They’ll lose, if “they” do. <—— this is if that comes to pass, my opinion.I hope iPhone owners with Intel modems sue apple for this.
They’ll lose, if “they” do. <—— this is if that comes to pass, my opinion.I hope iPhone owners with Intel modems sue apple for this.
[doublepost=1555633959][/doublepost]Keep in mind that the cap is $400 on the royalty. So a $400 phone and a $1000 phone will pay the exact same royalty fee. This bit of information is always left out. On a $1000 phone, a $7.5 royalty fee is effectively 0.75%.
I hope iPhone owners with Intel modems sue apple for this.
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.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.
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.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.
Apple had been withholding royalty payments for two years. They sold upwards of half a billion iPhones during that time. It adds 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.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.
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.
That doesn’t say the intel modems didn’t do the proper job. “Best” can mean anything.Apple internal emails from the VP of hardware said that qualcomm modems were the best. These internal emails were released from the lawsuit.
Apple internal emails from the VP of hardware said that qualcomm modems were the best. These internal emails were released from the lawsuit.
Because it makes his argument better.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?
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.
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
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/
Apple internal emails from the VP of hardware said that qualcomm modems were the best. These internal emails were released from the lawsuit.
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.
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.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?"
[/quote]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.
Only if you believe liars and their made-up numbers.
There's no way Apple would settle by paying MORE than previously. They initiated this case and they had the upper hand. This analyst just caters to the anti-Apple crowd (and the stock market manipulators/stock shorters) by trying to spin this as a Qualcomm win and Apple loss.
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.
Either way, I expect Apple to be making their own radio chips by the time this 6 year contract is over. They're absolutely crushing the competition with their own CPU designs, so we know they've got the hardware talent.
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.