Apple is 'Not in Talks' to Settle Legal Dispute With Qualcomm and is 'Gearing Up For Trial'

[mi7chy]

Qualcomm's technology is a national security interest and is more American than Apple. Apple should just pay up fairly like everyone else and shouldn't be entitled to a free handout.

 

[nsayer]

They can't buy something that's not being offered for sale.

Qualcomm is a public company. By definition it is always for sale.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

It's a recurring theme here... the entitlement of some of the members (many actually) is disgustingly insulting to everyone.

How about Apple innovates instead of just throwing money at a solution and swallowing all the competition? That's not progress.

Yeah.
Personally, I feel that one of their most innovative (and underreported, of course) decisions of late, was having a team, led by the most prolific & preeminent file system designer to ever walk the earth- design a new file system for both desktop & mobile (APFS), optimized for SSD performance, rather than HDD performance... faster, more secure, etc.
Everyone rebooted after the update & was greeted to a “free” 10% more free space than they had moments prior.
The ensuing fanfare??
*crickets*
Howling for external design changes for the sheer hell of it seems to be the sole concern of many.
It’s a bit disheartening. =/

If I may wander on a brief design tangent... I was always a fan of the SE type of look (not for the least of which reasons, squared edges are easier to grasp than rounded edges) and am overjoyed by the aesthetic of the new iPads Pro. I would love to see the next iteration of iPhones return to this more “industrial” look, rather than the “fashion” look of the current rounded designs.
Lol, I know that has very little to do with innovation- I digress.

 

[TheShadowKnows!]

Handbag fight among two greed-driven corporations.

Paraphrasing Gordon Gekko ("Wall Street"):

"Greed is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit."
​

 

[jav6454]

1) they have the money to
2) the USA a free country where free commerce is allowed (you live in china or something?)
3) everything is for sale if the price is right - that's just the facts of life buddy
4) its not "steamrolling" if its a mutual agreement
5) I want to know why you are so hostile to the idea of apple buying other companies???

1. Yes
2. ...and?
3. No
4. No
5. No

I correct answer would be:

Because Apple has the capital and Qualcomm is a publicly traded company. Apple can just buy enough shares to control Qualcomm and hence "take over" management. This is called a hostile take over which can be countered at an even greater expense for Qualcomm.

 

[rom3o]

Not long term. Competition is good in the long run.

Generelly it is. But as long as Apple is completely ruling out the supplier with the best chipsets, there isn’t much pressure for the rest of the competitors to catch up.

 

[adnbek]

Because Apple already is a monopoly, it doesn't need to be even more so.

lol wat

 

[MoreRumors?]

Another exciting episode of:

View attachment 802114

Yep, same old stuff and the court date couldn't come quick enough and I doubt there will be settlement before then. When the dust settles, we'll know more details.

 

[keysofanxiety]

It's a recurring theme here... the entitlement of some of the members (many actually) is disgustingly insulting to everyone.

How about Apple innovates instead of just throwing money at a solution and swallowing all the competition? That's not progress.

User who has written exclusively negative posts for the last 3 and a half years judges other users' posts.

"How about Apple innovates instead of..." - the eye-rolling comment which doesn't really mean anything.

Add in "Steve Jobs would never..." and I think we'll have a full house from you today. I'll give you this: you may not be the most objective poster, but you sure as heck make a good drinking game.

 

[kruegdude]

If your understanding of monopoly is "get $200 when you pass Go", I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.

I *love* that game.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

1. Yes
2. ...and?
3. No
4. No
5. No

I correct answer would be:

Because Apple has the capital and Qualcomm is a publicly traded company. Apple can just buy enough shares to control Qualcomm and hence "take over" management. This is called a hostile take over which can be countered at an even greater expense for Qualcomm.

Qualcomm is a $92 billion company!
Apple’s most expensive acquisition by far was Beats for $3 billion.
And that had a clear vision & goal... a continuation of audio profits, greater reach for Apple Music, Jimmy Iovine to briefly spearhead, etc.
You are literally talking crazy!!!
Over 30x more than their largest acquisition ever for some modems? Lol.
That’s a small amount of what Qualcomm does... and Apple DEFINITELY doesn’t want to get into that business.
Even if Apple did follow your insane notion... they’d keep the patents w/ even the vaguest chance of being challenged, divest the rest at an enormous loss, and walk away.
Companies don’t get as big and successful as Apple by pissing away billions “because.... technically, they can”. Yeah, they can buy a billion Big Macs too. Just as likely & makes as much sense.
You are talking about spending 10’s of BILLIONS & then owning a company and having to run a company that they don’t want or need! For what?? To dodge a few million spent in legal fees & the “hassle” of having to go to court??

 

[routine_analyst]

No, I want to know why YOU think they can just steamroll through the tech industry and buy everyone out.

Because the dude has a warped view of entitlement.

 

[I7guy]

Qualcomm's technology is a national security interest and is more American than Apple. Apple should just pay up fairly like everyone else and shouldn't be entitled to a free handout.

It’s up to the courts to decide this, not the posters in MacRumors. (Which is a good thing)

 

[bladerunner2000]

User who has written exclusively negative posts for the last 3 and a half years judges other users' posts.

"How about Apple innovates instead of..." - the eye-rolling comment which doesn't really mean anything.

Add in "Steve Jobs would never..." and I think we'll have a full house from you today. I'll give you this: you may not be the most objective poster, but you sure as heck make a good drinking game.

I would expect this kind of response in an Apple echo chamber when the status quo is challenged. What's astonishing though is that whenever I do say anything that would benefit the consumer (you), THIS is the kind of hostility that always springs up. Just shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'NO! I don't want a better tech experience because I believe everything Apple tells me!'

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

I *love* that game.

That’s sad to hear. =(
That is one of the worst board games in existence.
Try something like Settlers of Catan & I think your whole mind might be blown!!!
In a nutshell- Monopoly is zero sum. One winner gets EVERYTHING, everyone else gets NOTHING. You can’t “almost win” at Monopoly. You either won everything & feel great, or lost everything & feel like garbage.
What a weird goal for a game! To have the majority of the participants feel terrible after playing.
Settlers of Catan was brilliantly balanced so that even the most seasoned of players have but a slim advantage... it’s such a clever blend of luck, strategy, & skill!
Almost every game comes VERY close & anyone can win!

 

[rjohnstone]

It’s up to the courts to decide this, not the posters in MacRumors. (Which is a good thing)

That was already decided when the Broadcom bid was refused by the Treasury Dept. (CFIUS) and Trump. (This is in reference to the Nat Sec claim, not the payment by Apple)

 

[I7guy]

I would expect this kind of response in an Apple echo chamber when the status quo is challenged. What's astonishing though is that whenever I do say anything that would benefit the consumer (you), THIS is the kind of hostility that always springs up. Just shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'NO! I don't want a better tech experience because I believe everything Apple tells me!'

Exactly what “suggestions” have you made that “benefit the consumer” that aren’t either hyperbolic in nature or go against generally accepted business practices?

 

[cmaier]

Fair point. I doubt the Qualcomm shareholders would agree to an acquisition by Apple in this instance.

LOL. On principal? Even if the price is right?

(I'm not saying it would happen. It won't. But this apple lawsuit has the potential to seriously disrupt Qualcomm's business model, and future revenue streams.)
[doublepost=1541613887][/doublepost]

Generelly it is. But as long as Apple is completely ruling out the supplier with the best chipsets, there isn’t much pressure for the rest of the competitors to catch up.

The pressure comes from the threat. "Hit these performance and power benchmarks or we'll move back to qualcomm."

Same as TSMC vs. samsung for fab.
[doublepost=1541614015][/doublepost]

The post I was replying to seemed to imply that because Apple has so much cash, they should just purchase Qualcomm. I was simply stating that having a huge pile of cash does not mean Apple can simply buy another company. I stand by my statement that Apple cannot buy something that's not for sale. If Qualcomm doesn't accept Apple's theoretical offer, it means the company is not for sale (to Apple). Although, as someone else pointed out subsequently, there is also the option of a hostile takeover; but I doubt the shareholders of Qualcomm would agree to that.

All takeovers (hostile or friendly) need to be approved by the shareholders, of course.

 

[Kabeyun]

Pause. Can’t we just post links to the last Apple v Qualcomm thread and we can all move on? Not a single idea or squabble I’ve read here so far is novel.

 

[wigby]

Microsoft does not have a monopoly on stores that sell Windows apps. Samsung doesn't have a monopoly on stores that sell android apps.

How does this hurt consumers (EU's interpretation of monopoly) and how does it hurt competition (US's interpretation of monopoly)? One could easily argue that no matter how you interpret monopolies, Apple is the safest for consumers and best for competition compared to Google and Microsoft.

 

[cocky jeremy]

They can't buy something that's not being offered for sale.

Everything is for sale. It just takes the right price.

Screw buying them. I'd rather see Apple bury them.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Exactly what “suggestions” have you made that “benefit the consumer” that aren’t either hyperbolic in nature or go against generally accepted business practices?

Put back in the headphone jack and user installable RAM / SSDs (data is important).
Stop disrespecting consumers by not allowing 3rd party repairs, parts, high fees, etc.
Implement the cmd+x and cmd+v to move files in finder (a standard in every OS and application except Apple?)
Add option for green button to maximize windows in OS X to fill screen without hiding dock and file menu.
Release a headless iMac that isn't gimped like the Mac Mini.
Release a Mac Pro that isn't gimped, outdated and overpriced.

I could go on but I've made my point.

 

[sinsin07]

That’s sad to hear. =(
That is one of the worst board games in existence.
Try something like Settlers of Catan & I think your whole mind might be blown!!!
In a nutshell- Monopoly is zero sum. One winner gets EVERYTHING, everyone else gets NOTHING. You can’t “almost win” at Monopoly. You either won everything & feel great, or lost everything & feel like garbage.
What a weird goal for a game! To have the majority of the participants feel terrible after playing.
Settlers of Catan was brilliantly balanced so that even the most seasoned of players have but a slim advantage... it’s such a clever blend of luck, strategy, & skill!
Almost every game comes VERY close & anyone can win!

Monopoly is a game.
If you get that worked up over losing then perhaps you should read a book.
You comment could have been just as insightful without dissing the other poster.

 

[I7guy]

Put back in the headphone jack and user installable RAM / SSDs (data is important).
Stop disrespecting consumers by not allowing 3rd party repairs, parts, high fees, etc.
Implement the cmd+x and cmd+v to move files in finder (a standard in every OS and application except Apple?)
Add option for green button to maximize windows in OS X to fill screen without hiding dock and file menu.
Release a headless iMac that isn't gimped like the Mac Mini.
Release a Mac Pro that isn't gimped, outdated and overpriced.

I could go on but I've made my point.

OK, the headphone jack isn’t coming back. Everybody makes “suggestions” on these forums with very few actually implemented.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

I guess you don't realize that when you buy apple hardware with their software, what you are paying for is the most secure, hacker resistant ecosystem on the planet. They even deny governments' ability to access your devices. But hey, you may not care about those things so you should probably switch to windows and android.

That's not true Apple will hand over whatever data they have tied to you if subpoenaed by a judge. Now people get confused and go "ha ha, it's encrypted and Apple can't decrypt it" but that doesn't matter; they will still hand over your data in an encrypted format. Can law enforcement decrypt it today? I don't know, what about next month? next year? They'll get there eventually.