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

141–150 of 314 posts

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

#141

Post by tooltalk »

Analemma_ wrote: post #104
tooltalk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did they have anything to do with the CPU, screen, memory or battery? Sure, without QCOM's IP, other non-wireless parts of the phone won't add/contribute as much value or drive market demand for the phone.

But they're adding a fixed amount of value regardless of the phone, and so they should get a fixed sum per phone. This business where they get a percentage of the retail price is ridiculous. Consider the 64 GB iPhone XS selling for $1000 vs the 512 GB one for $1349. Is Qualcomm adding any extra value to the second phone as compared to the first one? Obviously not, so why should they capture any of the extra purchase…

> Consider the 64 GB iPhone XS selling for $1000 vs the 512 GB one for $1349.

Sure, first, QCOM licensing fee only applies to the first $400, which is in turn also based on the wholesale, not retail, price from Apple's contract manufacturers.

second, without QCOM, Apple wouldn't be able to price the iPhone XS at $1000 (or the iPhone 7 at $550), much less sell nearly as many units. Would you even consider paying $550 for the 128GB iPod Touch, which is essentially at feature parity with the iPhone 7, but without QCOM's IP?

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

#142

Post by johncolanduoni »

henryfjordan wrote: post #31
tzakrajs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that isn't what is happening. Side loading is allowed on iOS and is how Netflix is currently monetizing their iOS users.

No, netflix isn't side loading apps. They are asking you sign up for the service on their site, not through the app to avoid having to pay Apple the 30%. A user still must get the app through the app store. There is no way to get an app on the phone that is not signed by apple..

You can now get developer certificates/provisioning profiles without paying the $100 you used to, just by having an Apple ID. You can replace the signature of an app given to you in binary form or build one given to you in source form via Xcode, which is also free.

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

#143

Post by briandear »

neckeri wrote: post #62
wil421 wrote: 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.

Boy GM is really raking it in from UConnect. Everyone's complaining about their monopolistic practices. Last checking GM's share price it was barely a composition of their revenue.

Does their profit or lack of it change the point? Does it only matter if someone is making money?

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

#144

Post by foobarian »

systemBuilder wrote: post #119
pier25 wrote: post #34

So why did Apple decide to make its own SOCs but not its own modem chips? I would expect making CPUs and GPUs to be a lot more difficult than modems, no?

No, handoff design is more difficult than picking and tuning ALU designs from the 70 years of CPU design history, then generating the control circuitry. A lack of design-for-handoff OF ANY SORT is why Intel failed with 802.16. Qualcomm invented soft handoff which made frequency reuse 3x more efficient, and it made CDMA possible. People are pretty ignorant that due to shadow fading you have to keep 3 or more MACIDs ac…

It seems that there is a lot of focus on Qualcomm's strong-arm monopoly tactics. But that seems to me to work exactly as designed - patents are intended to literally grant a temporary monopoly to reward the holder for the expensive research work that otherwise wouldn't have happened. If Qualcomm won't license someone a patent for whatever reason, that is up to them. Clearly if customers are deciding to pay the price, it must be worth it. In fact, Apple itself did after realizing Intel can't deliver the 5G chipsets on time.

The article points out where QCOM actually violated a contract, though. It's related to FRAND patents [1] - they committed to licensing a certain set of patents this way so they can be included in a standard, something very valuable to Qualcomm, and then later reneged on that commitment. That I can totally side with. But all the other bellyaching about QCOM the big bad monopolist for other reasons is missing the point IMO.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...

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

#145

Post by aey »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #122
aey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the value of the 512gb without the qualcomm modem is lower than the 64GB version. Free market pricing is based on demand of the feature not the cost to make it. Qualcomm should be pricing the part at the point where the phone without the qualcomm part is equal value per dollar.

I’m pro patent and copyright law. But they are, by strict definition, government sanctioned monopolies. There ain’t nothing free market about this licensing situation.

Yea. For sure. Apple should be encouraged to spend their 200b in cash on an alternative instead of lawyers.

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

#146

Post by sundvor »

cabaalis wrote: post #21
Veen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should take a moment to review what a monopoly is.

I believe OP is referring to the recent ruling allowing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple's app store to proceed. Not necessarily declared a monopoly yet, but also not declared not one. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/13/18617727/apple-v-pepper-a...

Yes. My point was that they are exhibiting the same type of behaviour that they're accusing Qualcomm of, and that's why I said that's the pot calling the kettle black; they are more than happy to embrace the same self serving behaviour when it serves them.

The app store paid out $34bn to devs last year, so a very simple and probably naive calculation of 34/.7*.3 tells me they pocketed around ~$14.5bn in revenue from a total of $48.5bn. (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/developer-apos-34-billion-ear... )

That really ought to be big enough a pot to warrant my drawing the parallel.

Furthermore,

- They have absolute control and will shut down things whenever they want, such as parental control apps - https://www.macworld.com/article/3391361/apple-privacy-paren... .

- They claim you may install alternative apps, yet you may not set them as default handlers to replace Apple's native ones- https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644045/apple-defends-ap...

- They're playing hardball with Spotify, who are also using the word "monopoly": https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18530894/apple-music-monop...

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

#147

Post by aey »

incompatible wrote: post #121
aey wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, my point exactly. All the recent IP covers improvements since 2G. Apple can try to sell a 2G network connected iPhone based on expired IP without the Qualcomm tax. Free market pricing is based on demand of the feature not the cost to make it. Qualcomm should be pricing the part at the point where the phone without the qualcomm part is equal value per dollar.

If a monopolist (or dominant oligopolist) charges too much, it would encourage competitors, at least if they don't have a stranglehold through patents. There may be a sweet spot where the "free market" allows them to remain a monopolist.

Patents don’t last forever, and there are a dozen ways to solve each problem.

Apple is sitting on 200b in cash. What would be great for consumers if they spent some of their cash on 6g networks before they turn into a sovereign wealth fund.

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

#148

Post by Anarch157a »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #60
village-idiot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> That’s like complaining that IKEA has a monopoly within IKEA stores. I feel like the fact that only Apple makes iOS devices is what's confusing people. Suppose that Tesla is the only company that makes electric cars and also the only company that has any electric car charging ports. (This is a hypothetical; in practice other companies offer both electric cars and charging ports.) They don't have a monopoly on cars…

The problem with your argument is that electricity is fungible and it's wide available. When you buy you Nissan Leaf, you don't need Tesla's charging ports, you can plug it on any power outlet. You might miss the fast charging, but that's it.

When you go buy a phone, one of the factors you have to decide is "what app store do I want". If you go with Android, you might miss a few apps, but so what ? Most of them are also fungible, just use a similar one.

If it wasn't like that, we could say that Wall Mart is a monopoly because only they sell Great Value branded products.

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

#149

Post by forrestthewoods »

aey wrote: post #145
forrestthewoods wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pro patent and copyright law. But they are, by strict definition, government sanctioned monopolies. There ain’t nothing free market about this licensing situation.

Yea. For sure. Apple should be encouraged to spend their 200b in cash on an alternative instead of lawyers.

I’m sure they would love to. The billions they’ve paid in licensing fees is more than it would cost to actually make themselves.

This is the problem with mandatory standards and patents that cover those standards.

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

#150

Post by Retric »

aey wrote: post #147
incompatible wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a monopolist (or dominant oligopolist) charges too much, it would encourage competitors, at least if they don't have a stranglehold through patents. There may be a sweet spot where the "free market" allows them to remain a monopolist.

Patents don’t last forever, and there are a dozen ways to solve each problem. Apple is sitting on 200b in cash. What would be great for consumers if they spent some of their cash on 6g networks before they turn into a sovereign wealth fund.

Apple is not a carrier and they don’t own spectrum. So, they would need to buy one expand 6g networks.

Anyway, such verticals integration is unlikely to be good for consumers.

Post reply on HN