That is not true.
There have been Samsung SOCs in phones sold here.
Once of the issues has been CDMA/LTE compatibility and the easiest way is with Qualcomm.
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
There have been Samsung SOCs in phones sold here.
Once of the issues has been CDMA/LTE compatibility and the easiest way is with Qualcomm.
The disturbing aspect of this is the defense of Apple by many of it's supporters in here, by saying things like 'Qualcomm are doing this..it's bad and wrong','Qualcomm are doing that, it's bad and also wrong', whilst basically saying how inept and clueless Qualcomm supporters are but yet when the roles are reversed and it's Apple being the mob handed one, suddenly it's a case of Apple is in the right for defending their IP/pricing/whatever they want and that everyone else is being an Apple hater.
If Apple has the right to defend what it designs and owns by what it considers 'any means necessary' then why shouldn't everyone else (like Qualcomm)? Or is it one rule for Apple and one rule for everyone else in the world?
If Apple has the right to defend what it designs and owns by what it considers 'any means necessary' then why shouldn't everyone else (like Qualcomm)? Or is it one rule for Apple and one rule for everyone else in the world?
But from the court testimony and Bloomberg report, when apple asked Qualcomm about selling the modem. Qualcomm provided apple with two options, one using the older one which apple leaks the source code to Intel(and Qualc believes Apple intentionally leaks the source code for that one to Intel, and the case is in court right now). Second, using the new modem with access to new source code but promise Qualcomm 50% share for the new iphone. Apple refuses any of these two options. So is Apple in play now?
International iPhone models have different selection of 4G/LTE frequency bands so Apple might actually need to use another Qualcomm chip to support all the European operators with good network speeds.
My biggest problem with Intel chips is their terrible GPS accuracy and slow locking speed. I’m playing Pokemon Go and upgrading to iPhone X (Intel) was a real downgrade. The old iPhone 6 (Qualcomm) GPS was perfect.
Which companies have been forced to buy Apple products?
[doublepost=1550167139][/doublepost]
Tell me more of these German iPhone costumers, do they dress themselves up as iPhones? Or do the make little costumes for the iPhones to wear?
The rates are fixed and have been going down.
It is not based on the full wholesale price and is capped.
So if the wholesale price of an iPhone is $400 and one is $1000; the fee is the same. You can look up the pricing structure and it is the same for all companies that pay Qualcomm a license. They do offer rebates to some customers and Apple was one of them. Apple wanted to continue to receive rebates even when they were looking to use Intel and Qualcomm refused.
If they have a modem and use the patents then someone must pay the licensing. Normally the license is at the end of the chain and paid by the handset maker. Qualcomm does not typically license patents to chip companies.
Once again, Samsung is a large company and has a walled garden between LCD/OLED manufacturing, chip fabrication and handsets.
The license for FRAND and standards licenses are for handset manufacturers and no license is needed to make chips. The handset maker pays the license based on the wholesale cost of the device irrespective of the chip manufacturer.
The licensing is based on single or multimode handsets and if you just want the standards essential patents or Qualcomm's complete portfolio.
Once again, the model is that the handset maker pays the licensing and not the chip maker.
Also the license is not included with a Qualcomm modem chip. You are paying for silicon and not the license the two are separate.
Can't answer for the 7, but I just bought an 8 recently. Could have gotten a XR for a bit more, but the XR is bigger, heavier, harder to reach parts of the screen, harder to use one-handed, harder to carry in my pocket, and more likely to get dropped. And an oddly strong factor was that Apple makes their silicone cases, which I really like, for the 8 (and almost every other current iPhone), but not for the XR - it gets only the clear case, which is much more slippery. The XR would have been about 10% faster than the 8, but both were 3-4 times as fast as my 6 was. So, I quite intentionally chose the 8, and I'm thrilled with it. It's the ultimate refinement of the 6/6s/7/8 design. I lose out on FaceID (TouchID is fine), a slightly better camera (8 is miles ahead of the 6), and Memoji (haha). If they come up with a XR mini in a couple years, maybe I'll take a look at that.
The 7 and 8 appeal to people who don't like the larger form factor of the XR and who don't want to pay for a XS. I suspect there are also a number of large companies who have standardized on one or the other and will continue to buy large quantities (this happened to the iPad 2, which stayed around forever).
I also replaced my 6 with an 8 and quite like it, even if it's identical when I look at it.
Personal anecdote: we are being offered the XR as our next work phone, and I honestly don't want it, even as a free device. It's a bezel-heavy potato with middling resolution and PPI and I simply miss the 3D Touch. It's baffling how Apple kills its own babies out of plain thrift. I would much rather get the 8 Plus if I have the option.
Last edited:
I think this is exactly that - extortionist demands.
I can only imagine if the steel/aluminum mining company would demand a percentage of phone sale price for the honor of using their metal alloy, that would work out well.
How about the paper manufacturer demanded a percentage of phone sale price because of use of paper in the packaging of the phone?
I guess I could go on and on, but it's easy catch the gist.
In other words: The whole reason Apple was abandoning Qualcomm is money. They won’t allow another company with better components to take “exhorbitant” amounts of profits out of its offerings. Something only Apple is allowed to do. But when their sales is in danger they’ll allow. It has nothing to do with placing the consumer on the first place or giving consumers the best tech money can buy.
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
You realize they can't just ship remaining iPhone 7/8 VZW inventory to Germany? Not to mention they need the 5W European adapter. It means they have to run more new inventory with Qualcomm chips.
I don’t get it. If they get sued by them why would they START using their chip??
Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
iPhone 6s was the last one with a headphone jack, was never was going to happen. Good ole 2019 where people are still whining about it.
Nope, Qualcomm is using the "Intel shouldn't reap the patent benefits from us, you pay us the royalties and chips as usual."
Once Samsung gets on-board with all phones, which they have deleted it with a lower-end model, the debate will finally end. Google got rid of it as well years ago.
Apple's decisions have a halo effect. That doesn't make it less of a user unfriendly move merely to push AirPods to the market.
More like engineering feats, more space for Taptic. AirPods is a hot seller regardless. Google Pixel is doing just fine.
More like engineering feats, more space for Taptic. AirPods is a hot seller regardless. Google Pixel is doing just fine.
Please. Getting buzzed when I scroll a ticker is a superfluous non-feature. It's all about the AirPods. Otherwise why would they remove it from the iPad Pro?! There's plenty of space there and no Taptic Engine.
You're still shoehorning sales and competition even if it doesn't relate. People just need/want new phones and are willing to put up with the compromise. IT'S STILL A COMPROMISE.
Please, there isn't enough room for the jack and the engine. Open it up yourself.
There is Beats3, lightning-corded headphones, for $49. Saves a dongle use. It's not all about AirPods.
Next false conspiracy theory...
If it's a false conspiracy theory, explain to us why they removed it from the 13" iPad Pro. Go on.
PS. They also own Beats3.
I too also wish to never have a well performing cell phone.
Get your head out of apple's ass for once people.
