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

261–270 of 314 posts

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

#261

Post by jMyles »

ksec wrote: post #254
jMyles wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know a lot of people hate Qualcomm, but reading the 230 pages of the report I cant help but felt sorry for them. They had a special opportunity to take a lead role in protecting the American public from being victimized by criminal behavior within the NSA and they chose to side with the criminals instead of the victims. What's to feel sorry for?

>They had a special opportunity to take a lead role in protecting the American public from being victimized by criminal behavior within the NSA and they chose to side with the criminals instead of the victims. And where is that from?

By safeguarding against Smurf Suite. And by blowing the whistle every time gangsters show up and want to use a baseband chip to abuse people.

They had an opportunity in June 2013 to say, "we're aware of the former intelligence chief James Clapper's acknowledgement that his March 2013 testimony to the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was erroneous ; we are taking every action possible to thwart efforts by the NSA to collect information about our users as described in his recent letter and as disclosed last month by Edward Snowden."

At a time when many people (including some members of Congress) were hoping that Clapper was going to be prosecuted for perjury and the entire regime of illegal spying was going to be provable undone, Qualcomm, a potentially huge contributor to safety of the public, did and said nearly nothing.

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

#262

Post by bleh123 »

mbreese wrote: post #91
aey wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why should the price of the phone matter to Qualcomm? Did they have anything to do with the CPU, screen, memory or battery?

> "Why should the price of the phone matter to Qualcomm"

Why should the makers of phones use Qualcomm technology? FRAND standards aren't laws, only good faith handshake promises unenforceable in courts.

Can't make the argument that "Without Qualcomm chips, our whole phone business would die" and "Qualcomm doesn't sell important enough technology for us to pay a percentage of our phone retail price"

Vertical integration is the headache of the phone manufacturers. Don't like it? Sell modular phones with a missing modem slot and have customers buy the modems directly.

The Chip industry is a very capital intensive business driven by volumes and i fully expect to maximize my potential earnings were i to spend tens of billions building up an unrivalled technology portfolio which is not the same as a monopolistic market position.

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

#263

Post by ncmncm »

knd775 wrote: post #260
fluffything wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This +1. Imagine if ECMA script or the ISO C++ standard were covered by patents.

Well there is that one company that keeps claiming that they own C++ and keeps trying to sue people for using it.

Oh? Please expand.

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

#264

Post by ncmncm »

zaroth wrote: post #129
blunte wrote: 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.

Maybe not, but they get a cut of each Android phone.

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

#265

Post by braythwayt »

Bakary wrote: post #258
braythwayt wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duopoly is when the two heterogenous companies coöperate to form a monopoly. That was Wintel. A cartel is when a small number of homogenous companies share the market while ostensibly competing with each other, but coöperate to erect barriers to anyone else getting into the market. If Apple and Google block other companies from getting into the mobile device business, they would be a cartel.

Did you start using that spelling from reading the New Yorker?

Which spelling?

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

#266

Post by aey »

mbreese wrote: post #259
forrestthewoods wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate. Clearly you didn’t read the article. There’s an entire section about Qualcomm not issuing FRAND licenses.

@aey used to work at Qualcomm according to their resume. So, take that for whatever you think it’s worth.

Yep, worked at qcom. I think they should charge what the market could bear, like apple charges consumers :)

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

#267

Post by aey »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #197
aey wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it cost apple less to build improvement into 5G that would have been licensed to everyone they would have done so. Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate. If apple developed 5G IP they would have effectively received a rebate based on the relative impact of their contribution. Qualcomm actually has great execution. You realize 5G is going to put a 1 gigabit network in the palm of your hand?…

> Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate. Clearly you didn’t read the article. There’s an entire section about Qualcomm not issuing FRAND licenses.

They haven’t lost a FRAND case yet.

In the ideal world the phone would be like a PC, and you could buy an iPod touch from apple and swap in the qualcomm 5g modem or the intel one.

Apple pays qcom $14 bucks for the modem. In the PC world I think qualcomm would be able to price theirs closer to 50 compared to intels.

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

#268

Post by klodolph »

mannykannot wrote: post #256
godzillabrennus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically Intel is trying to give away their market share like IBM did. FYI - IBM handed Microsoft and Intel a big chunk of market share because who would ever want a personal computer...

> IBM handed Microsoft and Intel a big chunk of market share because who would ever want a personal computer... I believe it was because they needed a PC in a hurry. I have heard that Ken Olsen ridiculed the IBM PC for its crude design, but it was the beginning of the end for DEC.

> I believe it was because they needed a PC in a hurry.

That's a much better explanation. They made the entire thing in a year, and 90% of it was made by outside vendors. I think both of these things, long-term, contributed to its success.

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

#269

Post by SmokeGS »

RobDrk wrote: post #180
asr wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting I had not seen this. Note there are five ftc commissioners. Christine Wilson is one of three republicans. She is unfortunately the one who seems the most trumpian. She misleadingly quotes a filing her own agency made in this op-ed. Because of that, and a few other turns of phrase in here that appear frequently in Qualcomm PR (such as the factually incorrect statement that this case was filed during t…

it was filed when the last administration was on the way out but still had dem majority. also see the dissent written by one of the commissioner at that time. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/170117qualc... i feel the ars article is a hit job as is the PR from Q.

I just looked at the FTC government archives from 1919-2009 and there is a gap after 2008 with missing volumes 146-148.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission...

Does anyone know why this is the case?

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

#270

Post by gumby »

knd775 wrote: post #260
fluffything wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This +1. Imagine if ECMA script or the ISO C++ standard were covered by patents.

Well there is that one company that keeps claiming that they own C++ and keeps trying to sue people for using it.

Don’t you mean java?
Post reply on HN