.

The supreme court didn't say Apple was a monopoly it said that people could sue them to see if they were.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#13

Post by Despegar »

sundvor wrote: post #8
Veen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?

Then why are we seeing eg https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains... ? Regardless, their behaviour with their own Dev relations is very much like what they're accusing Qualcomm of.

The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the case. The actual antitrust case is extremely weak against Apple. You'd need a nonsensical market definition to say Apple has monopoly power, and it wouldn't hold up in court.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#14

Post by npunt »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #11
CharlesW wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.

In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer. Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C... .

Microsoft had a 90%+ market share in computer operating systems, aka a monopoly. So there's that.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#15

Post by eadmund »

CharlesW wrote: post #7
zeveb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.

No, the case of Apple is more like McDonald's being able to prevent its customers from ever eating food not signed-off on by McDonald's.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#16

Post by Veen »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #11
CharlesW wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.

In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer. Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C... .

But Microsoft did have a monopoly in the browser market at that time. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the browser market or the phone market or the app market. You can’t abuse a monopoly you don’t have.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#17

Post by mbreese »

Veen wrote: post #16
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer. Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C... .

But Microsoft did have a monopoly in the browser market at that time. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the browser market or the phone market or the app market. You can’t abuse a monopoly you don’t have.

The monopoly was in the OS market. Microsoft got in trouble for trying to use that monopoly to create a new one in the nascent browser market.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#18

Post by pier25 »

Veen wrote: post #5
zeveb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?

The monopoly is that no other software distributor can be used on iOS other than Apple.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#19

Post by guardiangod »

As a former worker at Blackberry(RIM) cellular chip division (hello fellow RCT-ees), this article explains so much it physically hurts me.

RIM pushed hard to develop its own chip 3G/4G chips because Qualcomm absolutely strangled the company with its licensing cost/terms. They pretty much demanded a separate cellular R&D team (QCT) that duplicates half the effort. All CDMA based phones must contain chips from QCT because Qualcomm holds CDMA patents and they won't license them to anyone. Finally, Qualcomm was, while very technically competent, will give you no assistance whatsoever if you deviate from what they want you to do. Basically 'my way or the highway.'

Edit: As an aside, my heart goes out to Intel's defunct Infineon-based 5G modem team.

Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years

#20

Post by YUMad »

pier25 wrote: post #18
Veen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?

The monopoly is that no other software distributor can be used on iOS other than Apple.

That is a monopoly in their own product, not in a market.
Post reply on HN