Home > News content

Why don't China have Qualcomm and Intel? Meizu Li Nan: We keep putting it on.

via:Expreview超能网     time:2019/3/15 18:33:22     readed:175

Visit the purchase page:

Meizu 16th

Everyone can see the gap in technology and talent of domestic companies, but only these restrictions? Li Nan, deputy vice president of Meizu, gave a slightly different answer to this question because Chinese companies could not grasp the rules of the game in this market. They had no pricing power at all, and they were "putting on the jacket all the time".

Why does Li Nan, a Meizu, feel this way on this issue? Despite the fact that Meizu has turned to Qualcomm processors, the flagship plane built with Qualcomm's Qielong 845 flagship processor began last year. But many people may have forgotten the scene of Qualcomm in the Meizu War in 2016. After paying an anti-monopoly fine of 6.1 billion yuan to the Development and Reform Commission in 2015, Qualcomm has made a good statement in collecting patent fees at home, and won it in less than a year. The vast majority of domestic TOP10 manufacturers, even if it isHUAWEIQualcomm also had to pay a patent fee, and at that time the most dissatisfied was Meizu.

In 2106 and before, Meizu used Qualcomm processors on very few models of mobile phones, basically MTK Meifake phones. Although some players sneered at Meifake phones, Meizu did, as they said at their press conference, "probably the only mobile phone company that did not rely on Qualcomm to become bigger and stronger." Meizu created a peak sales of 22 million. When you don't use high school.

Meizu is not the first company to be dissatisfied with the patent policy of Qualcomm, but with Meizu's size, they and Qualcomm are doomed to have no results. After Qualcomm chose to sue Meizu for 520 million yuan, Meizu could do nothing but hold a conference to show its grievance. Eventually, Meizu reached a cooperation agreement with Qualcomm. So far, no major mobile phone manufacturers in China have an example. A patent licensing agreement has been reached with Qualcomm.

So there is one thing that many netizens don't understand. Behind the eagerness of many people to express their dissatisfaction with the processors and even to the manufacturers who don't use them, this matter is unfavorable to the manufacturers and even the whole domestic mobile phone industry. Therefore, the market can not be separated from the competitors such as CDK, Hess, Intel and so on.

In addition, Qualcomm can be so "hegemonic" in this field, of course, also need to be convinced. Qualcomm is one of the earliest companies to invest in network technology research and development. In this regard, it has spent money to obtain a number of standard and necessary patents. To achieve this level, it is only through its own efforts and courage, but Qualcomm's greed in patent licensing can not be tolerated even by companies like Apple. In the case of the second backup, it also chose to turn its back on Qualcomm. The patent war lasted for two years, and the FTC Trade Commission of the United States initiated lawsuits against the monopoly of Qualcomm.

As for Intel, you should know that X86 is their private property right. Except for AMD and the corrupted VIA, other companies have no legal authorization, and Intel will not authorize any more. The X86 authorization of AMD was withdrawn by Intel very early. AMD has had many years of lawsuits to keep it. So Intel doesn't seem as domineering as Qualcomm because other companies don't even have the chance to compete.MicrosoftWith the launch of the X86 simulator on the ARM platform, Intel jumped out to protect their X86 property rights.

Understanding the above background, you can have a basic understanding of what Li Nan said about the rules of the game. He was previously aware of the question, "Why China does not have Intel, Qualcomm, where is China's chip industry lost?" 》 Also answered, under this question, many people answered the restrictions of technology, talent, policy and so on, while Li Nan provided a new angle: the second kind of game rules.

Here is his answer:

"The second rule of the game

You've been hearing about Intel and Qualcomm's various patent fees, but you don't think it's strange that ARM confiscates a lot of patent fees.

In fact, essentially we say chips involve two kinds of play. One is the play of Intel inside laid down by intel. Qualcomm dragon is also Follow.

But in fact, the whole industry chain, and later developed a second play, that is, global collaboration, open source, with intellectual property fees. Qualcomm's communication chip baseband is actually Follow's second way of playing.

However, it is not Qualcomm, but ARM, that makes the second game perfect. ARM is more eligible for patent fees than Qualcomm, but its fees are extremely cheap. This illustrates two points:

Second, there is no competition, which will inevitably lead to high prices. The reason why ARM does not pursue high-priced patent fees, to a large extent, is still worried about the inadvertent counter-attack of X86.

Look at the face pricing...

In fact, these two kinds of games are the most harmful to China. In the long run, they are actually the second. Even more extreme, it's the second way of ARM inside...

Trump is in the limelight, but the Democratic Party's global design is also made by a group of high-ranking people. And it's more covert than blatantly knocking on your money.

Global collaboration, open source and intellectual property fee play do have a good side.

Globally unified standards and division of labor among countries are the best in terms of the experience of the most total consumers, as well as the overall cost and speed of R&D. However, there is a key problem, in fact, it is not so good.

That is: since the West is divided into white-collar jobs in the whole industrial chain through the global division of labor, then whether he wants to be Qualcomm or ARM?

The answer is simple: it depends on his mood. And his internal game results.

(When non-Western firms join the pricing power group, there is an external game. How do they react? There will be an excellent example later.)

If ARM is patient enough, you will be even more helpless if you suddenly become highly skilled after controlling the situation in the future. Fixing the bugs of globalization, or starting to confront, makes it almost inevitable for China and the United States to confront and start self-study in various basic fields.

With the improvement of China's bargaining power, it is impossible for him to accept this set of passive rules based on intellectual property rights, but for Chinese industrial players, there is no pricing power at all.

At present, we have failed in the game of pricing power. But it is precisely because of the failure of the revision of the global division of labor that the choice between China and the United States tends to be more extreme and confrontational.

Finally,

Back to the question, you can recall a lot of reports about essential patents for standards, and you will find that the Chinese media and readers have no insight into the background of the design (the Western manufacturing industry was defeated by Japan in the 1970s).

Therefore, we lose, but also lose in the judgment and recognition of the situation. Essentially, this design is built into it.

We should do it by ourselves (develop our own independent intellectual property rules and methods of play) while we get rid of it (strive for pricing power). And our choice, in fact, is to keep putting it on.

This can indeed set up a number of R&D companies, and this kind of enterprise eventually joined the pricing power group, the matter is not over yet...

Now, he has to face all the problems in the process of his joining the pricing power group in the United States, and make a comprehensive counter-offensive calculation. (At present, Meng's affairs are just the beginning of a series of accusations.) And this kind of behavior, in fact, has already shown the poor dagger: this position, is not for you to sit.

Therefore, this choice can not solve China's overall economic problems.

It's naive for PS to say that patentees can't dry up and fish. Apple has been overwhelmed by the acceptance of lawsuits around the world...

The DVD industry is already a ready-made example (you can check how far the patentee went) of paying tuition fees. Otherwise, mobile phones will not stand up to so many years. This is not a question of who harms whom. Participation is a voluntary choice after the game.

But in the long run, it's time for China to stop followingrules made by others.

In the business battlefield, the person who makes the rules is the ultimate and eternal winner.

China IT News APP

Download China IT News APP

Please rate this news

The average score will be displayed after you score.

Post comment

Do not see clearly? Click for a new code.

User comments