Apple Considered 5G Modem Chips From Samsung, MediaTek, and Intel for 2019 iPhones

[I7guy]

There is going to be a huge buzz in the media all carriers around 5G all year long. 5G is going to be the new buzz word around mobile internet access and home internet access too. Apple will have a PR problem and give people less of a reason to upgrade if the 2019 iPhones do not have 5G.

Just having a better camera will not be enough of a reason to upgrade at the prices Apple is charging. They are already seeing a slow down in sales.
Public perception (right or wrong) will be that iPhones are behind in current technology if they do not have 5G.....

Other than bloggers and journalists and tech types, I'm willing to "bet" in 2019 the average joe is not going to care about 5G especially if cell phone plans in the US undergo no change. At some point public perception will catch up to those models that don't have 5g chips, but not in 2019.

For example I live in an area with marginal signal quality. 5G is not going help me and I can almost guarantee there will not be any new towers in my area, even if they are micro-towers.

 

[jamezr]

Other than bloggers and journalists and tech types, I'm willing to "bet" in 2019 the average joe is not going to care about 5G especially if cell phone plans in the US undergo no change. At some point public perception will catch up to those models that don't have 5g chips, but not in 2019.

For example I live in an area with marginal signal quality. 5G is not going help me and I can almost guarantee there will not be any new towers in my area, even if they are micro-towers.

I disagree......there already is a media buzz around 5G everywhere......it is not just aimed at the techie types. If the media is talking about it...soon the normal everyday person will be too....that's just how it works....

Interest in 5G rose across all age groups over the past year reaching 60 percent for consumers overall.

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pag...Q3-ewGWqeioucBUWQbDcC10lQguZPl0AaAlYEEALw_wcB

There will be lot buzz around 5G continuing this spring and summer with some companies releasing 5G devices.
More and more companies will be releasing 5G phones all summer and fall and going into early 2020.
If the 2019 iPhone does not have 5G then Apple will have a problem competing with all the existing 5G devices that will already on the market. It is a public perception problem.
Apple doesn't release new phones until almost the end of the year...so they will be behind in the public perception. It will towards the end of 2020 if they don't have 5G in this years models.

AT&T and Verizon are having a 5G race to market right now. They are advertising the heck out of it.....

 

[I7guy]

I disagree......there already is a media buzz around 5G everywhere......it is not just aimed at the techie types. If the media is talking about it...soon the normal everyday person will be too....that's just how it works....

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/global-mobile-consumer-survey-us-edition.html?id=us:2ps:3gl:gmcs2018:eng:tmt:120318:ad3:kwd-314044658818:5g deployment&gclid=Cj0KCQiAvebhBRD5ARIsAIQUmnlJzZVli7k9Pt3SdxLbOv_Q3-ewGWqeioucBUWQbDcC10lQguZPl0AaAlYEEALw_wcB

There will be lot buzz around 5G continuing this spring and summer with some companies releasing 5G devices.
More and more companies will be releasing 5G phones all summer and fall and going into early 2020.
If the 2019 iPhone does not have 5G then Apple will have a problem competing with all the existing 5G devices that will already on the market. It is a public perception problem.
Apple doesn't release new phones until almost the end of the year...so they will be behind in the public perception. It will towards the end of 2020 if they don't have 5G in this years models.

AT&T and Verizon are having a 5G race to market right now. They are advertising the heck out of it.....

In my specific case I’m probably going to get some new iPhones in 2019. It won’t matter to me if these phones do not have 5g. I don’t think it matters to my kids, or extended family. So the question becomes does having an interest in equate to not making a purchase.

 

[Ramchi]

Partnering with Samsung is proof that Apple will use you when convenient then throw you under the bus when no longer needed. They have a history of doing that to their suppliers.

Qualcomm is no different either, they have been bullying all around the globe since 2004 with CDMA now LTE, 5G tech.

Though, Apple may not win hearts from public due to their own style as you have mentioned, in this case Apple seems to be doing big favour for the industry as a whole. If they lose this case, next law suit will be against all manufacturers by Qualcomm.

Already Qualcomm given the magnanimous offer for Samsung that they will go after them after finishing law suits with others!

Modem tech is basic for mobile communication unless industry starts adopting different tech altogether.

 

[jamezr]

In my specific case I’m probably going to get some new iPhones in 2019. It won’t matter to me if these phones do not have 5g. I don’t think it matters to my kids, or extended family. So the question becomes does having an interest in equate to not making a purchase.

I have a iPhone Xs Max and have no interest in upgrading it....unless the 2019 models have some terrific new features other than just a triple camera. I have a lot of family and friends that feel the same way.....
Then the current sales slow down for iPhones would seem to indicate a lot of people feel the same way....

Then you seem to have your mind made up to upgrade this year.....regardless of the featureset of the 2019 models....

 

[The Game 161]

I have a iPhone Xs Max and have no interest in upgrading it....unless the 2019 models have some terrific new features other than just a triple camera. I have a lot of family and friends that feel the same way.....
Then the current sales slow down for iPhones would seem to indicate a lot of people feel the same way....

Then you seem to have your mind made up to upgrade this year.....regardless of the featureset of the 2019 models....

Unlike you thought you upgrade your phones yearly?

 

[KPandian1]

No, the whole issue is Apple doesn't want to pay a license fee based on the whole price of their phone, vs paying a straight fee based on the modem by itself.

https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/12/qualcomm-vs-ftc-trial-tidbits/?pushup=1

More clarity on this issue as the FTC case continues.

Double-dipping explained! No, triple-dipping.

Product, license the patent, and give access to consumer's patents as the seller choses!

 

[jamezr]

Unlike you thought you upgrade your phones yearly?

I usually do.....I have had every iphone to date..... I just don't see a reason to upgrade this year. I really like my Xs Max.....

 

[mi7chy]

So, Apple demanded a free handout or they'll throw you under the bus.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ance-to-win-iphone-qualcomm-ceo-idUSKCN1P600H

Typical MO with all their suppliers to get a free handout else try to BK them to steal intellectual property like Qualcomm, Imagination Technologies, Dialog Semiconductor, GT Advanced, etc. Who's next, ARM, Synaptics, Cirrus Logic?

Surprised Apple haven't been investigated for collusion with Chinese government to BK and steal Western IP. Benefit to China is they become the world's sole manufacturer with unfettered access to Western IP while Apple benefit from free manufacturing so no other companies can compete.

Brilliantly dirty supply chain tactic.

 

[I7guy]

So, Apple demanded a free handout or they'll throw you under the bus.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ance-to-win-iphone-qualcomm-ceo-idUSKCN1P600H

Typical MO with all their suppliers to get a free handout else try to BK them to steal intellectual property like Qualcomm, Imagination Technologies, Dialog Semiconductor, GT Advanced, etc. Who's next, ARM, Synaptics, Cirrus Logic?

Surprised Apple haven't been investigated for collusion with Chinese government to BK and steal Western IP. Benefit to China is they become the world's sole manufacturer with unfettered access to Western IP while Apple benefit from free manufacturing so no other companies can compete.

Brilliantly dirty supply chain tactic.

Typical FUD. Your own article cites that regulators viewed this as anti-competitive. Things are not necessarily apply is greedy while Qualcomm has shown amazing corporate largesse.

 

[tooltalk]

Typical FUD. Your own article cites that regulators viewed this as anti-competitive. Things are not necessarily apply is greedy while Qualcomm has shown amazing corporate largesse.

No, not necessarily. Not all regulators had access to the subtext of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm. In previous investigation by South Korea and Taiwan for instance, Qualcomm wasn't even asked to respond to Apple's false accusation that Apple was "forced" into the "rebates" for exclusivity, when it was actually the other way around. It should been obvious from the getgo based on the fact that such kickback scheme is not part of Qualcomm's usual licensing practice and there is no other customer with similar kickback deal. Here in the US, you actually have a bench trial where both defendant and plaintiff can clarify their positions before the public. If such practice is illegal, so be it. But at the least, Apple should also be punished for colluding for the anti-competitive practice.

 

[I7guy]

No, not necessarily. Not all regulators had access to the subtext of the deal between Apple and Qualcomm. In previous investigation by South Korea and Taiwan for instance, Qualcomm wasn't even asked to respond to Apple's false accusation that Apple was "forced" into the "rebates" for exclusivity, when it was actually the other way around. It should be quite obvious base on the fact that this is not Qualcomm's usual licensing practice and there is no other customer with the similar kickback deal. At the least, Apple should also be punished for colluding for the anti-competitive practice.

This is why these proceedings are more complex than some of the analysis on an Internet forum. There have been much “analysis” some of it contradictory.

 

[tooltalk]

This is why these proceedings are more complex than some of the analysis on an Internet forum. There have been much “analysis” some of it contradictory.

But don't you agree that having a closed-door regulatory investigation without any representation is unfair to any defendant?

 

[I7guy]

But don't you agree that having a closed-door regulatory investigation without any representation is unfair to any defendant?

That’s the way it seems to work when the government is investigating your company. Might be something to it.

 

[tooltalk]

https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/12/qualcomm-vs-ftc-trial-tidbits/?pushup=1

More clarity on this issue as the FTC case continues.

Double-dipping explained! No, triple-dipping.

Product, license the patent, and give access to consumer's patents as the seller choses!

a few points from the link here:

1) double-dipping: Qualcomm CEO Mollenkopf testified yesterday that the scope of Qualcomm's wireless IP portfolio goes well beyond wireless modem chips design and features, such as security framework, transmission, and other aspects of wireless communication that are not "embedded" in modems purchased by Apple and become exhausted after the first sales. For everything else that is not part of the "embedded" features in Qualcomm's modems, Apple, or whoever last manufacturer in the manufacturing chain, must pay. This has long been understood and accepted by the industry for decades, except for Apple/FTC.

2) It was also revealed that Apple pushed monetary incentive in exchange for Apple's order. Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Then Apple paraded around the world accusing Qualcomm of "forcing" Apple into anti-competitive customer "lock-in" -- which is illegal in many jurisdictions.

3) In Apple's defense and in somewhat red herring, now Apple's VP of procurment Tony Blevins claims Apple always had sought multi-source strategy to diversify suppliers. Qualcomm's exclusivity deal however prevented them from using competitors' products.

Based on what little we know from the GTAdvanced Tech and other anecdotes from Apple's suppliers, Apple's abusive practice of squeezing supplier is nothing new. This certainly gives us an insight into how Apple's dirty tricks with suppliers really work behind the door and how far Apple's willing to go to screw them.

 

[I7guy]

a few points from the link here:

1) double-dipping: Qualcomm CEO Mollenkopf testified yesterday that the scope of Qualcomm's wireless IP portfolio goes well beyond wireless modem chips design and features, such as security framework, transmission, and other aspects of wireless communication that are not "embedded" in modems purchased by Apple and become exhausted after the first sales. For everything else that is not part of the "embedded" features in Qualcomm's modems, Apple, or whoever last manufacturer in the manufacturing chain, must pay. This has long been understood and accepted by the industry for decades, except for Apple/FTC.

2) It was also revealed that Apple pushed monetary incentive in exchange for Apple's order. Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Then Apple paraded around the world accusing Qualcomm of "forcing" Apple into anti-competitive customer "lock-in" -- which is illegal in many jurisdictions.

3) In Apple's defense and in somewhat red herring, now Apple's VP of procurment Tony Blevins claims Apple always had sought multi-source strategy to diversify suppliers. Qualcomm's exclusivity deal however prevented them from using competitors' products.

Based on what little we know from the GTAdvanced Tech and other anecdotes from Apple's suppliers, Apple's abusive practice of squeezing supplier is nothing new. This certainly gives us an insight into how Apple's dirty tricks with suppliers really work behind the door and how far Apple's willing to go to screw them.

Seems like quacomm wasn’t the knight in shining armor either, which is the reason they are being investigated for anti-competitive practices.

There will be no winner here.

 

[jamezr]

That’s the way it seems to work when the government is investigating your company. Might be something to it.

wait...so you're saying if your company is under investigation...then it implies guilt? Do you know how many times Apple has been investigated? So should we assume they are guilty everytime...according to your logic....

 

[I7guy]

wait...so you're saying if your company is under investigation...then it implies guilt? Do you know how many times Apple has been investigated? So should we assume they are guilty everytime...according to your logic....

The keyword “might” was used. This implies doubt and uncertainty.

 

[Ramchi]

Seems like quacomm wasn’t the knight in shining armor either, which is the reason they are being investigated for anti-competitive practices.

There will be no winner here.

Absolutely! Very difficult to take sides since both are mean and bullying corporations with tremendous tech behind their names.

Making their own modems without infringing Qualcomm patents by all big players would be ideal.

 

[jamezr]

The keyword “might” was used. This implies doubt and uncertainty.

this "might" be you not applying the same benefit of the doubt to Qualcomm that you do to Apple

 

[I7guy]

this "might" be you not applying the same benefit of the doubt to Qualcomm that you do to Apple

I clearly was talking about Qualcomm.

 

[jamezr]

I clearly was talking about Qualcomm.

yeah...I got that...you insinuated that since they were under investigation...they were guilty.

 

[I7guy]

yeah...I got that...you insinuated that since they were under investigation...they were guilty.

No, I stated a fact they were under investigation and said they “might” be guilty. That’s a clear, IMO.

 

[NetMage]

I usually do.....I have had every iphone to date..... I just don't see a reason to upgrade this year. I really like my Xs Max.....

Based on your inside knowledge of what will be included in the XI Plus? Please, tell us why it won’t be worth trading up to from the XS Max.

 

[ksec]

a few points from the link here:

1) double-dipping: Qualcomm CEO Mollenkopf testified yesterday that the scope of Qualcomm's wireless IP portfolio goes well beyond wireless modem chips design and features, such as security framework, transmission, and other aspects of wireless communication that are not "embedded" in modems purchased by Apple and become exhausted after the first sales. For everything else that is not part of the "embedded" features in Qualcomm's modems, Apple, or whoever last manufacturer in the manufacturing chain, must pay. This has long been understood and accepted by the industry for decades, except for Apple/FTC.

2) It was also revealed that Apple pushed monetary incentive in exchange for Apple's order. Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Then Apple paraded around the world accusing Qualcomm of "forcing" Apple into anti-competitive customer "lock-in" -- which is illegal in many jurisdictions.

3) In Apple's defense and in somewhat red herring, now Apple's VP of procurment Tony Blevins claims Apple always had sought multi-source strategy to diversify suppliers. Qualcomm's exclusivity deal however prevented them from using competitors' products.

Based on what little we know from the GTAdvanced Tech and other anecdotes from Apple's suppliers, Apple's abusive practice of squeezing supplier is nothing new. This certainly gives us an insight into how Apple's dirty tricks with suppliers really work behind the door and how far Apple's willing to go to screw them.

Very Nice Summary, although I don't agree with Qualcomm charging double than what others combined are charging in total of IP, the rebate and other revelation puts things in new perspective. We will need to have some real numbers, something we may never know.