This comparison is so Apples to Oranges. Volume discounts have nothing to do with it. The fact is Qualcomm makes a part and should be charging a fixed price for that part. What other parts manufacturers charge you for the part and then a licensing fee (based on Total cost) to use said part. Imagine I had to fill out a survey when I was building my PC so on top of the 400 dollars I paid for my CPU I also had to pay a licence based on how expensive my PC was going to be? It's ridiculous.
Also I think everyone can agree that tiered federal tax rates suck. Why should I pay more just because I work harder or have a better job. If you had any education in Tax economic you would understand that a flat (and low income tax rate), with a higher consumption tax rate is far superior.
Look, no need to be insulting. I have an education. I'm not going to discuss the merits of flat vs non-flat income tax. Hopefully you can appreciate both sides. I prefer a flat tax and think it's best, too. This isn't the point. If everyone agreed, this is how it'sd be implemented in the US. Everyone unfortunately doesn't agree.
When I mentioned volume pricing, I was trying to emphasize that volume pricing is different per company, even if they have the same volume.
What if I changed your argument to, instead of talking about how much you spent on your PC, but how much money your PC makes you? Would you say it's still "ridiculous"? This is about how much you're PROFITING off of a single part.
I assure you if you are using software for commercial purposes, you are PAYING MORE than non-profit purposes. Windows for education costs less than windows for corporations, for example.
It is not ridiculous to charge more if your invention is bring in more profits. Apple does this in the App Store. It is not ridiculous for software to cost more if the software makes your profit. MS does this.
I assure you if Qualcomm could sell modems retail, it'd be a flat price.