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

Qualcomm's chips have a very bad computer security track record, and their patent-enforced monopoly status makes this a serious problem. If they would go the way of Flash and Acrobat, this would make the world much better off.


Qcom is not a chip company. It is an IP company that happens to make some chips on the side. A majority of their profits are based on their IP portfolio. As a percentage of revenue they spend more on R&D than most Tech companies especially apple. Apple spends less than 5% on R&D. However I am not a fan of their chips. Their chips aren't that great, but its hard to compete with them since you have to use their patents on your radio.

It would be good if they just split the IP and Chip parts.


Qualcomm reports QCT (chips and software) separately from QTL (licensing). In 2015, their Form 10-K reported that licensing was around 30% of their income and the rest was chips and software (see page 8).

http://investor.qualcomm.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1234452-...


I think you are looking at their revenue figures. Look on page 40. 87% of the EBT are from QTL. Despite being a small portion of its revenue the Licensing business is a large majority of their profits.


This is true. During my internship orientation, they called this out. (100 lawyers in this building make X% of our money, huge X).


Would whoever supplanted them necessarily have a better record? Competition is a fine thing, but doesn't necessarily optimise for every desirable outcome. Usually the optimised factor is price, not quality metrics like security.


> Qualcomm's chips have a very bad computer security track record,

Better hope you never see the source of a MediaTek Android kernel code dump. Someone with more malicious intent than me could instantly compromise a boatload of devices.


Are you referring to exploits in the modifications made to kernel source or to something underlying in the hardware or bootloader that is exposed by looking at kernel source.

Are they actually making GPL source availible for their kernels?


I am referring to kernel modifications and especially custom module source code. But given the state of the kernel code I've seen, I don't put much trust in bootloader and hardware either.

Go search on Github for leaked sources, I am not sure if they're legal to post here...




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

Search: