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
What is an acceptable markup? Most consumer goods are between double to four times cost. Last I heard Apple is about three times cost.
I agree with those who imply that this is Apple getting hoisted by its own petard. For decades, "We're Apple...You'll Do Things Our Way" ruined many a company. They acted like a high-tech Mob Boss. Now, we have the shoe on the other foot and it's painful for them. As the saying goes, 'Tough Nuggets.'
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.
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.
It's unclear what kind of chips Apple is using for the German phones, but Intel modem performance seems to have mostly caught up to Qualcomm recently:
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/01/iphone-xs-lte-performance-tests/
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.
Wow, then you must be locked in a closet somewhere. The parade of manufacturers testifying against Qualcomm has been breathtaking.
EDIT: Meant to reply to genovelle, sorry.
Don’t be surprised if Apple prevents apps from linking to external subscriptions in iOS 13.
Don’t be surprised if Apple prevents apps from linking to external subscriptions in iOS 13.
Qualcomm to Apple: "Oh, didn't we mention that the price of our chips has just gone up by quite a lot?"
Last edited:
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.
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.
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+.
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).
Try to know a minimum of the topic you comment on before commenting, this statement is almost comical....
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
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.