Intel is CAT16, Qualcom X20 is CAT18. Qualcomm as 5 more bands. Intels XMM 7560 is more in class with qualcomms X16 than the X20.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Eliminating Qualcomm Chips From Next Year's iPhones and iPads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel is CAT16, Qualcom X20 is CAT18. Qualcomm as 5 more bands. Intels XMM 7560 is more in class with qualcomms X16 than the X20.
Is it just me or does anyone else get a funny feeling they are not giving Apple some petty software and risking the whole deal?
I don't know how any of this works, but I get the feeling they started implementing something into these chips that they don't want someone to know about.
Glassed Silver:ios
I don't know how any of this works, but I get the feeling they started implementing something into these chips that they don't want someone to know about.
Glassed Silver:ios
I always believed that royalties are a fixed percentage or value of every chip they sell.
Even a fixed sum every year.
Now Qualcomm wants a percentage of every IPHONE value. That's ridiculous!
Every iPhone has a value that is built up through software and hardware engineering competence, promotion, reliability, design, desirability to customers, etc.
Hope Apple wins the fight and let Qualcomm learn their lesson.
Not sure what happened but they have gone up over 4 dollars since last week. I'm happy
Based on the hit Qualcomm took, I’d say it is closer to 1 tenth that value.
I still have a 5s (have ordered X!) and have the same download speed as you and faster upload speed - presumably I have a much older chip. So maybe chips have very little to do with speed and it's actually your carrier that is the problem?
Newbie? You really don't have a clue do you?
Yep, once Apple became popular it's no longer about using the best parts, it's about buying the cheapest components. Now it may be that Qualcomm deserves to lose the largest account in the US and 2nd or 3rd in the world, but that does not make it good for Apple customers. Of course, since Cook has no idea of the difference between the two chips, then it makes no difference to Apple to be second best.
Or maybe it depends on how congested the tower is that I am connected to - too many variables and yet people here insist on a pissing match.
Apple considering...? Well, I'd say they already scrapped because the iPhone X already developed two - three years ago... so next two years are probably Intel.
It's not a sudden "now". It's the way major cellular patents have been licensed for almost three decades, and the way Apple's been paying for ten years.
And of course not just to Qualcomm. Here's the declared 3G+LTE starting negotiation rates for major patent holders:
Most phone makers don't pay those listed starting rates, btw. They get discounts by cross licensing. Nokia, for example, is said to pay almost nothing in royalties due to its massive cross licensing. Apple, having contributed very little to cellular standards, has no such advantage.
By charging based on a device's factory or wholesale cost, literally billions of people are able enjoy cell phones, who otherwise could not. And Apple got a ready made market and infrastructure that they used to make billions of dollars. Without the decades of hard work and billions spent by others, there could be no iPhone.
The more valuable your IP, the more you can charge. In Qualcomm's case, they not only invented some core technologies, but have continued to spend billions a year in next generation R&D that benefits every smartphone (and soon, wireless 5G home) user.
In short, charging by product cost with cross licensing discounts and a rate cap, is a common ETSI FRAND licensing method. Apple naturally would like to change that since they're a latecomer.
Last edited:
This is not good news for Qualcomm. I wouldn't be surprised that the likes of Samsung and LG are going to source their LTE chips from someone else soon so THEY won't have to pay Qualcomm royalties. For example, the replacement for the Samsung Galaxy S8 for the US market may only use the next-generation Samsung Exynos SoC with a non-Qualcomm LTE radio for US market models.
Qualcomm is removing testing software and probably more stuff from Apple. Without proper testing, I would not want to use a phone with potential problems from actions of an idiot.
Last edited:
That's not how it works. A device maker has to pay cellular royalties to ALL the patent holders no matter whose chip they use. And Qualcomm is a big LTE contributor. (Like many others, they get paid for any 2G/3G/4G.)
The silicon chip is not the important part. The IP to make the chip act as a cellular modem, is.
That's why they don't base royalties off ever less expensive chips, any more than Apple gives customers discounts off their usual $100 or $200 premium if they get cheaper memory chip prices.
--
Note: Anyone can make chips. Samsung already makes their own. They even sell them to other companies in China.
Last edited:
They're going to pay someone. The idea that Qualcomm is just going to get blackballed is ridiculous. Their technology is still superior, which matters quite a bit.
It's not about making or not making a profit really in this case. Qualcomm has no leg to stand on.
A
i kinda think he’s just telling the truth. He consistently posts sources for his statements. Unlike others here. $50. Smh
And trolling at the same time. No one knows anything for sure here. We are all keyboard commanders. From publicly available data Apple has a good case.
Nobody is charging a percentage for the silicon chips themselves. Only for the IP necessary to use those chips in an end product.
Likewise in your examples, tires and toilets are parts like chips used in a commercial product (hint: your personal home is not a commercial product). It doesn't matter whose tires you put on a taxi, passengers still pay a certain fee per mile. It doesn't matter whose toilet you put in your chain restaurant, you're still going to pay a certain percentage of your profits for your chain license. Other examples of charging per product:
- It literally costs Apple the same to host a $1 app or a $10 app. Why then does Apple get 30% instead of a flat fee? For the same reason cellular patents are priced the way they are: so higher profit products subsidize the lower priced products.
- Apple claimed Samsung infringed on their patents. Apple wanted a percentage of Samsung's profit (100% in fact) for design ones. And for a handful of utility patents including slide-to-unlock (which they don't even use any more), they wanted almost as much as Qualcomm charges for IP that actually is necessary, not just fluff.
- Apple does nothing during an NFC Apple Pay transaction. Yet they demand a percentage, not even just a fixed fee for registration. Worse, they already made a huge profit selling the hardware and software to do the customer payment. Talk about double-dipping!
- Apple originally wanted 10% of each product's price for Made For iPhone certification. With a $10 minimum. The more profit a product made, the more Apple wanted.
It's a not uncommon way to help support lesser priced goods and/or charge higher profit makers.
Not to mention it's how (most of us) pay taxes on income
Last edited: