[Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Questions & Answers] IT_Architect:
Well of course CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) in name describes a technology that predates cell phones. When it comes to cellular, Qualcomm holds the key patents to the practical deployment of it on cell phones. CDMA was form more widely implemented than people would have us believe. On the other hand, it is not difficult to understand why European countries, European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), would not want to be beholden to Qualcomm or any other single company, and this became the charter and power behind GSM. GSM was legislated so it wouldn't have to compete on its merits. GSM architecture promotes interoperability while Qualcomm ties the hardware to the carrier, which the carriers liked a lot. Example: You want to switch from Sprint to Verizon? No problem. All you need to do is pay off the phone on your current contract plus $200-$400, get into another contract with Verizon, and amortize another $1000 phone because the other phone can only register on the Sprint network. They still had "World Phones" with a SIM slot so you could travel with the phone, but they didn't work with domestic GSM bands, so it isn't like you could use it with Cingular/AT&T or T-Mobile. Similarly, Clearwire developed Wi-Max, and it was being rolled out before LTE was defined. Sprint and Verizon saw the potential to dominate that market. However, as with IDEN, Sprint the once dominant carrier, once again demonstrated its unusual capacity of transforming a silk purse into a pig's ear by buying Clearwire, which caused Verizon to bolt in support of LTE, after which Sprint realized they had no chance of pulling this off without Verizon, and Wi-Max became a niche product while the world waited years for LTE to be defined, developed, and rolled out. LTE uses CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access).

Qualcomm protects their huge investments and risks vigorously, as they should. Apple sued them for overcharging for chips and failing to pay $1 billion in rebates. Apple thought they had won. Afterward, Apple wanted to use Qualcomm modems in the iPhone XS and XR but Qualcomm refused to sell them after Apple sued over its licensing practices, leading to Apple using Intel's modems instead. Then Intel decided they couldn't compete, and wouldn't invest in the 5G game. Thus, just last month, Apple came back to Qualcomm and paid an undisclosed some back to Qualcomm, and entered 6 year licensing agreement. The problem for people is they cannot develop their own for what Qualcomm licenses for. A while back the European Commission fined them for Anti-Trust, as did Korea before that, and it has happened elsewhere as well. They are simply very good at what they do, and technologies have synergies that sell each other. Qualcomm is a highly competent ecosystem that is not heavily legislated against in the US, and what they did to implement quick charging by negotiating a higher voltage outside of the USB 5v standard was well done. Another example of the ecosystem making the sale is Windows. Windows was brought to market by being the graphical subsystem of the Word and Excel install. Word and Excel, with their WYSIWYG, wildly outclassed the de facto standard bearers of that day, Word Perfect and Lotus 123.

As with any industry, as things mature, proprietary technologies give way to open standards when they can, and charging is no different. Steve Balmer, against the screaming of developers and users, killed Microsoft's mobile market when he shut down Windows Mobile, which had millions of very useful apps, including Office, and introduced a gaming operating system, Zune/Windows Phone, with no real apps, AFTER the iPhone came to market, and tried to do an Apple store where only Microsoft could make good apps. (Zune/Windows Phone/Windows RT/Whatever, is the OS that runs metro/modern/universal apps.) That in turn caused investments by cell phone companies in the only other hardware vendor independent phone OS with any potential, Android, and most of the Microsoft app developers went to Android. Together, they developed Android into what it is today. Google worked with, and often pressured, vendors to donate their code to the core OS. Thus, Android became the Windows of the mobile device world with many hardware vendors, and put Google is in the position to help bring focus to standardization in this area.

USB-PD has been developed to fulfill the charging role and dovetails nicely with USB-C's extra power capacity. Everyone is happy to see the new reversible connector, that can also carry more power, and the timing of the new connector can be tied in people's minds to the new and open standard charging technology, even though technically, that connection does not exist. As power requirements have dropped, it this was perfect timing for USB-PD and USB-C to become the charging standard for everything from phones to laptops. Of course USB-C has many other things it standardizes such as high speed data, data cables for monitors, etc. While the Power Delivery spec finalized in 2012, it wasn't until April of 2016 before chips available to support USB PD in phones, by which time PD was in its second revision. The current, and 3rd revision. PD 3.0 has worked to improve its power delivery but is primarily known for offering increased amounts of information about the device being charged and its power/ battery. This includes reporting any malfunction or system change within the device, temperature of the device, or what may be causing hold ups or decreased charging speed, etc. For example, if an over-current or over-voltage occurs while charging, your device will notify you with a data message of the mishap. There was an effort to rule that Qualcomm's technologies were not compatible with USB-C, but Qualcomm won that argument. Also, the latest, Qualcomm charging technology, QuickCharge 4.0, is built on USB-PD. Another advantage of USB-C is it can work both ways. For instance, power banks take a long time to charge. If it has a USB-C port, you can rapidly charge that great big battery, and then use the same charger as the power supply for your devices, all without trying to match cables and technologies.

These are some of the reasons it makes sense to me that Samsung wouldn't be thinking about QC, especially after they already deployed USB PD in their hardware by the time the Note 8 came out. Personally, the faster I get rid of the non-USB-C devices, the better.