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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #51
    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.
     
  2. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #52
    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/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.....
     
  3. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #53
    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.
     
  4. Ramchi macrumors 6502a

    Ramchi

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Location:
    India
    #54
    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.
     
  5. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #55
    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....
     
  6. The Game 161 macrumors P6

    The Game 161

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #56
    Unlike you thought you upgrade your phones yearly?
     
  7. KPandian1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    #57
    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!:mad:
     
  8. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #58
    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.....
     
  9. mi7chy, Jan 12, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019

    mi7chy macrumors 603

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #59
    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.
     
  10. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #60
    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.
     
  11. tooltalk, Jan 12, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019

    tooltalk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #61
    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.
     
  12. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #62
    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.
     
  13. tooltalk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #63
    But don't you agree that having a closed-door regulatory investigation without any representation is unfair to any defendant?
     
  14. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #64
    That’s the way it seems to work when the government is investigating your company. Might be something to it.
     
  15. tooltalk, Jan 12, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019

    tooltalk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #65
    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.
     
  16. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #66
    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.
     
  17. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #67
    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....
     
  18. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #68
    The keyword “might” was used. This implies doubt and uncertainty. :)
     
  19. Ramchi macrumors 6502a

    Ramchi

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Location:
    India
    #69
    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.
     
  20. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #70
    this "might" be you not applying the same benefit of the doubt to Qualcomm that you do to Apple
     
  21. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #71
    I clearly was talking about Qualcomm.
     
  22. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #72
    yeah...I got that...you insinuated that since they were under investigation...they were guilty.
     
  23. I7guy macrumors P6

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #73
    No, I stated a fact they were under investigation and said they “might” be guilty. That’s a clear, IMO.
     
  24. NetMage macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    #74
    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.
     
  25. ksec macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2015
    #75
    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.
     

Share This Page