Samsung actually had a technological lead in many areas, and it translated into real revenue. They are a business, and exist to provide utility to consumers in exchange for investor profit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCWDzWG1BcI

Many incentives to push technology forwards are high-risk/expensive investments, and expecting the public/customers to willingly help pay that cost is naive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cru2bkqwSYk

I assure you academic funding does not cover such large costs, government grants are only a fraction of expected taxes in late stage Technology Readiness Levels, and competitor/cloner fractured markets erode fiscal returns needed to pay for the total incurred project cost.

Apple makes minimal utility products, but relies on intangible branding to maintain perceived value. Thus, only Apple could get away with selling zero chip designer handbags, and would still make absurd revenue (not a real product yet.) Steve Jobs observed very early, that selling raw motherboards was a low margin business. Which it was why the company shifted into consumer products.

For almost every other brand, consumers have shown they prefer the near material cost in opportunistic China/India factories, and thus simply ignore most firms products that include 10 years of R&D costs to pay back the investors.

There are many shelved technologies that will never see a Patent or the public markets. This is because the conditions are not ready for advanced products yet, and competitors irrationally nurture the lowest value volume market sectors. Thus, everyone gets a 15% value boost at regular intervals, and people remain excited about 3 decade old technology.

Qualcomm cellular chip product lines essentially lived off iPhone sales. Like any loyal dog, they will unlikely bite the hand that feeds them...

Rule #3: popularity is not an indication of utility.

Have a wonderful day =3