Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

151–160 of 314 posts

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

#151
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cellular radios where the only (working) ones seem to be made by Qualcomm. Seems strange, given that plenty of manufacturers are making the radios on the other side of the cellular connection. Can't, say, Ericsson take the radios in their cell towers or picocells, redo their tape-outs for phone scale, and end up with a workable mobile radio?

> Can't, say, Ericsson take the radios in their cell towers or picocells, redo their tape-outs for phone scale, and end up with a workable mobile radio? Workable maybe but not power efficient, which is crucial in mobile. That takes years to figure out and is the reason why ARM is so utterly dominant on mobile - there simply is not any Intel x86 offering even close to the power envelope of ARM, even after years of ARM…

Apple phones do not use ARM-designed processors. They just implement the same instruction set. If it’s possible for Apple to develop a mobile processor independently of ARM, why shouldn’t it be possible for Intel?

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

#152
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeep doesn’t allow me to install my own apps on Uconnect. I guess they are a monopoly. Sirius, Apple, and Android are 3rd party products that are allowed on Uconnect but not my own.

> Jeep doesn’t allow me to install my own apps on Uconnect. I guess they are a monopoly. Why wouldn't they be? Does someone else compete with them for distributing apps on Uconnect? Can you install Ford Sync apps on your Jeep?

Can I install android apps on my iPhone? Automakers like BMW have cut out people like Dinan when they locked down their firmware and refused to work with them.

Alpine and Pioneer probably make replacements for Uconnect (iPhone) but it is not even close to the integration I get with my Jeep and Uconnect.

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

#153
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel could probably do it if they had the luxury of redesigning their instruction set. They're stuck with supporting an overly CISC-based instruction set whose roots date back to the early 1970s. ARM didn't have that problem and designed a much more modern RISC-like instruction set which requires a lot less power.

This argument has held progressively less weight since 1995, when Intel released the Pentium Pro and started the precedent of deciding x86 CISC instructions into the micro-ops which are actually executed. ARM is a respectable architecture and Apple has shipped some very competitive chips but it’s not like Intel’s engineers have been in a coma for forty years.

All the moving pieces in Intel x86-to-RISC decoding (instruction decoder, μop cache, Microcode Sequencer ROM...) use up a non-trivial amount of silicon and power.

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

#154

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 beca…

> They pretty much demanded a separate cellular R&D team (QCT) that duplicates half the effort.

They could have formed a joint venture with other manufacturers to split the development costs.

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

#155
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bet is that Apple buys Intel's modem parents and hires most of the staff from Intel that was doing modem chips. Apple already has a team that is likely working on this. https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/03/apple-modem-iphone-intel/

Why would Intel sell that though? Selling toast isn't easy when you let the customer borrow your bread and butter. To put it another way, Apple took their ball and went home. No soup for them!

Intel has a track record of selling off assets that end up being valuable in the future.

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

#156
post #129
post #108

I find great irony in Qualcomm exercising a monopoly position to take a % of total phone price from Apple... since Apple uses its monopoly position to take a % of all app revenue. What Apple thinks would be fair for Qualcomm chip license fees would also be reasonable for App Store fees.

Apple doesn’t get a percent cut of Android app sales.

I don't think this "blunte" guy really quite understands what people in the cell phone industry mean when they say that Qualcomm had a stranglehold on everything.

They mean everything. Every thin dime spent anywhere you care to spend it. There really exists nothing else quite like Qualcomm around out there. We tend to throw the monopoly word around so loosely that we start to equate things like Apple and Qualcomm. It really does make it difficult to try to generate support to dig out from under abusive companies like Qualcomm when they have an army of people out there advancing the narrative that they are no different than any other company.

Meanwhile real engineers are losing their livelihoods by the thousands when companies succumb to the Qualcomm chokehold. Then a lot of those engineers have to go work for Qualcomm. Etc etc, on and on. It's sad.

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

#157
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Apple can make an iPhone app store, which is the market they are alleged to have monopolized

It’s their market! Only Apple can make an Apple App Store for the Apple iPhone. Every company deserves a “monopoly” on their own product, unless they are a common carrier, a designation which is based on the government enabling them to exist through preferential treatment in the first place. Apple created the Apple iPhone and they should be allowed to determine its destiny, as long as other companies are also allowed…

> "Every company deserves a “monopoly” on their own product,"

Why?

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't, say, Ericsson take the radios in their cell towers or picocells, redo their tape-outs for phone scale, and end up with a workable mobile radio? Workable maybe but not power efficient, which is crucial in mobile. That takes years to figure out and is the reason why ARM is so utterly dominant on mobile - there simply is not any Intel x86 offering even close to the power envelope of ARM, even after years of ARM…

Intel could probably do it if they had the luxury of redesigning their instruction set. They're stuck with supporting an overly CISC-based instruction set whose roots date back to the early 1970s. ARM didn't have that problem and designed a much more modern RISC-like instruction set which requires a lot less power.

Intel has made a number of clean sheet RISC architectures. They abandoned it all for marketing 5GHz pipedreams.

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

#159
After reading through the comments quarreling about whether Qualcomm and Apple are acting within their rights to charge monopoly-sized rent where they can, and do, it's hard for me to fathom the depths of confusion Americans are reduced to whenever these topics come up.

First and foremost: when you are as big as Qualcomm and Apple are in their respective spheres, you don't need rights. You have POWER, which is far, far better, especially when you can use it to extract money to buy more power with.

Rights are for little people. Qualcomm has been at this for decades. How long can you get away with just parking your car in the wrong place?

Second, when you talk about abuse of monopoly power, it makes no sense to look at it from the standpoint of the monopolist. Everything is stacked in their favor. The important question is, what can the little guy do? Not other companies, even though they complain most effectively (like Apple or Intel complaining about Qualcomm), or even small ones that can't. They would all love to be monopolies too, and sometimes are. What matters is, what is the experience of somebody who got an iPhone for her quinceaña, or of the farmer stuck with a busted John Deere tractor?

Each is obliged to pay a huge premium -- for software, or repairs -- because the 400-pound gorilla can force the matter. The fact that somebody else has an Android phone or an IH tractor doesn't help either of them. Each is stuck with what Apple or Deere is willing to let them have.

The law doesn't need to define a monopoly: only a monopoly can exercise monopoly power, so it suffices to look for that happening. Any monopoly not visibly abusing its monopoly power has nothing to worry about, because nobody can tell.

Anti-trust law doesn't make it illegal to have a monopoly. It just says that if you choose to make one -- and every monopoly chose it -- different rules apply. The law defines lots of rules, but the DOJ has chosen to ignore almost all because of a lately fashionable notion promoted by Chicago-school economists that nothing matters except high prices. Under the law there is a hell of a lot of monopoly abuse nobody at DOJ will even look at, that have all kinds of deleterious results. Anybody who wants to do anything about any of it gets mobbed by defenders of monopolists' rights.

And that's where we are today. Qualcomm got in trouble by making things unpleasant for other 400-pound gorillas, and we get to watch. Offenses against us are entirely ignored, and now people insist that's normal and right, law or no law.

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

#160
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like complaining that IKEA has a monopoly within IKEA stores.

If they are big enough then yes it can be a monopoly too.

Apple has about 45% of the US smart phone market with their next competitor being Samsung at about 29%, with both of those companies on track to lose share to Huawei. Globally Apple is about 11% of the market, with Samsung selling well over double of what Apple sells.

Those numbers, combined with the fact that a new competitor is arising to take market share away from Apple strongly implies that Apple is not currently behaving in an anticompetitive fashion.

Post reply on HN