Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But they really don't have all the sources. Up until Pixel 6, they've all used Qualcomm chipsets.

Qualcomm is such a ridiculously horrible company to deal with. They're in the business of selling new SoC designs every 6 months and trying to support a device for more than a few years is considered a massive opportunity cost for them.

It's the same concept as Apple mulching old MacBooks so they don't enter the used market except killing them by lack of software support instead.

They have an absolute stranglehold over the SoC market in the US. Samsung made a stupid deal back in the 90's to license CDMA patents in exchange for not selling SoCs (eventually Exynos) in the US or to any other manufacturer for that matter. At the time it probably made sense because Qualcomm agreed to use Samsung to manufacture their chips, but the deal is so hilarious lopsided these days. 30 years on and Qualcomm still won't renegotiate. It might've drawn regulatory ire if Samsung wasn't a foreign company.



Wow I've never heard the deal. Is there any sources? Pixel chips (delivered from Exynos) not included?



For some reason this doesn't apply to snapdragon Chromebooks.

Something tells me there's something wrong, either with Android or with Google itself.


I imagine there's a major attitude difference in the support model for SoCs made for Chromebooks and laptops compared to the ones for smartphones. Smartphones on average are kept for barely over two years in the US, whereas people hang onto a laptop for nearly 5 years.

People are used to desktops and laptops chugging along until they get tired of them being slow, rather than their device or OS vendor cutting them off.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: