Apple to Sell Modified iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany to Skirt Sales Ban

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 14, 2019.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Apple today confirmed rumors that it will start selling modified iPhone models in its German stores to comply with a patent infringement lawsuit Qualcomm won against the company in December.

    The California-based company said it had "no choice" but to replace Intel chips in the iPhone models with chips from Qualcomm in order to allow them to be sold again in the country.

    Sources in German retail hinted last week that Apple was working on new versions of the iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, and 8 Plus with updated modem hardware that does not violate the injunction levied against it in Germany that resulted in a sales ban on the devices.

    Mobile chip supplier Qualcomm sued Apple in Germany alleging that some older iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models violated Qualcomm patents related to so-called "envelope tracking," which helps mobile phones save battery power while sending and receiving wireless signals. The German court sided with Qualcomm and demanded Apple stop selling the offending iPhones in the country.

    In its ongoing legal dispute with Qualcomm, Apple has also had some iPhone models banned in China. However, Apple was able to get around that ban with a software update and has continued selling iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models in that country.

    Article Link: Apple to Sell Modified iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany to Skirt Sales Ban
  2. mi7chy macrumors 603


    Oct 24, 2014
    Consumers should be given the option of choosing between Qualcomm or alternative option for lower cost.
  3. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    I wonder if this means these "modified" versions will perform faster then?
    Or Apple will artificially throttle them to match the Intel versions?
  4. YaBe, Feb 14, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019

    YaBe macrumors 6502a


    Oct 5, 2017
    "Qualcomm is attempting to use injunctions against our products to try to get Apple to succumb to their extortionist demands."

    From the maker of the MFi standard....

    I do not see other manufacturer complaining about Qualcom, quite the opposite.
  5. leecbaker macrumors member

    Apr 7, 2012
    New Zealand
    If Apple is suffering because of some aspect of the design of the Intel modem chip, I wonder if Intel is somehow liable for at least part of the damages, as it is their part that infringes?
  6. keysofanxiety, Feb 14, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019

    keysofanxiety macrumors G3


    Nov 23, 2011
    Wow, I didn’t realise Apple’s proprietary interface was used on all portable products for all manufacturers and Apple own or control the patents for any peripherals used on any phones.

    I learn something new every day it seems.
  7. YaBe macrumors 6502a


    Oct 5, 2017
    MFi is not a port BTW ;)
  8. squizzler macrumors member


    Feb 11, 2019
    You Kay
    stifling industry innovation along the way."


  9. christarp macrumors 6502


    Oct 29, 2013
    accessories for an iphone are not a fundamental requirement for all phones.
  10. YaBe, Feb 14, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019

    YaBe macrumors 6502a


    Oct 5, 2017
    Not the point I was trying to make.

    But if you want to make something Compatible with iOS you have to pay their high (Apple) fee, if you want to use Qualcomm their high (Qualcomm ) fee!
  11. Romeo_Nightfall macrumors 6502


    Aug 8, 2018
    A dream comes true - iphone 7 jet black with qualcom - the best iphoner ever!!!
    thats not sarcasm
  12. ROGmaster macrumors 6502a

    Apr 12, 2018
    They are throttling the max speeds but average connections speeds should still be better with also better signal on average and lower power consumption.
    To me is sounds like a win for German iphone costumers.
  13. laptech macrumors 6502


    Apr 26, 2013
    I think many would call this 'playing Apples own game'.

    Also, very hypocritical of Apple to make that statement when there are many companies around the world who have suffered at the hands of Apple because the same was done to them.

    Also as well, if the infringing IP is in the Intel chips, shouldn't the issue be taken up with Intel instead of Apple?
  14. iHack13 macrumors regular


    Jun 10, 2009
    city of octoberfest
    "To ensure all iPhone models can again be available to customers in Germany, we have no choice but to stop using Intel chips and ship our phones with Qualcomm chips in Germany. Qualcomm is working to eliminate competition by any means they can, harming consumers and stifling industry innovation along the way."

    This sounds so funny coming from a company with the patent on a rectangle with rounded corners. lmao
  15. aidler macrumors regular

    Jun 18, 2009
    I agree. It still had a headphone jack.
  16. christarp macrumors 6502


    Oct 29, 2013
    The story so far is this:
    1. Apple sues Qualcomm over licensing practices
    2. Many years of legal battles
    3. Apple wanted to use Qualcomm modems
    4. Qualcomm refuses to sell Apple modems
    5. Apple uses Intel modems
    6. Qualcomm halts sales of iPhones using Intel modems

    What is Apple to do, not sell phones anymore?

    Note: I think a bunch of Apples patents they held and fight for are also ridiculous and should not exist either.

    Note 2: Qualcomm also prevented Samsung from selling any of their chips too. Ever wonder why every single smartphone in the US has a snapdragon?
  17. YaBe macrumors 6502a


    Oct 5, 2017
    Pretty much answered yourself, if they want the rule to work only when they see fit ......

    I share your idea patent sometimes are silly, but if they are allowed to exist, everyone has fo follow the rule, even Apple.
    No just pay the fee required, if other manufacturer can afford it, shure can Apple.

    Or come up with a different way of doing the same thing.
  18. christarp macrumors 6502


    Oct 29, 2013
    Of course Apple can pay the fee, but Jeff Williams himself said they wouldn't sell them to Apple. Emphasis on the word sell.
  19. diddl14 macrumors 6502a


    Aug 10, 2009
    The issue is not that the mobile chips infringe any IP, it's Qualcomm acting as a patent troll to force Apple to use their overpriced chips.
  20. windywalks macrumors 6502

    Mar 12, 2004
    If you want to have your product certified as one that will work with an Apple product without a hitch, then yes, you pay the fee and get that sweet MFi logo on the packaging.
    Seeing as both cables and chargers can damage an iPhone I don't see anything wrong with extra certification for OEMs.
    As for the Qualcomm situation - it's a completely different issue.
  21. antonis macrumors 68020


    Jun 10, 2011
    Yeah, cause that would make iPhones overpriced.
  22. Jsameds macrumors 68040

    Apr 22, 2008
    No it doesn't. Last iPhones with headphone jacks were the 6S and the SE
  23. BvizioN macrumors 601


    Mar 16, 2012
    Manchester, UK
    This sounds so funny coming from a company with the patent on a rectangle with rounded corners. lmao[/QUOTE]

    By patient in rectangle with rounded corners sure you must mean that slavish clone of iPhone 3G/3Gs copied on every little detail (including accessories and box) aka: earlier versions of galaxy phones, ti the point that it was hard to distinguish them from the iPhone and I myself remember sellers on the shops referencing then to customers saying "it is identical to iPhone, just cheaper "
    What is funny is people's denial on this matter. On early days of Smartphone basically Samsung was copying pretty much anything iPhone was having. If Apple didn't do what it did, chances are Galaxy phones would look nothing like they do now.
  24. ahireasu macrumors regular

    Jul 7, 2007
    Wow isn't this the same company (apple) that asks 50% of profits from publishers?
  25. Kabeyun macrumors 68000


    Mar 27, 2004
    Eastern USA
    No? How about Nokia, Broadcom, Reliance, and the governments of South Korea, China, the EU, and the United States, for starters?

    And btw, Apple has no more monopolistic control of the MFi standard than THX does over your stereo. No one has to use either. I’ll add your comment to the long running list of false equivalencies I’ve found here.

Share This Page