Apple's WiFi has in the past preformed very badly, especially when changes have been made. I'm not aware of anyone that thinks Apple RF design team is top notch. They get by because most of their users are in dense metro areas, where good RF design means RF discrimination, not RF sensitivity. If the RF signal is strong enough, then any mediocre RF design will bring it in.
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 Wanted to Use Qualcomm Chips for 2018 iPhones, But Qualcomm Wouldn't Sell Them
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's WiFi has in the past preformed very badly, especially when changes have been made. I'm not aware of anyone that thinks Apple RF design team is top notch. They get by because most of their users are in dense metro areas, where good RF design means RF discrimination, not RF sensitivity. If the RF signal is strong enough, then any mediocre RF design will bring it in.
Are you talking about Wi-Fi routers or Wi-Fi on devices? I think it's obvious that Apple doesn't care about routers anymore and hasn't updated in years so comparing those to any other products isn't really a comparison. As far as their phones, I've never seen any tests or heard any complaints to suggest Apple is behind any competition in terms of Wi-Fi.
Why is this mentality so frequent on this forum? 'Apple should just buy everyone'
The hell? Since when are monopolies good? I get it that people love to be cheerleaders... but to this extent?
Qualcomm unequivocally licenses it's 4G/5G portfolio.
You can get access to all 130,000 patents for 4% of the wholesale device price with a cap of $25 for 4G and $20 for 5G.
What Qualcomm won't license is the IP in chip technology they developed using those patents. That is completely different.
The patents are covered under SEP and FRAND; the chips they sell are not.
You are free to develop your own IP and license the patents for both SEP and others for 4%.
If you don't want to do that you can buy a chip from them and also pay the license fee.
The chip and license are separate so that accounting can be done to show what is collected in licensing.
If you don't like the price, you can buy someone else's chip or design your own.
You will still need a license unless you can figure out how to work around all the patents.
SOC are not more expensive. They are cheaper in just about every respect. Where did you get that idea from?
Who wants other operating systems? Not I. Not the 99.99% of Apple users either. You are in an extremely small minority.
Besides when has custom hardware ever stopped anyone porting Linux to a platform? It's a challenge which is accepted every time.
Back up your statements with citations.
Over on AppleInsider - https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/209092 - it states that back in 2007, Apple was still required to pay Qualcomm a licensing fee even though Infineon already had a SEP-license for the cellular modems it sold.
That means that despite purchasing Intel modems, Qualcomm still wants licensing fees from Apple because their (Qualcomm) SEP is being used in those cellular modems. Apple is refusing to pay those additional fees.
Qualcomm is currently suing Apple for refusing to continue to pay those royalties in the Apple v Qualcomm case - https://www.cultofmac.com/588800/qualcomm-apple-no-settlement/
[doublepost=1547586635][/doublepost]
Qualcomm's patents are part of an international standard and if even Apple made their own cellular modems, they have to be standards compatible to operate on carrier's networks, which means they would still have to negotiate and pay Qualcomm a royalty for the Standards Essential Patents (SEP). So, no, in fact, Qualcomm would not be pissing in their pants.
[doublepost=1547586910][/doublepost]
The best I can figure is that quite a few people seem to think Apple has limitless amounts of liquid cash in vaults somewhere and that Tim Cook periodically visits each one of them to roll around in the loot Scrooge McDuck style.
That and many are not old enough to remember when licensing Windows as an OEM meant making Internet Explorer the default browser, or else, among other monopoly actions that got them in trouble with the government, but I digress.
But as posted above they aren’t, if the rules are that Apple owes money it should pay it, as I understand it’s sore because they have to pay more due to the iPhone price they charge.
[doublepost=1547588667][/doublepost]
That’s not the US government though is it, it’s a federal department and it’s still their regardless of which parties in power.
And they aren’t suing Qualcomm, they will fine them if found guilty or force them to change what they are doing.
Last edited:
I think the fundamental problem is is Qualcomm what's a percentage of the full price of the phone not just a price per phone. Apparently iPhones typically cost more that Android phones . Therefore, Apple ends up paying more per phone for the Qualcomm patent than Androids makers pay per phone. I have to side with Apple on this. It's like the gas station selling you gasoline and the price paid per gallon depends on the price of your car.
They charge for the modem and they charge for the patents the modem uses. That’s charging twice.
So you are telling me that the FTC didn't file an antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm... For which a trial is currently taking place? And you are telling me the FTC isn't part of the government? wow.
Edit: Reading one of your subsequent comments, you appear to think a lawsuit is only a lawsuit if its a criminal case (because you said they can only "fine" them if they win the suit. Wow. And you stand by your claim that the FTC isn't the government, because "they will still be there regardless of who is in power" politically. Double wow. I guess the IRS, FBI, CIA, and every other agency isn't government then either. Since they will always be there regardless of who is in power.
Honest question people: What do they teach in school these days?
Last edited:
People here are deft.
It is not charging twice. The two things are not linked.
The SEP/FRAND license is for the patent license which is separate from the chip.
Once you purchase the license; either the SEP/FRAND license or the full patent portfolio license, you can go out and make any kind of chip you want. That license is available to all comers in a non discriminatory form.
The cost of a chip is the intellectual property and cost of manufacturing the chip alone, the license is not built into the price of the chip for accounting reasons.
So you pay for a license and you are under no obligation to buy a chip.
You can make your own chip using the ideas and algorithms in any of the SEP/FRAND patents.
You can also go whole hog and pay for the general patent license that covers 130,000 or so.
Even Apple would need to pay a license if they were to make their own chips.
If you buy the chip, you must pay for a license for that chip.
If you buy 10 cars, you still need registration for each.
The license varies if the device is single or multimode.
So for tracking and accounting, you supply the license separate from the chips. Why is difficult to understand?
Apple says $7.50 per phone license is unfair.
http://fortune.com/2019/01/14/qualcomm-trial-apple-7-50-iphone-fee-billion/
This is far from the maximum that could be charged. Even if the wholesale cost is $200, that is right in line with 3.75%. of the wholesale cost. Apple is bent because they sell so many phones and they want to pay less. They discount the intellectual property of others, but you can't make a phone without the fundamental technology that Qualcomm invented.
Last edited:
If the cost of the chip includes the IP and manufacture, what do you think about he license is for?
The license is for access to the patent portfolio and not the actual cost of developing the IP from those patents.
Creating an idea is different than putting into practice. The chip is the physical device. The license is the cost for the ideas used in developing the IP on those chips. I work in the chip industry and it might sound like splitting hairs, but for accounting reasons it's important.
The license model allows them to vary the pricing based on device.
If you don't know the device cost ,what do you do charge the maximum?
It allows handset manufacturers that make low cost devices to pay less for the license, even if they are paying the same for the chips.
The SEP/FRAND licenses are on a sliding scale so it is difficult to include them in the cost of a chip.
The same chip can go into a low cost iPhone or an expensive iPhone, in the case of Apple.
For accounting reasons, you cannot include the license cost in the cost of the chips.
Huawei alone owns 60% of 5G patents, and China is way ahead in 5G infrastructure development, so the international standard on 5G will be heavily based on Huawei technologies. Qualcomm's negotiation power will be significantly reduced.
First of all, that is not possible, the very thing with SEP. There is ONE 5G standard, not flavors of it.
Also, Huawei does NOT have 60% of 5G patents. No-one knows how the patent landscape for 5G looks like (yet), and surely no-one will have 60%. I would guess Huawei to have max 10-15%, Ericsson would probably be around 15-20%. then follows Nokia and Qualcomm.
Yes, one reason Qualcomm and others want to license at the device level instead of the component level is so that they can vary license costs based on device costs.
That said, I'd make a few points:
(1) Qualcomm has refused to license SEPs to its competitors. Reading your other posts, you seem to think otherwise. But that would mean that Qualcomm's own attorneys, numerous other industry partners (e.g. Samsung and Intel), and numerous regulatory bodies (e.g. the Taiwan FTC, the Korean FTC, and the US FTC) are all wrong. Qualcomm argued in the case which is the subject of this thread that it wasn't required to license SEPs to other modem makers. But it lost that argument and was ordered by the court to do so. It still maintains in court filings that it doesn't have to do so. It was also directed by the KFTC to license to other modem makers.
(2) Qualcomm has been double dipping, as some refer to it. Based on your other posts, you also seem to think that isn't correct. But in selling a modem, and under U.S. law, Qualcomm is exhausting its patent rights in whatever patents are substantially embodied in that modem. When it charges a license fee which includes those patents, while also charging for the modems, it is double dipping. The license fee, of course, covers other IP (e.g., non-SEP patents which aren't substantially embodied in the modems), but part of the fee is for SEPs (and non-SEPs) which are substantially embodied in the modems it sells.
Qualcomm may want to sell modems without, effectively, selling a license to use those modems (i.e. without patent authorization to use or resale them). But it can't. If Qualcomm sells a modem, it is necessarily authorizing the purchaser to use the patents substantially embodied therein. It can not, by contract, preserve its patent rights in something it chooses to sell. That's U.S. law.
Qualcomm has been able to force companies to agree to pay fees for licenses they don't need (where they are also buying the modems from Qualcomm) by enforcing the so-called no license, no chip policy. It had an effective monopoly when it came to certain modems and illegally (according to, e.g. the KFTC and the US FTC) leveraged that monopoly to force companies to agree to a number of improper terms relating to licensing.
(3) One of the reasons Qualcomm wants to collect separate license fees (for the patents incorporated in its modems) even when it sells someone modems, is - as is argued by the KFTC and the US FTC - so that it can effectively charge higher license fees when someone buys a modem from its competitors. (That reason is in addition to Qualcomm wanting to be able to charge more if a modem is going into a higher cost device.) That's where the rebate structure which Qualcomm has used comes in. I've explained how it works elsewhere, so I won't go over it again; it isn't that hard to understand anyway. But that is one of the things Qualcomm is accused of doing - structuring licensing fees, modem sales and rebates such that it effectively charges higher royalties when someone buys a modem from its competitors, thereby illegally raising the effective cost of buying modems from its competitors.
There is, of course, a lot more to the story. Qualcomm is accused of a long list of improper behaviors - not just by Apple and not just by the US FTC, but by many regulatory bodies and by many of the main players in the industry.
And the above is not just my speculation. It is based on having read the court filings - Qualcomm's, the FTC's, Apple's, and amici - the KFTC's decision and, when it comes to how U.S. law works, certain Supreme Court decisions.
[doublepost=1547637832][/doublepost]
Apolloa is using the term government a different way, as people from the U.K. often do. They're referring to the Prime Minister, other cabinet members, and the political elements which run the government. They aren't including the operational elements of government such as the IRS and FBI.
That said, you were correct when you said this...
You were using the term as we use it in America. Perhaps apolloa doesn't understand that usage? I don't know, but it's a valid usage and especially so in this context as the point is it isn't Apple that is suing in this case, it's a governmental enforcement agency. At any rate, they were wrong to suggest that what you said was wrong.
Last edited:
1. FRAND lets you choose where in the value-chain you license, as long as you make the technology available.
Also SEPs are not relevant to direct competitors (Intel).[See below]
2. No its not doubble dipping, because Sales of chip only consumes IP in the actual chip. SEP (patent claims) is not covering the chip, its about the whole standard compliant device (battery, antennas, etc)
I am confused. In the first sentence, you imply that Apple’s WiFi sensitivity is bad. But in the second sentence you credit Apple for having good WiFi sensitivity.
The court in this case disagrees with you. (As does, e.g., the KFTC.)
There is, no doubt, IP which Qualcomm owns which isn’t substantially embodied in the various modems it sells. But there are also SEPs (and likely other patents) which are substantially embodied therein. Qualcomm tried a version of the argument you’re making and, rightfully I believe, lost.
EDIT: I’d add that, as the court suggested, Qualcomm made that argument somewhat hypocritically.
