Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qurious who wrote (196351)	10/31/2025 1:38:37 AM
From: waitwatchwander	2 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John vkvraju5 Respond to of 196422

If Q charges too much why has everyone else prospered while Qualcomm slowly wallowed on. I will admit many in Q's business have failed and Q does empower all that come forward. Is it the later that perturbs their surviving customers? For sure that's been the case for one customer. Why not for all?

To: Qurious who wrote (196351)	10/31/2025 10:05:08 AM
From: Wildbiftek	18 Recommendations Recommended By abcs Bill Wolf Cooters Dr. John dylan murphy and 13 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196422

That they understand the royalty is capped doesn't mean they understand the value of the system or the complexity of its implementation. Apple's head of silicon dev. called it the most complex system Apple has ever done: macrumors.com Most people don't think much of it since it just works, but it is the easily most complex system that most people use on a day-to-day basis. Qualcomm is the prime mover for the design of the air interface for each G generation which I think is the most essential technology and complexity of cellular networks --so it does deserve outsized licensing fees for the essential value it adds from its tens of billions in investment. The one thing I would agree with is the fact that in order for Qualcomm to extract fair value from licensing, it has to continuously face challenges in court. Companies such as Apple with their sterling brand image (however ill deserved) has cunningly made a public spectacle of it with very public and very distortive statements to negatively affect public image of Qualcomm. Never mind that phone vendors just pass this small fee of ~$10 a phone for the use of a robust and performant design for the most essential aspect of a phone onto consumers, all while charging >10x the markup over the commodity price for a 256 GB NAND upgrade. Now that's extortion.