I fully understand the animosity from the GSM crowd (Nok, Ericy, Txn et al...)
But I think there's a different, independent dynamic wrt to folks who thought they lent a helping hand to Q, and without their steadfast support through the early cdma trials, Q would never have made it. I think they have a point. This includes the S Koreans (SK Tel for sure; I assume also Samsung and LG?) and Moto. Airtouch and Hutchison HK supported the critical early trials, too. But they are not relevant to this discussion.
In those cases, the persistent acrimony imo comes from those party seeing Q as showing no gratitude. Not only did Q not give them special treatment, or acknowledge their help, in some tangible ways Q treated their enemies (Nok, Ericy et al) better by offering and making -- necessary, from Q's perspective -- deals with them. I definitely heard this from the Koreans.
As to Moto, when I did my dd on Q I spoke with contacts at Moto who were close to Staiano. They were in the room with Staiano where he gripped on multiple occasions about Q's ingratitude and growing arrogance. That was the 1st time I had some doubts about Q business practices. In my book, the correct business practice is to be nice and loyal to your friends, and be tough to your enemies. From where I sit, I see Q doing almost the exact opposite.
Take Q's more recent Q dealings. When Q's BCPA deal with Apple came to light, imagine how Samsung et al must have felt.
All I can say is I hear plenty of negativity from the industry re Q. Not re any technical matters, but re their business practices. In fact, when I ask about Q's products they have nothing but grudging praise. |
