Will the smartphone go the way of the pc with same tired feature set upgrades, commoditized parts, Asian OEMs undercutting each other resulting in razor thin margins etc.
18 replies (most recent on top)
The push toward VoLTE is the push against license fees, and while QC has a lot of patents they are thin and challengeable or can be worked around if need be.
I'd be surprised if royalties are half of what they are now for QC in a decade.
we're not mafia. we're wiseguys. we're Goodfellas. it's not just QC and global regulatory bodies either. Ericson is also being "victimized" by devious Apple who does not want to pay modem tax when they upgrade camera/display/etc. Bad Apple! Raping those who invent without even giving the common courtesy of a reacharound.
QC employees don’t want to admit that they are working for the Mafia. Well, China is communist and picking on QC as a foreign company. Want to make the same argument for Korea, Japan, European-Union, US FTC? Only places QC is not being investigated are Middle-East and Africa. They are too busy to be bother with QC, when they have to deal with ISIL and Boko Haram. Yes, QC is better than ISIL.
Does anybody have a logical argument why the royalties are collected on device price? Tradition and pragmatism from 2G era don't count as arguments. Clearly it's difficult for QC employees to have much perspective on the topic, as it would be irrational to bite the licensing hand that feeds. Some real cognitive dissonance at play........
Here's a typical comment from a (likely) shareholder fanboy. Nothing quite like playing the victim card.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29960993
The incentive to control patents is to get licensing royalty. In fact patent holders want to promote HW/SW development to increase number of licensees. QC wants it both ways, licensing fee and IC sales. Those two things are colliding all over the world. Being investigated on every continent in the world means you are doing something wrong. Every investigation ended with verdict against QC.
so if a single company develops (or gobbles up thru acquisition) a majority of standards essential patents, they can wreak havoc on the industry by creating a prohibitively costly toll/tax for all other competitors. A true monopoly of patent "mining power" isn't necessary to dominate. It's like bitcoin mining in that sense!
There is no promotion of competition (typo) through heavy handed licensing. Look at the IC industry, Ericson, Freescale,TI, Broadcom, Nvida, and so on, all quit mobile business. In fact, it is the licensing practice that prevents competition, when QC would act out anti-competitively by withhold licensing, bunddling, forcing cross licensing, on and on. All those things are in findings from regulator investigations across the world. Licensing itself is controversial, but the crust of the problem is QC is also in chip business. IC companies are the enabler of the mobile growth, and QC is squashing them with licensing. Why do you think China insists on home brew TD?
Would you please clarify - "There is no promotion of completion through heavy handed licensing scheme"
@71310,@71515: Regardless of your view in Wintel, Intel and MS delivered products. What is going on in mobile is different. Licensing based on the end product has never been practiced in IC or SW industries, or any other industries for that matter. QC has a gravy train in licensing, and it is good for QC, but no one else likes it or want to see it continue. Mobile grew as necessity and it would grow no matter what licensing scheme is behind it. However, QC uses licensing to monopolize the end product profit, and that is the issue at hand. There is no promotion of completion through heavy handed licensing scheme. CDMA was created long ago, lawyers not the engineers figured out how to profit from it. At this point, QC is more of impediment to mobile growth .
Remember USA was created because we opposed being taxed. Taxation without representation was the theme then, and it is theme now.
How did a "tax" help revolutionize mobile space. I mean, the tax is there and the mobile space was revolutionized. What's the link though. Its not like Moore's law is predicated on royalty stack.
it might be one person's perception....I dont think anyone hates Qcom. people are always jealous of the successful companies....qcom has done well so some people are upset....Qualcomm licensing is like TAX which people have to pay...no one likes to pay taxes....but this tax helped to revolutionize the mobile space.... QUALCOMM has played the part what wintel played in computers.....
I'm kind of curious why attendees at ISSCC hated QCOM? Is it because of our biz model of collecting royalties from IP, or is it something else? It would be helpful if you would share your insights.
One thing for sure is that QCOM has become a four letter word. At ISSCC, the IEEE conference just taken place in SF, people are using QCOM like a swear word, as the most hated.
Some of this has already happened, that is why Apple is getting into the car business. They areoojing for their next big Moby maker.
Are you talking about usage or manufacturing?
hasn't it happened already....except Apple which company in US making phones....Motorola dead, Kyocera??, all manufacturing is done in Asia....
Why not?