AIUI:
- Intel is already paying
- Apple isn't
- Qualcomm's position is that both Intel and Apple need to license the patents
- Apple's position is that Intel already paying ought to be enough
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 to Sell Modified iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany to Skirt Sales Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AIUI:
why would anyone pay full price for 3 years old iPhone 7 anyway?
it's a complete waste of money unless it's a heavily discounted (1/2 original price)or a clean, used bargain.
it's not like a car or piece of furniture, that thing is so out dated.and will only get worse in the next 1-2 years.
it's a complete waste of money unless it's a heavily discounted (1/2 original price)or a clean, used bargain.
it's not like a car or piece of furniture, that thing is so out dated.and will only get worse in the next 1-2 years.
I dunno. I have an iPhone 7 128GB Jet Black with a new battery. It's working extremely well, better than when it was new, on iOS 12.1.4. I see absolutely no reason to upgrade. I owned the 8 for a while, but returned it, as I don't like phones with glass backs, and I don't care about wireless charging, and besides those two features, there was zero difference between the 7 and 8 for me with my use. The iPhone 7/8 is the perfect size for me. The XR is far too big. The XS is far too expensive, and of course, the XS Max is just way too big and way too expensive. And all these new phones weigh too much.
If my phone died, I might just pick up the same phone again. The modern alternatives are all either way too big and heavy, are far more fragile due to glass backs, and cost too much to be worth it.
My wife feels the same way. So we'll both stick to our iPhone 7's with fresh batteries until they stop working, which will hopefully be another 2-3 years.
Why does it matter what someone chooses to spend? The iPhone 7 with the A-10 fusion processor is still a really sufficient phone. It performs really well on iOS 12 and still shares a lot of the same features as the iPhone 8 with the exception of the wireless charging and True tone. It’s not really that dated of a phone, considering the value of what you’re receiving. I owned the iPhone 7 and I would not hesitate to purchase it again if I needed to.
both google and apple take cut 30% in app digital item. The main issue of it was ..Example i been X item . My Customer take risk X item and reverse engineering and sold it to the client.My Client void the agreement. But how long the customer can understand it because they just have technical plan but not experience to build it. If anything problem, they will fall back to me but i don't have legality to help them either because not come from me.
If just My Customer bought my company, no choice i have to maintain it.
This can be applied to any other big company. But usually Apple doen’t play this game even if they have patents, while Qualcomm is really doing everything to harm Apple and consumers.
Yes, while I wish Qualcomm would lower the price of their IP, the way Apple has worded it in this case, along with many others recent PR prices had me thinking they are turning themselves into old Google. Where they think they are so righteous and all others are evil.
So far nothing shown in court has proved Qualcomm anything remotely evil, as a matter of fact everything seems reasonable, just expensive.
Oh Hell no, that is not what is happening. It has always been the end product that pays the IPR. Not the component manufacturer.
I think the Jet Black iPhone 7 Plus currently stands as the most solid iPhone ever made. I wanted one but also wanted 32GB, so went with the matte version.
".....they are using patents they purchased..." SO what, Apple give away the patents of any companies they acquire then?
".....they are using patents ...... that have nothing to do with their cellular technology to harass Apple..." So Apple don't regularly attempt to patent the most ludicrous and obvious things in an attempt to strangle competitors?
".....they are using patents ...... that have nothing to do with their cellular technology to harass Apple..." So Apple don't regularly attempt to patent the most ludicrous and obvious things in an attempt to strangle competitors?
Actually that is what i was thinking. When anyone buys an iphone, that person indirectly has given the royalty for the patents as well. Or maybe Intel has the license but Apple didn't pay Intel the license fee and bought only the hardware and so it has to now directly pay Qualcomm.
OK, I'm really confused.
Why would Apple "modify" the Intel iPhone 7/8 models when they already have Qualcomm versions of the 7/8 that they can sell?
Why would Apple "modify" the Intel iPhone 7/8 models when they already have Qualcomm versions of the 7/8 that they can sell?
My iPhone 7 Plus has a Qualcomm modem in it. iPhone 8's also can have Qualcomm modems in them. How much does Apple have to "modify" the 7 & 8 to sell it in Germany?
[doublepost=1550150752][/doublepost]
We literally thought the same thing at the same time!
[doublepost=1550150752][/doublepost]
We literally thought the same thing at the same time!
All this just to sell old 7 & 8's. Aren't the new ones selling?
For all of you that hop on the bash apple bandwagon - how about adobe asks you for a fixed percentage of your income because at one point in your projects you used photoshop to save a pad as jpg?
Would you be ok with that?
Would you be ok with that?
So? No one is forcing them to accept, unlike with Qualcomm, that company is impossible to avoid, directly or indirectly. Apples and oranges.
Should we also be able to choose the brand of transformer inside of any TV we buy?
Think before typing. It works.
[doublepost=1550152252][/doublepost]Lots of comments from people who clearly know nothing about the facts of the case, what a standard essential patent is, what FRAND is, or the difference between the Qualcomm and Intel chips.
Best to just keep your mouth shut if you don't know anything.
I don't know. They definitely don't look identical.
Similar yes but a clone doesn't mean it looks similar it means absolutely identical.
I also see the other side, how much some people exaggerate and how loosely they use the word clone or identical.
“In many cases they are using patents they purchased or that have nothing to do with their cellular technology to harass Apple and other industry players," an Apple spokesperson said.”
I’m no particular fan of Qualcomm and rather a fan of Apple, and atm an Apple shareholder, And I think the above is a ******** statement.
Purchasing a patent does nothing to invalidate it or the right to enforce it.
Apple purchases patents all the time, sometimes fights to purchase them, eg the Rockstar Patents.
I’m sure the Apple spokesman wouldn’t offer for Apple to forego enforcing any patent the company had purchased.
There is no standard AFAIK that says that your patents have to be related to your primary products, (or even that you must be making a product) for them to be enforceable.
I’m no particular fan of Qualcomm and rather a fan of Apple, and atm an Apple shareholder, And I think the above is a ******** statement.
Purchasing a patent does nothing to invalidate it or the right to enforce it.
Apple purchases patents all the time, sometimes fights to purchase them, eg the Rockstar Patents.
I’m sure the Apple spokesman wouldn’t offer for Apple to forego enforcing any patent the company had purchased.
There is no standard AFAIK that says that your patents have to be related to your primary products, (or even that you must be making a product) for them to be enforceable.