Another complicating factor is that governments in China and Europe have had industrial aid policies that helped their telecom firms in a way that the US has not. “Our government has not provided R&D support or other support that Huawei and ZTE (another successful Chinese firm) managed to get from their own government,” Jacobs says.
As you might expect, Jacobs, who retired in 2005, dismisses the accusation that Qualcomm’s license fees are excessive. In fact, he says they’ve remained stable even as Qualcomm has provided more technology, and that Qualcomm doesn’t just monetize its existing patents, but depends on a continuing stream of new research—as the company has done in the last decade with the new 5G standard. “Unless you keep running hard, people go right by you,” he says. “And too many of our companies have not made that investment in R&D and kept running hard.”
Qualcomm’s Founder On Why the US Doesn’t Have Its Own Huawei
In una lunga intervista concessa a Steven Levy, il fondatore (in pensione) di Qualcomm riassume in breve come funziona il discorso Stati Uniti contro Huawei e compagni: nessuno ha fatto i compiti a casa, negli USA, adesso si prova a forzare la mano con la politica.
Il punto è: probabilmente il destino di Huawei sarà segnato da tutto questo, ma tra cinque anni si riproporrà la stessa identica situazione quando si inizierà a parlare di 6G. Cambieranno i nomi, non cambierà il risultato: perché, nel frattempo, negli USA, nessuno sta facendo i compiti a casa.
