On the eve of the launch of the 10th anniversary iPhone, ARM chipmaking giant Qualcomm has fired a shot at Apple. Qualcomm, and not Apple, is the real innovator in the mobile world, the firm says.
“Qualcomm’s inventions and innovations lead the R&D engine for the mobile industry,” the chipmaker claims. “Qualcomm has enabled some notable world firsts on Android, and some remain Android exclusives to this day. Although by no means comprehensive, there are a number of technologies and respective mobile devices where they appeared that paved the way for others to come.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Qualcomm’s list of Android-first innovations includes Fast/Quick Charging, dual cameras, facial recognition, augmented reality (AR), depth-sensing, bezel-less design, water-resistant touch screen, OLED display, 4K display, Gigabit LTE, Ultra HD playback, NFC with app support, Bluetooth 5, virtual 5.1 surround sound, and HDR capabilities in various entertainment apps, among others. Many of them are still not available on iPhone. Though one imagines that Apple will close the gap with today’s iPhone X announcement.
“Inventions from Qualcomm lay the foundation for so many technologies and experiences we value in our smartphones today,” Qualcomm writes. “Our model is to make our inventions available as broadly as possible to the mobile industry through our licensing program, from start-ups to global companies.”
On the one hand, Qualcomm has a point, and I’ve argued myself that it is Android leading the way on leading-edge designs and technologies in mobile for a few years now.
But we can’t discount Apple’s enduring strength, which is to be a follower, yes, but one that seizes on the right blend of technologies and features at the right time, and implements them in a way that makes them more seamless and accessible to users.
Facial recognition is a great example. Apple is expected to finally rollout this sign-in technology in the iPhone X, years after Microsoft/Nokia and many Android devices makers first implemented it. But facial recognition has always sucked, and Apple was right to ignore it during this nascent phase. And given its track record, I expect Apple to be the first company to deliver facial recognition that is both fast and accurate.
We’ll see if that pans out. But I think the fair thing to say here is that there is a compelling case to be made for both sides. Android moves more quickly to the future, but those devices tend to be more like Windows PCs, with potential instabilities, slowing performance over time, and security issues. The iPhone, meanwhile, is slow, safe, and consistent. And when it does do something, it does it right.
Anyway, Qualcomm deserves a tip of the hat, for sure. But dancing on Apple’s grave right before a big product announcement is a bit low class.
Todd Northrop
<p>How in the world can you say face recognition sucks today (I.e., before "Apple shows the world how to do it.")?</p><p><br></p><p>As a Microsoft writer I would expect you to be familiar with how awesome face recognition is on Surface devices as well as using Kinect on Xbox. It's lighting fast and extremely accurate. </p><p><br></p><p>Great for Apple that they finally grow a pair and add technologies that have been around for years, but writing about it as some wonderful thing is odd. Do you have to consciously remove objectivity or does it happen without thinking?</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><a href="#175872"><em>In reply to Speednet:</em></a></blockquote><p>to add to that, I thought Apple bought the company that provided the technology for Kinect?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#175892"><em>In reply to toukale:</em></a></blockquote><p>You're right it's better if they didn't react, but years of bragging about technologies that others pioneered gets under people's skin. The media adds to the problem by giving Apple special treatment and by comparing everything to Apple as if their products are designed as God intended. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#175981"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>A perfect example of what I'm talking about: <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"No other device in our lifetimes has had the impact on the world that the iPhone has," – Tim Cook</span></p><p><br></p><p>Really? Perhaps Tim means millennial lifetimes. Here's a few items in my lifetime that dwarf the impact of the iPhone: the transistor, the microprocessor, basic cellphone technology. I'm sure there are others. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#176134"><em>In reply to toukale:</em></a></blockquote><p>Apparently you don't understand the definition of "device" which certainly includes everything I listed. Neither Cook nor I used the word "product", although microprocessor's are a product that has sold billions of units.</p>
Stooks
<p>I worked for Qualcomm for 12 years, up until 2015. Every single thing they did outside of ARM has been a complete failure. They are truly a one trick pony.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#175895"><em>In reply to Stooks:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yeah, that CDMA tech for cell phones never made anyone a penny.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#175978"><em>In reply to toukale:</em></a></blockquote><p>Having fewer models actually makes the process easier, not harder. And a larger scale also reduces cost. I don't see what kind of risk you are referring to. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#176007"><em>In reply to toukale:</em></a></blockquote><p>A wise business doesn't create any features that don't work properly regardless of where it fits within their lineup. Most of the features that Apple was late to implement weren't major technical challenges and so represented minimal risk anyway.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#175936"><em>In reply to Darmok N Jalad:</em></a></blockquote><p>The debate over who was first isn't all the meaningful IMO, but I don't see how unimplemented ideas count as being "first". I thought of drones back in Jr. high in the late 60s, that doesn't mean I get credit for being first on drones.</p>