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
I'm sure the biggest is the IP to use said circuitry. They don't have it, they would still need to pay for it.
Anyone can make and sell a modem, but they're complicated and often contain proprietary circuits.
So it's much easier to either buy a company that already has done so, or buy a chip reference design from Qualcomm or a fabless provider like GCT Semiconductor.
Intel bought several other companies in order to save years creating modems.
Btw, one reason some standalone modem makers went out of business, is because device makers all over the world moved to using integrated CPU+LTE-modem combinations like the Qualcomm Snapdragon, Samsung Exynos, and MediaTek SoC processors. Plus HiSilicon's Kirin and the LTE equipped Marvell Armada.
Apple is kind of unique right now among phone makers in still wanting/needing a separate baseband chip, because of their custom CPU.
That said, it would not be surprising if Apple eventually dropped Intel and made their own.
Last edited:
It only makes sense...
Qualcomm has been nothing but a ruthless vendor and they deserve to loose such a big contract.
Qualcomm has been nothing but a ruthless vendor and they deserve to loose such a big contract.
There's a difference between what he wanted the iPhone thought of, and what the iPhone is.
Apple knew exactly what they were building. They also knew that it would be a marketing mistake to call it a computer. The removal of "Computer" from the company's name wasn't because Apple stopped making computers; they needed to ditch a term that carries negative connotations beyond the core constituency that actually likes computers. "I don't like computers, I don't want to carry a computer everywhere I go" was (and still is) a major impediment to product acceptance.
I don't see this as a "fan conceit," I see it as a simple, logical conclusion. Going back to the Apple I, Steve's plan was, essentially, computers for everyone. Plenty of quotes along those lines. If one is going to achieve that goal, one may have to obscure that reality.
You and imaginex20 keep hammering on UMTS vs. CDMA, not realizing that CDMA technology (not the "cdmaOne" or "CDMA2000" standards - you seem to be conflating them) is one of the underpinnings of UMTS (it's like it's the early 2000's and you two are valiantly fighting the GSM-vs.-CDMA fan wars all over again). GSM is based on the less efficient TDMA. CDMA (the technology, not the CDMA2000 standard) won. The UMTS standard, which replaced GSM, relies on CDMA technology. And Qualcomm holds a large collection of patents on CDMA technology (as well, Qualcomm holds a lot of patents on the various technologies in LTE). As kdarling pointed out, Qualcomm receives substantial royalties when companies use UMTS.
So, yes, in answer to your question, I do think WCDMA has something to do with CDMA.
FYI, kdarling doesn't have an entourage (that I know of anyway - at least, I've never been invited). I've seen him around the forums for a few years. We don't always agree on things - often have different points of view - but I've seen that he consistently knows what he's talking about on technical issues, and he tends to actually back up what he says with facts and sources, rather than cluttering up the conversation with cutesy images of people with their heads in the sand (take that crap back to Facebook please).
As an aside, it's "Qualcomm", not "qualocomm". Where do you keep getting the extra "o"?
It means both. They sell more if they sell for less. There's a sweet spot between high profit per unit and high unit sales where they make the most profit, and that goes lower if the parts cost less. The amount by which it goes lower depends on the company, but it's always something in the long term.
Great example. Apple has been vastly decreasing RAM prices as RAM has gotten cheaper. Used to be a fortune for 4GB. Sure, they sell it at a higher price than others, but that's irrelevant.
And, like I said, everyone buys from Qualcomm, so it helps if you're using Android too. And that increases competition with Apple. End of the day, you guys should never be complaining about suppliers competing.
Last edited:
Really.
Ok.
Then why would qualocomm care if the iPhone has a intel modem vs Qualcomm modem?
If they own all the patents and get all the royalty.
Yes, really. Using Qualcomm chips means Qualcomm the gets money for the actual physical chips, as well as whatever prestige is attached to saying "Apple uses genuine Qualcomm chips in the iPhone", in addition to the royalties. If Apple uses exclusively Intel modems, then Qualcomm gets only their share of the royalties - I would have thought that was pretty self-evident.
Note that I said Qualcomm gets substantial royalties from LTE, not all the royalties from LTE. Per the chart kdarling posted, Qualcomm has around 350 (about 18% of the total, the largest single share) standards-essential patents on technologies used in LTE.
There's a difference between what Jobs wanted it to be, and what others made it become... which was basically the same thing as all the other smartphones that were already out there: a small computer in your hand.
Jobs, however, not only didn't want it thought of as a computer, he initially didn't want third party apps, either. He was not out to make a portable computer. He wanted to make a very tightly Apple controlled feature phone akin to an iPod.
"I don’t want people to think of this as a computer,” (Jobs) said. “I think of it as reinventing the phone.” “We define everything that is on the phone,” he said. “You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.” --Jobs New York Times interview (1/11/2007)
--
According to his biography, Jobs was also initially unconvinced that apps would benefit Apple or its iOS platform.
"When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them," writes Isaacson. "He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity."
Hence no external apps for the first iPhone. However, the book explains that behind the scenes, Apple board member Art Levinson and SVP of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller were pressing Jobs to change his mind.
"I called him a half dozen times to lobby for the potential of the apps," says Levinson, while Schiller adds that "I couldn't imagine that we would create something as powerful as the iPhone and not empower developers to make lots of apps. I knew customers would love them."
- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2011/oct/24/steve-jobs-apps-iphone
Wifi was off for the test, was taken the day before, just went back to the results page show everyone here the Intel modem is plenty good
Not necessarily. A SEP is required to be offered at a "Fair and Reasonable" price (with numerous arguments over the precise definitions of "fair" and "reasonable" - see many lawsuits over the years). Essentially, a standards body has said, "we will agree to include your patented technique - which would make this standard unquestionably better for everyone - in our standard if-and-only-if you will agree to not rake anyone over the coals on licensing, and not to use your patent as a weapon against your competitors" (the last part being the "non-discriminatory" bit). And SEPs are the only patents that are really relevant to this conversation.
Qualcomm also has a huge collection of patents on radio/signaling/transmission/reception technologies that can make WCDMA & LTE (etc.) modems work better, but that were not included in the standards (because they're not essential to making the standards work). With such a patent, they can choose to keep it in house, only for use in their own chips, to give them competitive advantage, or they can offer it up for other companies to license, at whatever price and terms the "seller" chooses. "Fair and reasonable" aren't in play. If you made a coffee table, say, you could choose to give it away, or sell it for a price roughly matching what coffee tables sell for in your area, or you could choose to offer it for $10,000 (doesn't mean anyone will buy it for that, though if you were a very famous/prestigious woodworker/artist, somebody might). So, Qualcomm has non-SEP patents that can be used to make LTE chips potentially perform better, and they likely keep many of those in-house in order to give their own chips competitive advantage (that is, they are selling a product that incorporates their patented technologies - their SoC and modem chips). If they choose to license these (non-SEP) patents to others, they can charge whatever they want. Maybe their pricing for the relevant-but-non-SEP patents are in line with their SEP patents (I have no idea). They could even offer non-SEP patents at extremely high prices (such that few are likely to take the offer), again, to give their own chips competitive advantage.
Last edited:
So nothing wrong with the intel modem.
It’s the network
Intel modems have a weaker signal apparently and nothing wrong with our networks thanks.
[doublepost=1509479543][/doublepost]
If you can only get 10mbps it makes ALL the difference, but the connecting to weak signals and switching from 3G to LTE and back are just as important.
All of that works just fine. There is no real world difference. I've been to all kinds of places in the world and worked just fine.
What makes you think they aren’t?
But this sort of stuff takes time. Just like how Apple didn’t perfect the A chip right away.
I expect Apple to eventually do this.
Unfortunately, the Intel variants are several generations behind the Qualcomm chips, with about 30% poorer performance whenever you have a less than great cellular signal. This means slower data throughput, lower quality voice calls, and greater battery consumption.
But Apple's position here is completely understandable since Qualcomm is abusing their near-monopoly and violating FRAND policies they signed on to when their technologies were adopted as cellular standards. It's absurd that they demand royalties as a percentage of the device's selling price, even though their tech contributes in no way to the advantages of higher priced iPhones. Believe it or not, they actually force smartphone manufactures to pay them a royalty even on phones that don't have Qualcomm chips. Qualcomm needs to be put down.
But Apple's position here is completely understandable since Qualcomm is abusing their near-monopoly and violating FRAND policies they signed on to when their technologies were adopted as cellular standards. It's absurd that they demand royalties as a percentage of the device's selling price, even though their tech contributes in no way to the advantages of higher priced iPhones. Believe it or not, they actually force smartphone manufactures to pay them a royalty even on phones that don't have Qualcomm chips. Qualcomm needs to be put down.
This is the exact thinking that get companies left in the dust. Intel may be behind in that category for now. But you better understand when Apple want something done, they will move heaven and earth to see that happens, and it will happen.
So do many other cellular patent holders. See post #189 above for examples.
As reported here over the years, Apple has previously tried to attack Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola and Samsung over the same pricing method... and failed.
See this post in another thread for more info on how common and legal this method is, especially for cellular.
Heck, Apple itself licenses its own "Made for iPhone" IP at a percentage of a third party device's price. Apple even wanted 10% at first, with a $10 minimum, while Qualcomm only asks 3.25%.
Btw, with Qualcomm, it's not a percentage of the high price Apple charges us. It's a percentage of the far lower price that Apple pays Foxconn for each iPhone.
Well, yes, of course. So do the other cellular patent holders like Nokia, LG, InterDigital, Ericsson, NTT Docomo, Alcatel, AT&T, Verizon, and many others.
All phone makers have always had to get a license from the cellular standards patent holders to use 2G/3G/4G, even without buying any chips. Cellular standards patents are not free to use.
The reason Qualcomm can get a bit more than most others, is because they created the core technology for 3G, and own about half the patents for it. Thus, as 3G disappears, their price will come down, although not hugely, since they've also spent billions of dollars a year in R&D on LTE and further generations. License fees repay them and all the others who do the research to make our phones much faster.
Last edited: