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 Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What Qualcomm does is definitely unusual when it comes to computers. Hardware manufacturers (for example Intel) do not charge a percentage of the overall computers cost as a license fee in addition to the hardware cost.
Apple should be fighting this as it sets a dangerous precedent if hardware manufacturers get to double dip as Qualcomm has been.
Apple should be fighting this as it sets a dangerous precedent if hardware manufacturers get to double dip as Qualcomm has been.
If i want to email one of my contacts It opens Mail instead of my preferred Spark email app. Its just annoying and unnecessary. I can set defaults on Mac OS so why not IOS? Just makes no sense.
Or If i want directions it opens maps instead of google maps. Some apps have by passed this by having an option inside.
Apple rarely develops new technology in order to present as a standard. They usually develop stuff and patent it for them to use exclusively. So when Apple sues, it's because Apple believes they are violating their patent.
The only tech that I can recall that Apple developed (or co-developed) that was offered for licensing was Firewire. So that's like one thing in 30 years.
No, Apple's suppliers pay for Qualcomm's baseband and wireless patents (see Qualcomm's lawsuits against Apple's suppliers). So their royalty is pretty much based on the manufacturing cost, not on the full-retail price. Now, Apple wants to pay even less, and reduce that down to the smallest saleable unit.
Apple argued against the end-user royal basis and FRAND violation before, against Samsung back in 2012, and lost. Apple has this habit of making wildly unsubstantiated accusations against wireless patents holders without any evidence -- in the 2012 ITC case, Samsung provided over 30+ contracts with licensees to prove that their licensing terms were in fact fair and reasonable while Apple provided no evidence that Samsung was in violation.
I always look at the merits of the case rather than fall back on the "it takes one to know one" defense... As a matter of law, all that matters is the situation at hand, not any hypothetical alternate universe.
Among the problems in trying to reverse roles is that it's not a simple substitution. It's not like Apple would have ever invented the cellular radio, or Qualcomm the iPhone without historical, technical, and personnel differences going back decades with all the impacts that would have on the companies they became.
If you want a rough sketch analysis though, look at the few places where Apple has essential patents for standards and see how they handle it. I believe they hold key IP for Firewire and Thunderbolt and their Quicktime technology is considered essential patents for BluRay. I don't know of them having been sued for violating FRAND. I haven't dug into it though, so let me know what you find.
Apple complaining about exorbitant royalties, how ironic.
Hey Apple, remember your exhorbitant lightning cable, airplay, homekit etc royalties?
What about the exorbitant taxes on your userbase, like $100 to upgrade SSD that costs $5? Or $300 16GB RAM that costs $60?
What goes around comes around.
Hey Apple, remember your exhorbitant lightning cable, airplay, homekit etc royalties?
What about the exorbitant taxes on your userbase, like $100 to upgrade SSD that costs $5? Or $300 16GB RAM that costs $60?
What goes around comes around.
Market share plays a huge role in whether something is deemed 'anti-competitive' or not. People are easily able to access other email services & apps, and Apple doesn't have majority market-share so they're not stifling anyone else. They would have been slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit by now if they were in violation.
So basically this isn't about Apple being systematically anti-competitive, it's about iOS not having a feature you'd like?
Apple makes money when you buy an alternate email program. Apple makes no additional money when you use their email app. Apple sells more iPhones when people are happier with what they can do with them. There is no competitive motivation for Apple to bar Spark as the default mailer, they just haven't implemented it...
Last edited:
Ill admit that I think i stretched anti competitive and its meaning in this case. Reviewing the posts I see I was wrong in how its used.
They mean like taking a developers fee, then a percentage of the whole price of the app/subscription. Those bastard qualcomm... ohh... wait...
You are mixing two different things. Yes, in general a company can charge whatever it wants for a product. In that case we rely on the free market to control prices. In this case, however, Qualcomm was issued a patent, which limits competition for a period of time. A patent still doesn't mean Qualcomm couldn't charge what it wanted, but what is different is that Qualcomm's system was adopted as an "industry standard" which means that an entire industry would be at the mercy of Qualcomm to charge exorbitant licensing fees to use their chips. To deal with this problem, and prevent companies from abusing a monopoly positions, industries have Standard Settings Org's (SSO's) which create standards but require that any licensing fees be according to FRAND., Fair-Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms,
The courts have fairly universally allowed FRAND to be enforced as a contract term. Qualcomm is arguably in violation of FRAND because they charge based on the value of the product. Thus, every time Apple , or other company, adds an innovation that makes the iPhone more expensive, Qualcomm gets even more from Apple, even though Apple is using the exact same chip, which is insane and costs consumers ultimately, and most relevant is violative of FRAND.
The double whammy for Qualcomm, which has undoubtedly sent tremors through the executives, is that they are charging both for their chips and a licensing fee to use them. The news today is that Apple is citing the recent Supreme Court case that says you can't do both, i.e., if you sell a product, the license to use it should go with it, e.g., printer companies trying to gouge folks by arguing their patent rights prevented other companies from refilling the used cartridges and reselling to consumers. The Court unanimously held that companies basically get one bite at the Apple (pun intended!). If this ruling is applied, as Apple is arguing to Qualcomm, it would mean that once Apple or Google or any other company buys a chip from Qualcomm, they would no longer also have to pay a licensing fee to use the product, as it should be.
I was delighted to see this comment. The only one with any insight.
No one else with an opinion on the matter has any actual idea whats going on. Not that that ever matters before posting a comment on the Internet.
It's worth taking the time to give feedback here:
https://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html
Even if they're already aware that people want the feature, more submissions are counted by Apple as more votes to prioritize work on the feature.
My microwave oven and car also don't let me install my own apps. Bastards.
[doublepost=1497985923][/doublepost]
They would like to, but they would still need to pay Qualcomm for the right to use the patents, and Qualcomm (allegedly) won't charge a reasonable amount for the patents because they really want to sell chips to Apple.
Blackberry won a $940 million arbitration against Qualcomm this year. And a non-appealable arbitration at that. It was a different issue, but still patent related. It was a pretty huge loss especially because non-appealable and that it has to be paid quite promptly. Huge mistake by Qualcomm to arbitrate this because they could have tied this up in court and in appeal process for a lot longer.
"The two companies had agreed to arbitrate a contract dispute over whether Qualcomm's royalty cap program applied to payments made by BlackBerry under a licensing deal. The arbitrator determined that BlackBerry had indeed overpaid royalty fees between 2010 and 2015.'
"The two companies had agreed to arbitrate a contract dispute over whether Qualcomm's royalty cap program applied to payments made by BlackBerry under a licensing deal. The arbitrator determined that BlackBerry had indeed overpaid royalty fees between 2010 and 2015.'
Do you have a reference that claims that? The article states that Apple claims Qualcomm is charging royalties based on the price of the iPhone. Right on the first page.
"Apple said Qualcomm wrongly bases its royalties on a percentage of the entire iPhone's value, despite supplying just a single component of the device."
Whether this is true or not is not the issue. This is what Apple is basing their argument on and will be decided upon in court.
As for whether Qualcomm is charging a royalty to the vendor and then another royalty to Apple, I think perhaps I read into the article something that isn't there. I'll wait for the cloud to settle before making any personal judgements.
Yes, this is the one I was referring to. Thanks for this update.
I don't get why some people are siding with Apple when they don't even know the price Apple is paying. Can't say it isn't "fair and reasonable" when you don't know the price.
Not to mention the fact that most "default" apps can now be uninstalled/hidden and you are free to download any alternative from the app store you see fit if one exists. Granted I wish they'd let me choose my own default browsers and email apps. Having my own installed but system level shortcuts cause safari and mail to open anyway is a bit annoying but far from "anticompetitive". Its Apples right to dictate what options to include in their OS on their hardware. If they wholesale delist and block alternative apps such as Chrome and Gmail then MAYBE an argument can be made. A thin one at that since you still have a choice. Switching to Android. Pain in the ass but a choice all the same.
I'm sure someone would make the Microsoft + IE antitrust argument but that ruling was pretty stupid. As far as I know MS never has directly prevented 3rd party software installation. To this day IE/Edge is still installed as default with the option to set another app as default.
TL;DR: Agreed. OP's position is silly.
