You’re not hearing what I’m saying. I’m saying that Qualcomm historically has supported more advanced 4g and 5g standards that allow them to achieve faster modem rates. Whether that’s true today I’m not sure, but it was definitely true back when Intel was making modems. “Supporting 4g/5g” is meaningless. It matters what bands, what data rates, the sub carrier rates, how many channels you can bond together, etc etc. Take a look at the product briefs of each modem and compare the actual “supported features” and it’s a lot more specific than just “5g” and certain bands, for instance.

>You’re not hearing what I’m saying.

You are saying Qualcomm doesn't have competition because Qualcomm make the best modem and others making worst product cant compete?

Google certainly tortured me and everyone else I knew who had a Pixel 6 (or Pro) phone, you would randomly lose cellular and WiFi and they would not recover on their own, necessitating a reboot or toggling airplane mode to get back online.

The Exynos chipset is cursed, Samsung only ships it in markets where performance is a lower priority than price, hence not shipping Exynos in the US outside the Google Pixel whitelabel relationship.

> hence not shipping Exynos in the US

I thought it was primarily because of some patent/royalty dispute with Qualcomm?

And/or it not having support for CDMA which was not relevant outside of the US. Now that it’s not an issue I wouldn’t be surprised if Samsung would transition to Exynos eventually (they are already apparently selling some models).