Apple Paid an Estimated $5-$6 Billion to Settle Qualcomm Dispute, Plus $8-$9 Per iPhone in Royalty Fees

[Roger67]

Yes, that's right. QCOM moved dramatically to the upside as soon as the news of a settlement broke. That's without the market knowing what the terms were. (We still don't know with much precision.) It was the mere fact that a deal had been agreed to which moved QCOM. The market previously (correctly) saw great risks for QCOM in there not being a deal, in the dispute dragging on for a while. So, with that great risk removed, the market valued QCOM much more highly than it previously had - and it did so immediately. Again, that was without regard to what the terms were.

If the market had seen great risk for Apple in not having a deal done and the dispute dragging on for a while, then AAPL would have moved significantly to the upside when the news broke. The great threat to Apple's business would have been removed.

Getting a deal done was absolutely a win for Qualcomm. It was a win for both parties, but it was a bigger win for Qualcomm because Qualcomm needed the dispute settled more than Apple did.

But that's a different thing than saying the agreed on terms were more favorable for Qualcomm than for Apple, or that Apple caved more so than Qualcomm. To the contrary, the reality that a deal getting done, in itself, represented a bigger win for Qualcomm than for Apple would suggest that the agreed on terms were more favorable for Apple. And, if the USB estimates are fairly accurate, that - in combination with what else we know about the deal and what we can otherwise be confident in - is the case. Apple is in a much better position with regard to its relationship with Qualcomm than it was when it started withholding royalty payments and filed suit. Could it have come out better? No doubt it could have. Its maximum point of relative leverage may have come a few months ago. But, likely, it still faired quite well.

That this settlement had no effect on AAPL shows that Apple shouldn't have bothered with all these schemes all along. It made no difference.

 

[Baymowe335]

That this settlement had no effect on AAPL shows that Apple shouldn't have bothered with all these schemes all along. It made no difference.

Agreed. Apple was trying to prove a point, and maybe it was proven.

Essentially, they might have paid was was already owed when they stopped royalty payments and renegotiated a long term deal that was only slight more than before (speculation). In that case, QCOM just got made while on previously agreed to terms and Apple got a new deal that was less of an increase than proposed.

Further speculation might be QCOM was looking for significantly more like $15 and Apple ultimately paid $8, feeling like a win and Apple just ready to move on.

 

[jamezr]

Yes, that's right. QCOM moved dramatically to the upside as soon as the news of a settlement broke. That's without the market knowing what the terms were. (We still don't know with much precision.) It was the mere fact that a deal had been agreed to which moved QCOM. The market previously (correctly) saw great risks for QCOM in there not being a deal, in the dispute dragging on for a while. So, with that great risk removed, the market valued QCOM much more highly than it previously had - and it did so immediately. Again, that was without regard to what the terms were.

If the market had seen great risk for Apple in not having a deal done and the dispute dragging on for a while, then AAPL would have moved significantly to the upside when the news broke. The great threat to Apple's business would have been removed.

Getting a deal done was absolutely a win for Qualcomm. It was a win for both parties, but it was a bigger win for Qualcomm because Qualcomm needed the dispute settled more than Apple did.

But that's a different thing than saying the agreed on terms were more favorable for Qualcomm than for Apple, or that Apple caved more so than Qualcomm. To the contrary, the reality that a deal getting done, in itself, represented a bigger win for Qualcomm than for Apple would suggest that the agreed on terms were more favorable for Apple. And, if the USB estimates are fairly accurate, that - in combination with what else we know about the deal and what we can otherwise be confident in - is the case. Apple is in a much better position with regard to its relationship with Qualcomm than it was when it started withholding royalty payments and filed suit. Could it have come out better? No doubt it could have. Its maximum point of relative leverage may have come a few months ago. But, likely, it still faired quite well.

But that is not what you said that I replied to...
You said

The market apparently saw the situation differently.

I showed you quite the contrary....
Qualcomm gains $30 billion in market value after Apple settlement

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/qualcomm-gains-30-billion-market-value-after-apple-settlement-n995571

 

[Mendota]

Here is an interesting article that gives some perspective on what Tim the Crook tried to do to Qualcomm.

https://techspective.net/2019/03/22...apple-is-trending-towards-a-catastrophic-end/

 

[jamezr]

Here is an interesting article that gives some perspective on what Tim the Crook tried to do to Qualcomm.

https://techspective.net/2019/03/22...apple-is-trending-towards-a-catastrophic-end/

Wow...that certainly is a whole different long term strategy that I did not think of....

 

[Carnegie]

But that is not what you said that I replied to...
You said

I showed you quite the contrary....
Qualcomm gains $30 billion in market value after Apple settlement

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/qualcomm-gains-30-billion-market-value-after-apple-settlement-n995571

You said:

Agreed that they both settled...or else the settlement would not have happened....
But I think it was more urgent for Apple to settle than for Qualcomm.

And I responded:

The market apparently saw the situation differently.

And Qualcomm itself, through its legal filings and in-court arguments, portrayed the situation differently.

In other words, the market (and Qualcomm, as it portrayed things in its legal arguments) didn't agree that it was more urgent for Apple to settle than it was for Qualcomm to. The market saw it the other way, that it was more urgent for Qualcomm to settle than it was for Apple to. And the stock reaction which you pointed to, and which I had previously referred to and explained in that post, indicates what I suggested.

QCOM reacted dramatically to the upside because the market thought that Qualcomm needed to get a deal done more than Apple did. If the market had agreed with you - that Apple needed to get a deal done more than Qualcomm did - then we'd have expected AAPL to react dramatically to the upside when the news hit.

 

[jamezr]

You said:



And I responded:



In other words, the market (and Qualcomm, as it portrayed things in its legal arguments) didn't agree that it was more urgent for Apple to settle than it was for Qualcomm to. The market saw it the other way, that it was more urgent for Qualcomm to settle than it was for Apple to. And the stock reaction which you pointed to, and which I had previously referred to and explained in that post, indicates what I suggested.

QCOM reacted dramatically to the upside because the market thought that Qualcomm needed to get a deal done more than Apple did. If the market had agreed with you - that Apple needed to get a deal done more than Qualcomm did - then we'd have expected AAPL to react dramatically to the upside when the news hit.

hmmm...or one could logically come to the conclusion that the market...saw this as a huge win for Qualcomm....

 

[Carnegie]

That this settlement had no effect on AAPL shows that Apple shouldn't have bothered with all these schemes all along. It made no difference.

It's not that the settlement will have no effect on AAPL (or, more to your point, that pursuing this course of action - e.g., this suit - hasn't had or won't have any effect on AAPL). It's that, in the grand scheme of things, the relative effect will be be much smaller for Apple than for Qualcomm.

The result of this dispute is a much smaller consideration for Apple than it is for Qualcomm. Apple is much larger and there are many things which affect its prospects. A difference of, e.g., 1 or 2 billion dollars per year in costs matters to Apple. But it isn't a huge needle mover. The effect on stock price gets lost as noise among other - and, for some, more important - considerations. And even though the dispute - and the better terms which Apple will realize - might matter some to Apple's results going forward, it isn't the mere fact that a deal was agreed to that matters. It's those better terms.

For Qualcomm, one or two billion dollars less in revenue (based on different terms) matters a lot more than it does for Apple. More importantly in the context of what I was talking about, getting back the revenue from Apple that it previously didn't have - many billions per year in modem sales and royalty payments - matters a whole lot.

Qualcomm has estimated incremental EPS of about $2 per share as a result of this settlement. Qualcomm actually lost money last year, but that's because it had to account for a number of one-time items (e.g. adjustments for the tax law changes, fines from regulatory bodies). If we take out those one-time items, and use its current share count, it would have had an EPS of around $3. That may have increased some in coming years anyway. But, still, an additional $2 in EPS as compared to $3 to being with? That's pretty substantial. The relative effects on Apple's results will be modest by comparison. And they'll be harder to tease out.

 

[flofixer]

hmmm...or one could logically come to the conclusion that the market...saw this as a huge win for Qualcomm....

you basically just agreed with part of Carnegie's analysis

 

[Carnegie]

hmmm...or one could logically come to the conclusion that the market...saw this as a huge win for Qualcomm....

Yes, just getting a deal done was a huge win for Qualcomm - a bigger win than it was for Apple. That's because Qualcomm needed a deal done more than Apple did. Lots of considerations point to that conclusion - e.g., Qualcomm's financial results, its legal arguments, various legal decisions, the market's reaction.

 

[Roger67]

It's not that the settlement will have no effect on AAPL (or, more to your point, that pursuing this course of action - e.g., this suit - hasn't had or won't have any effect on AAPL). It's that, in the grand scheme of things, the relative effect will be be much smaller for Apple than for Qualcomm.

The result of this dispute is a much smaller consideration for Apple than it is for Qualcomm. Apple is much larger and there are many things which affect its prospects. A difference of, e.g., 1 or 2 billion dollars per year in costs matters to Apple. But it isn't a huge needle mover. The effect on stock price gets lost as noise among other - and, for some, more important - considerations. And even though the dispute - and the better terms which Apple will realize - might matter some to Apple's results going forward, it isn't the mere fact that a deal was agreed to that matters. It's those better terms.

For Qualcomm, one or two billion dollars less in revenue (based on different terms) matters a lot more than it does for Apple. More importantly in the context of what I was talking about, getting back the revenue from Apple that it previously didn't have - many billions per year in modem sales and royalty payments - matters a whole lot.

Qualcomm has estimated incremental EPS of about $2 per share as a result of this settlement. Qualcomm actually lost money last year, but that's because it had to account for a number of one-time items (e.g. adjustments for the tax law changes, fines from regulatory bodies). If we take out those one-time items, and use its current share count, it would have had an EPS of around $3. That may have increased some in coming years anyway. But, still, an additional $2 in EPS as compared to $3 to being with? That's pretty substantial. The relative effects on Apple's results will be modest by comparison. And they'll be harder to tease out.

Apple is 10x larger than Qualcomm and it's not surprising the effect is not equal.

The settlement didn't affect Apple at all so why did it even bother with all of this conflict and drama? This is such an obvious error in judgment it's a wonder that Cook is still employed. Wouldn't be surprised if they'd spent spent hundreds of millions in legal fees pursuing this.

However the linked article speculates Apple was actually playing a much bigger game.

Here is an interesting article that gives some perspective on what Tim the Crook tried to do to Qualcomm.

https://techspective.net/2019/03/22...apple-is-trending-towards-a-catastrophic-end/

 

[jamezr]

you basically just agreed with part of Carnegie's analysis

agreed...But he and I have had several posts back and forth. One of my replies was that this was more urgent for Apple to settle than for Qualcomm and his reply was

The market apparently saw the situation differently.

That is why I have quoted and bring this up as huge win for Qualcomm....apparently the market agrees with that assertion. That this was a huge win for Qualcomm. It was very urgent for Apple to obtain Qualcomm modems for 2020 and lock down that supply chain for 5G modems. That is why they settled after only 2 days. A protracted legal battle would have put those plans in jeopardy.
[doublepost=1555694412][/doublepost]

Yes, just getting a deal done was a huge win for Qualcomm - a bigger win than it was for Apple. That's because Qualcomm needed a deal done more than Apple did. Lots of considerations point to that conclusion - e.g., Qualcomm's financial results, its legal arguments, various legal decisions, the market's reaction.

Not sure I agree with you on that to be honest. If Apple had not secured Qualcomm to supply 5G modems...can you imagine an 2020 iPhone without 5G capability while every other flagship phone had that technology?
Apple derives most of it's net profit from the iPhone...a big slow down in iPhone sales would have bee catastrophic.

 

[apolloa]

I'm glad someone else saw the similarities here in the way Apple also tried to screw over Ericsson and also settled surprisingly early

Nothing surprising about that settlement, Ericsson would have literally torn Apple limb from limb in that court case, Apple would have absolutely ZERO defence that was worthy, Ericsson is one of THE founders of the current if not original cellphone technology, it’s like Nokia, without their inventions and work on development and R&D and patents, cellular today if not originally wouldn’t exist.
Plus the fact Ericsson offered for a court to decide the fee Apple should pay, which Apple flatly refused to allow, because they knew they had nothing and all they were doing is Apple’s MO for negotiating cheaper prices from suppliers, that’s why I have zero respect or belief with Apple and it’s ‘court cases’, they stole that watch design from the Swiss railways, didn’t pay anything till threatened with court action, attempted to claim they own the oblong with round corners design and the colours black and white, when it comes to phones and tablets...

They will do anything to benefit themselves with no morales but people are daft enough to lap it all up.

Some things Apple does well, suing competitors and suppliers is most definitely not one of them!

 

[Bonte]

Could it be that the government stepped in because Huawei offered to sell 5G modems to Apple?

 

[rockarollr]

Steve never would have caved to Qualcomm! He would have had the in-house guys working around the clock until he had a working 5G modem chip in his hands. He would have cut a deal to pull people over from Intel, if he had to. He might have even quietly “stole” a few key people from Qualcomm. It’s what he did best - he could communicate to, motivate and drive people to accomplish the seemingly impossible like no other. He was an absolute master at it.

Tim Cook did a bozo move by Steve’s measure. Anyone that thinks differently doesn’t know much about Steve and his standards.

 

[I7guy]

Steve never would have caved to Qualcomm! He would have had the in-house guys working around the clock until he had a working 5G modem chip in his hands. He would have cut a deal to pull people over from Intel, if he had to. He might have even quietly “stole” a few key people from Qualcomm. It’s what he did best - he could communicate to, motivate and drive people to accomplish the seemingly impossible like no other. He was an absolute master at it.

Tim Cook did a bozo move by Steve’s measure. Anyone that thinks differently doesn’t know much about Steve and his standards.

It seems Steve Jobs has been dead since 2011 and there are those who try to predict the actions of a person 8 years in the grave when times since then have changed.

 

[rockarollr]

It seems Steve Jobs has been dead since 2011 and there are those who try to predict the actions of a person 8 years in the grave when times since then have changed.

And I already knew, when I posted my comment, someone would jump on the chance to point out that “Steve has been dead... bla...bla... bla.” But guess what? That doesn’t bother me in the least. I fully expected it. In fact, there will be more of the same. It still doesn’t change the fact that anyone that knew Steve knows he would have never caved to Qualcomm’s extortionate demands. Period.

 

[I7guy]

And I already knew, when I posted my comment, someone would jump on the chance to point out that “Steve has been dead... bla...bla... bla.” But guess what? That doesn’t bother me in the least. I fully expected it. In fact, there will be more of the same. It still doesn’t change the fact that anyone that knew Steve knows he would have never caved to Qualcomm’s extortionate demands. Period.

It’s totally irrelevant what you believe would have happened as this is reality, not some Steve Jobs fantasy never-world.

As far as pounding, it’s the keyboard and that’s it. But I’m glad you’re in communication to Steve from the grave. The “I know exactly what Steve would have done” crowd is actually pretty funny.

 

[AppleFan91]

That's some serious mental gymnastics.

Ok sure. Whatever you say. Intel pulled out, Apple had nowhere else to go, that’s not folding. But again, whatever you say.

You’re real condescending for someone that has no idea what he’s talking about.

 

[Degerz]

Steve never would have caved to Qualcomm! He would have had the in-house guys working around the clock until he had a working 5G modem chip in his hands. He would have cut a deal to pull people over from Intel, if he had to. He might have even quietly “stole” a few key people from Qualcomm. It’s what he did best - he could communicate to, motivate and drive people to accomplish the seemingly impossible like no other. He was an absolute master at it.

Tim Cook did a bozo move by Steve’s measure. Anyone that thinks differently doesn’t know much about Steve and his standards.

That doesn't matter in the slightest. You need to realize that 5G is an industry-wide collaborative effort with active contributors all around the world! It's contributions from Huawei, Intel, Qualcomm, and Samsung (most of which have sour relationships with Apple) that all make 5G modems work yet Apple only dares to show disrespect towards the true innovators of the backbone behind the technology then they had better be prepared to be left behind ...

If Apple are only interested in getting others to do their hard work for them and only having to pilfer it from them later on then they don't deserve to source their own 5G modems or much less be at the cutting edge. I mean how are you going 'steal' something that over tens of thousands of people from different companies all over the world worked on nearly a decade for to make it into the global standard ? Where does Apple get the audacity to demand what is wrongfully not theirs when they've shown zero integrity to participate in the 3GPP body ?!

Proponents of Apple are only ever interested in talking of the grand dreams of their favourite corporate giant but I never see ANY solid justification as to why Apple is deserving of a technology that they didn't help in any way create!

 

[bystander10]

Not a good look for Apple in this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...s-no-good-private-communications-it-was-best/

This one was not written by an analyst but confirms what many have been saying for several years now. With the settlement, Apple was likely trying to bury all those emails. Wonder if the FTC knew Apple's ultimate plans? Just think what we may have learned if the settlement was delayed and the trial continued for a few weeks.

 

[cjake]

From Washington Post...
Apple said Qualcomm’s tech was no good. But in private communications, it was ‘the best.’

“Goal: Reduce Apple’s net royalty to Qualcomm.” Apple said in the document it planned to accomplish this in several ways, including “Hurt Qualcomm financially” and “Put Qualcomm’s licensing model at risk.”

 

[technole]

So, it backfired for Apple and they're now worse off for trying to throw another partner under the bus.

Charlie’s article that was damning to Apple said they were paying $10 per phone with an intel chip.

 

[Roger67]

"The risks were larger for Qualcomm. The San Diego company’s stock price plummeted and it laid off 1,500 employees."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...as-best/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.425c0f0e10a9

 

[macfacts]

Not a good look for Apple in this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...s-no-good-private-communications-it-was-best/

This one was not written by an analyst but confirms what many have been saying for several years now. With the settlement, Apple was likely trying to bury all those emails. Wonder if the FTC knew Apple's ultimate plans? Just think what we may have learned if the settlement was delayed and the trial continued for a few weeks.

I hope iPhone owners with Intel modems sue apple for this.