Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
That bargain is offered here from just 495 USD. Before tax of course.
 
A throttled Qualcomm chip is still better than an Intel one. Would be nice if Apple could put this behind them and continue to make their own modems going forward. 2020 can't come soon enough, as the 2019 iPhone will be trash again as always. I'm not upgrading until Pro motion.
 
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?

You mean like Apple does with subscriptions sold via iOS apps?
 
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?
It’s actually not but another chip company that is required in their version. Qualcomm blocked their testimony by refusing the confidentiality agreement. They tried that in the US but lost and that testimony proved no infringement of Qualcomm’s patent. That’s why they tried all over the world until they found a judge that would not force them to sign the confidentiality agreement to move forward. Germany was the only one.
 
You mean like Apple does with subscriptions sold via iOS apps?
You clearly don’t understand how subscriptions works. And so many articles make false claims so I understand. If you have a subscription service and advertise and effectively market your service, customers will go to your sites and signup. At that point you can direct them to download an IOS App for iPhones, IPads, or Apple TV etc. Apple will host your app at no charge to you or your customer. Apple gets not one penny of your subscription.

On the other hand, if your marketing is lacking and you don’t have the budget for Ads or would prefer to spend your money on development you have the OPTION of letting Apple’s extensive marketing of their platform be your marketing. That requires you to partner with them and pay for that access.

Those that complain want their cake and to eat it too. Walmart will not put your product on their shelves without making money. In fact if you want to be on the end caps or near the register during checkout or in their circulars or online sales, you will pay them a tone of money weather it works or not. Access is never free. The frustrating part is many of the complainer achieved much of their mobile success thanks to Apple’s marketing and being on the platform. They might not even exist other wise. Maybe it’s their way of pulling up the ladder behind them.
 
EDIT: Meant to reply to genovelle, sorry.

Don’t be surprised if Apple prevents apps from linking to external subscriptions in iOS 13.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pratikindia
Qualcomm to Apple: "Oh, didn't we mention that the price of our chips has just gone up by quite a lot?"
 
Last edited:
The German court sided with Qualcomm and demanded Apple stop selling the offending iPhones in the country.

What has not been said here is that both the ITC and a US District Court have ruled that there is no infringement by Apple on these specific claims.
 
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.

An iPhone 7/8 is more than enough for what 75% of users do with their phones. They run very well on iOS 12 and will do fine on 13. I hear more users reflecting your thoughts every day. :apple:
 
Perhaps this fall they should scrap both the 7 & 8 and reuse the casing from one of them (7’s aluminum gets my vote) to offer a new legacy model that doesn’t infringe on these patents but doesn’t require the use of Qualcomm chips. The iPhone 9 and 9+.
 
"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.

They do, and have moved away from Qualcomm. The other big players, Samsung & Huawei internally sources their modems through subsidiaries or partners. Samsung gets only 22% from Qualcomm and Huawei gets only 38%.
Apple doesn't make or manufacture modems, so they started partnering with Intel - to which Qualcomm was not happy.

The problem gets worse with *expensive smartphones* because the Qualcomm demands percent of the overall price of the product - So Apple impacted hardest, I'd guess the higher-end Samsung phones too.

Samsung didn't like it either, but because they do alot of chip fabrication, they managed to negotiate a break with Qualcomm:

- they will use some Qualcomm modems, if Qualcomm uses Samsung for manufacturing their modems - so they can re-coop some of their costs.

- Qualcomm's agreement with Samsung from many years ago, blocks Samsung's ability to sell Exynos to other parties without paying royalties. Good for Qualcomm because they'll get more sales of Snapdragon. In exchange Samsung gets first dibs on Snapdragon and gets some of the manufacturing for Snapdragon. So they have special relationship where Samsung pays the modem royalties, but makes back the costs thru other manufacturing channels.

- Finally it was released during the FTC trial that Qualcomm refused to give patent licenses to Samsung, and instead tried to sweeten the conversation with a "covenant to sue last." So they had special agreement where Samsung won't be affected until all other parties are dealt with (ie, don't complain buddy).
 
  • Like
Reactions: thasan
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.
He definitely knows it’s different. But still, there are plenty of knowledgeable illiterates here who gets the pleasure of burning Apple with their “very witty” comments :)
 
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

No, Neither did Intel nor Apple pays Qualcomm and Qualcomm never wants intel to pay Qualcomm. Now all the license fee is paid by the phone manufactures, and then Apple reimburse the phone manufactures, but now Apple stops ask the manufactures to stop paying Qualcomm. Please check the basic facts.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.