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 Paid an Estimated $5-$6 Billion to Settle Qualcomm Dispute, Plus $8-$9 Per iPhone in Royalty Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Qualcomm decided the increase the percentage to 3.25% and then cap the number at $400 in April of 2018, because of the issues with the governments of the world. That was long after this dispute started and long after Apple stopped paying them and using their Chips. The same article that has that info, points out that since the dispute with Apple started licensing fee income was down 44%. Also given that this article says that apple is only paying 8-9 phone, that would be substantially less 3.25% of $400 Qualcomm is asking for, so it sounds like Apple won out of the Royalty issue.
-Tig
I wish the same. I changed 2 iPhone Max XS 512 for signal drop-reset issue. Finally I have no problem, but the exchanges cost me a lot of time.
So many poo-poo the whole Qualcomm vs Intel modem comparison. I also returned 2 Maxes for terrible all around connectivity issues and bought a new X with the Qualcomm modem. Difference has been night and day - the X works the way it’s supposed to.
Very Simple:
First Apple copied and used a lot of patents (not just hardware, but furthermore software specials like intelligent match-search, power management etc.) and finally late they pay for it.
The pure damage bear the customers of elder devices like iPhone 6/7/8, who lost because of court claims since iOS 12.1x a lot of these functions and get bad results in search in Notices or Mail and a heavy much shorter battery time with their phones abroad...
I doubt Apple will (or is allowed to) switch on these abilities as the customers had before iOS 12 – this is the REAL MESS in this long lasting story –
Apple was unfair to Qualcomm – and to these customers finally, too? We see...
First Apple copied and used a lot of patents (not just hardware, but furthermore software specials like intelligent match-search, power management etc.) and finally late they pay for it.
The pure damage bear the customers of elder devices like iPhone 6/7/8, who lost because of court claims since iOS 12.1x a lot of these functions and get bad results in search in Notices or Mail and a heavy much shorter battery time with their phones abroad...
I doubt Apple will (or is allowed to) switch on these abilities as the customers had before iOS 12 – this is the REAL MESS in this long lasting story –
Apple was unfair to Qualcomm – and to these customers finally, too? We see...
Reminds me of the samsung vs tmsc debacle for the 6s. Turned out to be a lot of nothing. Whether or not there is something to this intel vs qualcomm modem, I don't know either. I only know I have no issues.
Apple had been withholding royalty payments for two years. They sold upwards of half a billion iPhones during that time. It adds up.
Yes it just shows that this amount is pennies just no impact Apple has not lost anything was just holding onto the money until it was foretold pay it.
The way it works is the more expensive the phone the more you pay in royalties and Apple st the time had no issues with that, as time went buy and iPhone price increases Apple looked at the $ for royalties go up and started to complain, Apple controls the price for the iPhone so it was basically Apple getting greedy wanted to change the contract so it payed a flat fee and they were told you have to pay what was agreed we have a contract so Apple finally paying up.
I’m super happy for and a bit jealous of those that have good working phones new phones. For me, both Maxes that I tried 6 weeks apart were pretty much unusable for my normal use. I couldn’t stream, listen to radio or even text in areas where I had zero issues prior to and after. Also the WiFi range was noticeably lacking. Even Bluetooth connectivity to my earbuds and car wouldn’t keep a connection or even find the connection without having to go through the re-pairing process half the time. All phones had the same carrier and same SIM card. Maybe modem, maybe not but I really wanted a working Max. After the 2nd return, I gave up. Maybe I just got really unlucky with 2 bad phones but I didn’t want to keep returning.
Apple internal emails from the VP of hardware said that qualcomm modems were the best. These internal emails were released from the lawsuit.
That doesn’t say the intel modems didn’t do the proper job. “Best” can mean anything.
Oh look, another logical fallacy.
Just because A is the best doesn’t mean B is garbage.
And your quote is wrong. What was said is:
“Engineering wise, they have been the best.”
Why do you feel the need to lie, instead of repeating the actual quote?
"Best" here means technically. If it means something else let us know. Anyway, nobody is saying B (Intel's modems) are garbage.
Qualcomm said there was a difference in performance and even not having to move 5 feet to not lose the signal meant a better experience for the user. Apple detuned Qualcomm's modems to match Intel's so all iphone users would have the same reception.
I'm not disputing the word "best". I take issue with the previous poster fabricating what was actually said (they claimed Apple said Qualcomm has the best modems). They didn't. They said Qualcomm has been the best regarding engineering. This is a pretty generic comment and could apply to numerous areas. Apple also said Qualcomm has the most valuable patent portfolio, so they could be referring to their engineering team that develops new technology. Or they could be referring to how Qualcomm deals with and solves issues with clients. Or maybe they're referring to engineering support between Qualcomm engineers and Apple engineers during product testing. We don't really know.
Nobody has said Intel modems are garbage? Are you reading the same site I am? People constantly make that claim. The poster I replied to said people should file a lawsuit against Apple for Intel equipped phones, implying they are so bad Apple needs to be sued.
Qualcomm said what about performance? You have a source link for that claim?
The original cap was $500. My argument is that because of the cap, adding "64Meg to the phone, charge 100 more retail and Qualcomm gets a bigger check" does not apply and is misleading. QCOM does not get a bigger check because of the cap.
AAPL could've settled in April of 2018 with the new 3.25% capped at $400 which amounts to $13. Honestly, I think AAPL could've negotiated this down to around $10 per device. Even at $13 per device, $750 and $1000 is effectively 1.73% and 1.3%, respectively. Why is this not considered "fair?"
I believe this settlement is a win-win for both companies (especially QCOM where their business model was on the line). Don't you think AAPL could've negotiated the same term as the settlement without going down this legal path? I believe AAPL was hell-bent on destroying QCOM's business model and weakening Android.
Yeah and there's also this article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...as-best/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b48bc94da12a
During the roughly two years Apple was locked in a legal battle with one of its suppliers, Qualcomm, the iPhone maker publicly argued that the chip maker’s technology was worthless.
But according to an internal Apple memo Qualcomm showed during the trial this week between the two tech companies, Apple’s hardware executives used words like “the best” to describe Qualcomm’s engineering. Another Apple memo described Qualcomm as having a “unique patent share” and “significant holdings.”
Only if by original Cap you mean what was announced in November 2017, when they announced the original 5G pricing. and 3.25% for 3G/4G/5G SEP patents, plus of course the 1.75% they are charging for the non-SEP patents. Its part of the original lawsuit after the expiration of the original 5 year contract, that Apple was being asked to pay more royalties for the 849 phones then the 649 phones, that is not a cap of 500. The Cap of $500 was announced in Nov 2017, and then changed to $400.
No for several reasons, everyone keeps glossing over the new agreement is with Apple not the 4 manufacturers now. Something Apple has wanted for years, instead of one with each manufacturer situation which existed. In addition Apple wants a fixed price, they got that, they have argued about that since the last one expired Dec 31, 2016. In addition Qualcomm wanted alot more money for back royalties then they got, despite not having a contract to be paid that, Qualcomm after losing money last quarter, had to think whether they wanted to settle for Billions of dollars and get alot of new business, or risk losing and get alot less business. It was the clever thing to do, and their stock has shown it.
[/quote]
They tried for months before the original contract expired in 2016, they tried ever since, Apple was the only company paying a fixed rate, and Qualcomm wanted them on the percentage bandwagon, as their issues with the FTC, China and others started becoming apparent, they started to say max $500, oh we meant $400. Apple makes watches that talk on the phone networks, and Ipads both of which have sub $500 models. that was an issue too. This has nothing to do with Android, Samsung loves that Apple got a fixed rate, I promise they are going to get the same rate instead of the $20 a unit (5% at max 400) they are paying now, if they already arent getting it.
-Tig
Apple lost & paid up. It can't be spun any other way.
Ultimately we as consumers win as it means that Intel junk will not be in our devices from 2020. Instead replaced by vastly superior modems from Qaulcomm & Samsung.
My guess is Apple will have its own modems in 3 or 4 years. They'll still need to pay royalties to Qualcomm as they own many patents related to 5G, so the 6 years (with 2 more optional years) contract is necessary even if they are able to have their custom modem.
But even if I understood it wrong, and 6 years are for licensing Qualcomm modems, it means Apple needs to have its own modem in 3-4 years. The iPhone made in 2022 will likely be on the market in 2025 when the 6 years agreement ends, so for a few years the iPhone lineup will have both Apple and Qualcomm modems.
I love how it's always a win/lose situation. It looks like the both lost a bit, but also both end up winning. Qualcomm gets their money, Apple gets costs more in line with what they wanted.
Why is there no discussion about the worthless patents Apple licensed to try to skew their lawsuit?
I don't even see the story here.
I don't even see the story here.