And congress will do nothing about IP, specifically patents as it relates to this story.
How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
81–90 of 314 posts
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
After reading about it particularly "Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry", I think guardiangod is correct, but also Verizon and, to a much lesser extent, the whole stock dating scandal. If Verizon hadn't been so gun-ho for an iPhone killer, Blackberry would probably of got to something like the Passport a whole lot faster. They needed to stay in their l…
The Passport was a phenomenal device, and nothing like it has been built since. Large square screen and big touch sensitive keyboard, but yet still super manageable due to its squat height... if there was a modern Android version I'd go for it in a heartbeat. Not great for watching videos, but it would be super for everything else.
I wonder if it's still worth using, despite the outdated OS.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In this case, I think it's both. Contrast Android, where other people have set up app stores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_app_stores
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#84And congress will do nothing about IP, specifically patents as it relates to this story.
I wish... patent reform on extension patents in particular in addition to a dual sourcing requirement from the FDA would let a more natural market take care of a lot of what's wrong with medications.
In general, at this point, I'd love to see the entire patent system dismantled rather than keep what we have.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#85Earlier 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... .
You can use Chrome on iOS.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#86As 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 beca…
I don't think Qualcomm strangled RIM with their 3.4% (peak!) licensing fee on the selling price of the phone. If RIMs profit margin was 3.5% they had bigger problems.
Here is the thing. If Apple sold a 2G network based iPhone with a non Qualcomm IP modem, and a 4G iPhone at 2x the price with a Qualcomm modem, which one would make more money for Apple?
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK Apple designs and manufactures its SOCs but keeps using ARM designed CPUs. Not sure about the GPUs though. Edit: Protomyth below is correct. Apple licenses the architecture from ARM but designs its custom chips. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-arm-designs-help-samsu... The chips themselves are manufactured by TSMC.
I am pretty sure the A-series is not an ARM supplied core these days.
You are correct. I've edited my comment.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#88Earlier 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?
If I want to sell an app to users on iOS, and those users want my app, there's no way for them to get it without Apple. That's a vertical market monopoly. And even if it doesn't qualify as a monopoly in your mind, it can still run afoul of anti-trust law.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#89Earlier 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... .
You can use Chrome on iOS.
Chrome on iOS still uses Safari's renderer and JS engine.
Re: How Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20 years
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think things are as clear cut as you make them out to be. Apple says nobody can run apps on their phone without handing them a 30% cut. No side-loading, no other stores, nothing. There is very obviously a market for apps that Apple controls completely. Just because there are other app stores for other phones does not mean Apple doesn't have control over the entire market for iPhone apps. Markets can be narrow…
This is a tangent, but FYI, there is a DRM'd Keurig case, and it is still going! https://www.pbwt.com/antitrust-update-blog/in-long-awaited-o... The judge essentially paused the case for four years while he ruled on a motion (which is ridiculous) so it's been quite slow. But I'm still watching it...
Thank you for this link, I'll start watching it too