I somewhat agree with the rest of your post, on the facts, but not on the opinion. Apple charges the consumers what the consumers are willing to pay, which is set by what other companies pay and the utility consumers gain from the devices. It isn't "gauging" when the market lets them... If anything, it points to just how innovated Apple really is - being able to charge a similar price for and massively profit on products competitors barely break even on.
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 Sues Qualcomm for $1 Billion in Unpaid Royalty Rebates [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I somewhat agree with the rest of your post, on the facts, but not on the opinion. Apple charges the consumers what the consumers are willing to pay, which is set by what other companies pay and the utility consumers gain from the devices. It isn't "gauging" when the market lets them... If anything, it points to just how innovated Apple really is - being able to charge a similar price for and massively profit on products competitors barely break even on.
Taking a stand? Apple colluded with Qualcomm to destroy a competing wireless standard by accepting $1B in rebates from Qualcomm for using their chips exclusively. Apple only sued after Qualcomm backed out of the deal as retribution for Apple cooperating with antitrust authorities in Korea.
Note how they were considered a patent troll in 2012. And sold most of their patents in 2014.
Nonetheless, I do understand your point. I disagree with it, though. Apple and others buying patents from a bankrupt company isn't the same as filing for patents purely to sit on them. It's comparable to Michael Jackson buying the rights to The Beatles' music when they went to auction.
If you read the whole thing, you will see that Apple is complaining about the absurd royalty term. And, Apple's words is very clear that, the more technology they bind into each product, the more that royalty term becomes absurd, making their own innovations earning less and less value for their products.
How ironic, the company cashing in the most expensive and unnecessary licenses (MFi, Lightning instead of plain USB-C) sues someone for cashing in too much for licensing, ... sigh.
Agreed. If only Apple's developers/designers could be as creative as their lawyers
Wait - Apple's complaining about exclusionary tactics and high fees?! Is this a sick joke?!
Apple gets a taste of its own medicine that it used against Samsung then cries boo hoo hoo. Apple even goes as far as being a two-face siding with Samsung to screw Qualcomm over.
These two things are not comparable. Qualcom has patents that all players in the whole industry have to use. On the other hand, Apple's products only owns 12-15% of the market, so, for Apple's licensees, they can happily play with the rest of the market, if they find Apple's license fees too high, comparing with other companies.
[doublepost=1484958275][/doublepost]
How were those two comparable? Samsung didn't have to copy any of those things they cloned from Apple's original iPhone, to make their own phones operable and compatible with the industry standard. While in this Qualcomm case, everyone have to license those patents from Qualcomm, to keep their phones VALID.
I thought >50% profit on iPhones was a bit ridiculous, but I guess they deserved even more profit!!
Yes, that margin is too high, that's why we should all buy other cheaper phones, forcing Apple to drop the price and stay competitive!
Or maybe Apple should just raise the price more. Apparently there isn't any amount of profit that people think is too high.
Yeah, just basically set up to maximise profits for Apple first and foremost and only. But that's business.
Maybe if they win a billion, they'll have money to make a proper Mac Pro again.
But if their complaint is legit, why shouldn't they press the matter? As for legitimacy, that's certainly not for you or I to decide. Even with the extreme surplus of "expert opinion" available among the general population, and in particular among forum posters, let's leave it to the courts.
In terms of being a bully, Apple has certainly done some things that aren't awesome, but in the grand scheme, compared to other huge corporations, I'd certainly pick Apple over Google or Exxon-Mobile or the big banks when it comes to corporate morals.
Pretty sure Apple made their entire fortune by creating a kickass smartphone and selling 1 billion of them in 10 years. Licensing probably makes up a very tiny percentage of Apples fortune. And I'm not so sure Apple plays the same kind of games with their SEPs that Qualcomm plays with theirs. Hence why the FTC got involved before Apple brought this lawsuit.
I don't know about "entire" but they sue other and charge fees like nobody's business.
Apple is likely to prevail…. because it's not just Apple suing Qualcomm, it's also the US Federal Government accusing Qualcomm (for the same concerns).
Can't there be more than one bully?
Also, calling Apple a bully is a massive joke, when you look at the way Google treats their OEMs and other software companies -- i.e. the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" principle, also known as the "we're Google, suck it" principle.
[doublepost=1484969698][/doublepost]
That's funny, because their financial statements clearly show that they made their fortune selling boatloads of iPhones.