> It's because Apple uses a lock-in strategy, where once on an Apple platform it is painful to get off. Most of the smart Apple iPhone users I know actually use Google apps and Google's infrastructure and other third-party tools on their iPhones, so if they want to move to an Android phone they can move almost seamlessly.<p>...what? Sentence 1, "once on Apple it's painful to get off." The <i>very next sentence</i>, the author says that most iPhone people he knows could move to Android almost seamlessly. That doesn't sound like it's that painful to get off.<p>Look, if you're going to contradict yourself, <i>fine</i>, just... put a few sentences in between first.
There are a lot of words here with not much sense. This isn't just Apple v Qualcomm. Four of the major tech manufacturers (Hon Hai Precision Industry, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal) are also suing [0] Qualcomm for $9 billion, which may be tripled to $27 billion.<p>"The group's complaint is that Qualcomm charges for chips used in manufacturing, but then requires a patent royalty on top, which the firms believe is an anticompetitive business practice. While the firms collectively demand $9 billion from Qualcomm in damages if the payments are deemed illegal, there is also a possibility of the figure tripling if antitrust claims in the suit also succeed."<p>[0] <a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/17/apple-manufacturer-foxconn-not-negotiating-with-qualcomm-over-9b-royalties-dispute" rel="nofollow">https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/12/17/apple-manufacture...</a>
Former industry analyst here. The article felt like a poorly written businesses school assignment. Then I checked the author and it made sense. Enderle is a click-baiting joke. Moving on.