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

[jamezr]

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.

well i based it on my knowledge of reading and all the rumors here on MacRumors and the leaks that i have read here on MR. The triple camera is not enough for me to upgrade from my Xs Max.
Then to be honest....i never claimed any inside knowledge. That was your statement....not mine.
I am pretty happy with my Xs Max.....so for me to upgrade there would have be a very big WOW factor or great new feature. I haven't heard anything like that so far....

 

[I7guy]

I hope Apple has some tricks up it's sleeve for 2019 to combat the alleged "sagging sales". They might need to pull out stops. Although I'm happy with my max, it's conceivable I buy a 2019 model and make the max a hand me down.

 

[dampfnudel]

While I don’t expect 5G to be very beneficial to the average user, at least not in the next few years, it would’ve been nice if Apple would use it to beef up this year’s iPhone which might have a design that comes off as meh. It might be useful to some power users.

 

[The Game 161]

I hope Apple has some tricks up it's sleeve for 2019 to combat the alleged "sagging sales". They might need to pull out stops. Although I'm happy with my max, it's conceivable I buy a 2019 model and make the max a hand me down.

I think a lot of the improvements could be in IOS 13.

Hopefully multitasking spilt screen/always on display/dark mode comes. Features I would like to have on my max.

 

[Tech198]

So, Apple signed a contract in exclusivity, then decided later to back down and try other makers, while still under contract?

If end users tried to pull that one off with mobile carriers, they'd take us to court about not paying early termination fees.

Seems both Apple and Qualcomm are probably only serving half its lawsuits... Qualcomm offers Apple a deal they can't refuse..

Reminds me somewhat of "The God Father"

 

[technole]

So the real issue is that Apple wants a the cheap prices from Qualcomm and wants the diversification outside of Qualcomm.
They want to have their cake and eat it also.

Um no. A lot of Apple components to final assembly have a second vendor. Everything from iPad to iPhone. Diversified prevents supply chain problems, and of course being held hostage like with Qualcomm.

Most doubt that Intel and Apple will ever have a spat but it’s not out of the conversation there is enough mumbling that Apple is considering making their own modems.

 

[tooltalk]

Um no. A lot of Apple components to final assembly have a second vendor. Everything from iPad to iPhone. Diversified prevents supply chain problems, and of course being held hostage like with Qualcomm.

Most doubt that Intel and Apple will ever have a spat but it’s not out of the conversation there is enough mumbling that Apple is considering making their own modems.

This narrative is false. Apple had choice of chip suppliers, notably Intel whose inferior wireless modem was used in older / current iPhone models, but instead demanded a huge monetary incentive from Qualcomm for Apple's order. Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Then, unhappy that Qualcomm's incentive wasn't still enough, Apple went around lying about their rebate for exclusivity deal as Qualcomm illegally locking-in their customers. This is not just an aggressive business negotiation tactic, but an outright intentional misrepresentation.

Your second argument is also flawed. in cutting technologies like mobile OLED display (Samsung), durable glass (Corning), and custom foundry (TSMC), the market situation doesn't allow buyers from choosing a secondary supplier. Apple's narrative that Qualcomm's rebates for exclusivity prevented Apple from using another supplier is pure baloney.

 

[I7guy]

This narrative is false. Apple had choice of chip suppliers, notably Intel whose inferior wireless modem was used in older / current iPhone models, but instead demanded a huge monetary incentive from Qualcomm for Apple's order. Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Then, unhappy that Qualcomm's incentive wasn't still enough, Apple went around lying about their rebate for exclusivity deal as Qualcomm illegally locking-in their customers. This is not just an aggressive business negotiation tactic, but an outright intentional misrepresentation.

Your second argument is also flawed. in cutting technologies like mobile OLED display (Samsung), durable glass (Corning), and custom foundry (TSMC), the market situation doesn't allow buyers from choosing a secondary supplier. Apple's narrative that Qualcomm's rebates for exclusivity prevented Apple from using another supplier is pure baloney.

Apple is working on multiple suppliers for display tech. That's a fact. Samsung also supplied the SOC for the iphone 6s. Your assertion that "Apple's narrative that Qualcomm's rebates for exclusivity prevented Apple from using another supplier is pure baloney", is pure baloney. But I guess there is enough spin out there to find whatever narrative one wants to support.

 

[kdarling]

According to Blevins, during the period when Apple used only Qualcomm chips, Apple had wanted to use chips from other suppliers as well but signed an exclusivity agreement with Qualcomm because Qualcomm offered deep rebates on patent licenses to discourage Apple from diversifying.

So... Apple signs an exclusivity contract in order to get rebates, and now blames the supplier for enforcing the exclusivity?

Wow. Apple needs to put on its big boy pants, as it liked to say to others who had signed their own exclusivity contract with Apple. GTAT, anyone?

 

[Ifti]

Apple need to hold on 5G and first try to get 4G on the XS working properly!

 

[I7guy]

So... Apple signs an exclusivity contract in order to get rebates, and now blames the supplier for enforcing the exclusivity?

Wow. Apple needs to put on its big boy pants, as it liked to say to others who had signed their own exclusivity contract with Apple. GTAT, anyone?

Didn’t they say somewhere the contract expired?

 

[Bacillus]

So... Apple signs an exclusivity contract in order to get rebates, and now blames the supplier for enforcing the exclusivity?
Wow. Apple needs to put on its big boy pants, as it liked to say to others who had signed their own exclusivity contract with Apple. GTAT, anyone?

Apple need to hold on 5G and first try to get 4G on the XS working properly!

Maybe we should start at the business basics.
There’s lots of concern and hasty iOS updates across the line to get the Intel modem working properly, and Intel is at least 1 year behind in 5G (+ extra time to get it stable)
So how (un)wise was the idea of challenging/ditching QualComm (for $30 a device, that Apple already passed onto customers tenfold...) in favor of Intel.
While I can understand your scepsis around 5G, and even share it personally, Apple is desperately looking for what the market regards as distinctive innovation or something that rationalizes their pricepoint.
5G plays a great role in getting themselves back on track again, commercially.

Didn’t they say somewhere the contract expired?

Forget the whistleblowing
It’s not that Apple were held hostage by Qualcomm (at $30 per device !), but they now are to get hostaged by Intel (technically), exactly like with the MacBook line.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/01/iphone-xs-lte-performance-tests/

 

[I7guy]

...Forget the whistleblowing
It’s not that Apple were held hostage by Qualcomm (at $30 per device !), but they now are to get hostaged by Intel (technically), exactly like with the MacBook line

Maybe mediatek will come through after all.

 

[Bacillus]

Maybe mediatek will come through after all.

A multi-supplier strategy would have required to commission/contract such parties before getting into warfare with Qualcomm.
And before negotiating with Intel, to prevent this situation:
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/01/iphone-xs-lte-performance-tests/

 

[mi7chy]

How much are Intel kickbacks to Apple since they're historically known for paying kickbacks to resellers and customers for avoiding AMD? How about AT&T kickbacks to Apple for exclusivity? Why single out Qualcomm?

 

[kdarling]

Didn’t they say somewhere the contract expired?

Well, several things. First off, Apple has never bought a Qualcomm license. If they did, they'd have to pay much more for the patents. Instead, they cleverly let the various factories use their own licenses to pay only on the price that they charge Apple for a boxed iPhone. E.g. $240 for a $700 retail phone.

That's why the royalties mentioned in articles were at one time only about 3.25% of $240 = ~$7.80 per phone. Apple was not paying royalties based on the huge extra profit that they take from their own customers.

As for the rebate contract, it was in return for Apple exclusively using Qualcomm chips. Apple didn't have to sign of course, but their greed overrode their common sense. No different than the way that GTAT agreed to exclusivity with Apple and later regretted it. But regret is not a legal reason to stop paying, and it's not a reason to claim that they "couldn't buy from other modem makers".

Apple stopped honoring it after Qualcomm withheld rebates because they said Apple broke some of the contract provisions.

--

The real reason why Apple had no other modem choice was because most standalone modem makers went out of business when phone makers everywhere started making / using INTEGRATED CPU + MODEM chips. Mediatek, Samsung, Huawei, everyone used an integrated processor set.

Apple is nearly alone using a separate CPU and modem. So it wasn't until Intel got interested, that Apple had a choice (other than say, a standalone Mediatek). And it's a good bet that Apple will leave Intel behind as well, once they hire away enough people to make their own integrated device.

Honestly, it's really hard to get worked up about two highly profitable companies each wanting to make more profit. But in the end, Apple stashing away more billions does nothing for us. OTOH, Qualcomm making more gives the whole world faster and better data technology.

 

[Bacillus]

Well, several things. First off, Apple has never bought a Qualcomm license. If they did, they'd have to pay much more for the patents. Instead, they cleverly let the various factories use their own licenses to pay only on the price that they charge Apple for a boxed iPhone. E.g. $240 for a $700 retail phone.

That's why the royalties mentioned in articles were at one time only about 3.25% of $240 = ~$7.80 per phone. Apple was not paying royalties based on the huge extra profit that they take from their own customers.

As for the rebate contract, it was in return for Apple exclusively using Qualcomm chips. Apple didn't have to sign of course, but their greed overrode their common sense. No different than the way that GTAT agreed to exclusivity with Apple and later regretted it. But regret is not a legal reason to stop paying, and it's not a reason to claim that they "couldn't buy from other modem makers".

Apple stopped honoring it after Qualcomm withheld rebates because they said Apple broke some of the contract provisions.

--

The real reason why Apple had no other modem choice was because most standalone modem makers went out of business when phone makers everywhere started marking / using INTEGRATED CPU + MODEM chips. Mediatek, Samsung, Huawei, everyone used an integrated processor set.

Apple is nearly alone using a separate CPU and modem. So it wasn't until Intel got interested, that Apple had a choice (other than say, a standalone Mediatek). And it's a good bet that Apple will leave Intel behind as well, once they hire away enough people to make their own integrated device.

Honestly, it's really hard to get worked up about two highly profitable companies each wanting to make more profit. But in the end, Apple stashing away more billions does nothing for us. OTOH, Qualcomm making more gives the whole world faster and better data technology.

Well & concisedly phrased.
By now, is it right that as a consequence Apple depends on a single and technically inferior modem supplier (Intel) as it didn’t get to commission another (like Mediatek) timely in order to minimuze risk ?
Also, it’s hard to believe whether the Qualcomm battle about $35/device was worth all the legal/operational/commercial hassle and astronomous cost, with bans in misc. countries, hasty iOS updates etc. etc.
It therefore reads as a tragedy of the stubborn - ending worse for all.
Is that indeed the case ?

 

[I7guy]

Well, several things. First off, Apple has never bought a Qualcomm license. If they did, they'd have to pay much more for the patents. Instead, they cleverly let the various factories use their own licenses to pay only on the price that they charge Apple for a boxed iPhone. E.g. $240 for a $700 retail phone.

That's why the royalties mentioned in articles were at one time only about 3.25% of $240 = ~$7.80 per phone. Apple was not paying royalties based on the huge extra profit that they take from their own customers.

As for the rebate contract, it was in return for Apple exclusively using Qualcomm chips. Apple didn't have to sign of course, but their greed overrode their common sense. No different than the way that GTAT agreed to exclusivity with Apple and later regretted it. But regret is not a legal reason to stop paying, and it's not a reason to claim that they "couldn't buy from other modem makers".

Apple stopped honoring it after Qualcomm withheld rebates because they said Apple broke some of the contract provisions.

--

The real reason why Apple had no other modem choice was because most standalone modem makers went out of business when phone makers everywhere started marking / using INTEGRATED CPU + MODEM chips. Mediatek, Samsung, Huawei, everyone used an integrated processor set.

Apple is nearly alone using a separate CPU and modem. So it wasn't until Intel got interested, that Apple had a choice (other than say, a standalone Mediatek). And it's a good bet that Apple will leave Intel behind as well, once they hire away enough people to make their own integrated device.

Honestly, it's really hard to get worked up about two highly profitable companies each wanting to make more profit. But in the end, Apple stashing away more billions does nothing for us. OTOH, Qualcomm making more gives the whole world faster and better data technology.

So Qualcomm wanted to charge apple a fee based on the price of the phone. Doesn’t really sound like FRAND to me. The FTC has enough evidence to investigate Qualcomm for anti-competitive business practices. In the end Apple should make what it can make. And so should Qualcomm, but Qualcomm seems to be doing business in such a way they have various regulatory bodies in multiple countries investigating them. Must be something to it.

 

[0388631]

How much are Intel kickbacks to Apple since they're historically known for paying kickbacks to resellers and customers for avoiding AMD? How about AT&T kickbacks to Apple for exclusivity? Why single out Qualcomm?

I don't believe they do that anymore since they have the home advantage. As of now, Intel mobile processors still hold the lead in lower power phases, such as idle. However, AMD's mobile integrated GPUs are better than Intel's and they worked with Intel to integrate their's into Intel's processors. Ryzen is better on desktop currently, and who's to know what Zen2 offers on Zen and Zen+.

If Zen2 is the holy grail and not a huge waste of time to get excited over, Intel is at least 2-3 years away from coming up with a processor that puts a sizeable gap between them and AMD, again. And last I recall reading, Intel is internally working on their next uarch.