Best case scenario, Apple wins FTC case and QC stock tanks. Apple uses cash war chest and buys QC at a huge discount. No more licensing fees! 
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
It's not really a free market if Qualcomm has already entered into a licensing deal with Apple as a FRAND licensee. I believe the courts still haven't ruled on this definitively but this isn't a simple case of money for goods.
They had the majority market share at the time. They forced vendors (IBM, Dell, Gateway, HP, Acer) to sign an OEM agreement to sell the Windows OS at a low fixed rate, and forbade those OEMs from offering other operating systems to the end users. They also forbade the OEM to rebate the user if the user chose not to use Windows (those of us running Linux at the time). Plus, when you powered on your new PC from the vendor, if you clicked "I do not agree" to the Windows license agreement, the PC shut down. All of this was kinda-sorta ok at the time. (hang on...) Microsoft then had a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Which is actually fine to have (you just have to play by different rules).
Later, in 1997/1998, they tried to force the OEMs to only pre-install their web browser (Internet Explorer) and not offer the user any choice (or obvious choice). This was during the really nascent days of the consumer-accessible Internet, and the only competitive browser was Netscape Navigator (and Netscape charged $29 or $39 per installed copy; it was free for "home use" but they wanted money for "corporate use"). But IE *did* have a price to the OEMs, it was just hidden in the back-room deals OEMs made to Microsoft for the Windows OS. Plus, we found out, each OEM paid a different price (this was bad for Microsoft). Microsoft was bundling Internet Explorer into Windows and not offering users, nor OEMs, a choice.
Microsoft was trying to edge out Netscape Navigator (which *was* the most popular browser at the time), and they wanted into the business market, too. However, Microsoft's OEM deals forbade that. Microsoft was trying to use it's monopoly in the desktop OS market to gain a monopoly in what was the then-developing "web browser market". This violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft was found guilty.
This led to a whole mess of bad for Microsoft. Microsoft Office was thrown in as part of the "bundling" along with Internet Explorer. They had to unbundle everything (Office, IE, Windows), they had publish the file formats of all the office documents, and offer the user a choice on boot up of what browser to use.
It all took too long to come to ruling, and Netscape died (company and the browser). Company got sold off to AoL, I think, and the browser source code was published open source (minus the private IP/copyright parts Netscape signed licenses for). This meant Netscape was published open source as Mozilla (mozilla.org) but without SSL, JavaScript, plugins, etc. All that code had to be re-written as open source by Mozilla people, then it was forked into the Phoenix browser (until someone noticed that was the same name of some little-used database server) and then renamed to Firefox.
Now, without fear of retribution from Microsoft, other browsers came to market. Opera, smaller forks of Mozilla/Firefox, and Apple came out with Safari (after years of Internet Explorer exclusivity on Mac from the $150 million Mac Office and investment deal). Eventually Google was created and rose to a power, and came out with Chrome.
Meanwhile, Microsoft was put under a 10? 20? [i forget now] year consent decree with the Department of Justice. The DoJ went after Microsoft *hard* during the trials. Microsoft had to publish their networking APIs (most notably, the SMB file sharing protocols and what they did with NetBIOS). They published all the Office file formats (noted earlier). They couldn't expand *anything*; they couldn't buy other businesses without DoJ review first. They eventually bought Skype but did *nothing* with it for *years* because the DoJ wouldn't let them. They couldn't remove features that allowed interoperability with things (like Exchange). For Microsoft, it was awful and damning. But they deserved it due to their behavior.
Now, IE is still kinda bundled but no one cares. People are trained at home now to use almost anything but IE because of their then-kids who are now grown and the kids were "rebels" who used Netscape, and Firefox, and Opera. The DoJ actions worked to normalize the market. It took a full 10 years between what became Apple and Google to change the market in fundamental and sustainable ways. PC shipments are down to nothing, iPhones and iPads are the devices of choice. Microsoft tried to go mobile, but they couldn't move (because of DoJ). So when mobile happened, there was a void (because Sony/Ericsson used Windows Mobile/PocketPC/WindowsCE whatever) and mobile was just pitiful. Mobile was ripe for innovation and disruption. Microsoft couldn't go to mobile because they were bound by their violations 10-12 years prior.
And the rest... is history...
Apple was already using Intel in 2016. Then Apple stopped paying royalties in 2017. Qualcomm didn't stop supplying modems until Apple refused to pay.
No pay = No parts. I'm sure this rule applies to every other supplier.
Hypocritical of Apple to protest a licensing model that is identical to its own for iOS accessory makers. Apple, too, charges a percentage of the wholesale cost of accessories that utilize or accommodate any of Apple's proprietary connections.
What goes around, comes around.
Apple has been working on their own modems for a bit so these trials might wind down just as Apple readies their own 3G/4G/5G solution.
Looks like it's Apple's turn to be the new Microsoft of the 1990's.
No, that is not correct at all. The cost of the chip was $30. Apple paid $30. In addition to the cost of the chip Qualcomm wanted royalties of $7.50 (and later higher) per device for their patent. Apple wanted to pay $1.50 in royalties for a total cost of $31.50 per device.
Best case scenario, Apple wins FTC case and QC stock tanks. Apple uses cash war chest and buys QC at a huge discount. No more licensing fees!
Apple wouldn’t be allowed to buy Qualcomm.
I wasn’t aware that making Apple accessories was standards essential.
Another example of how Apples arrogance know’s no bounds... and we the customers have to pay the price if we chose iPhone.
It gives Intel three+ years of chip sales and they'll happily take that, also knowing anything could change in that time anyway.
Business is almost always about short term profit. That's also why Apple and Samsung still do business despite having litigation going on, it's just a facet of business.
All the emotion put into these news of who's suing who is generated from us consumers (and news outlets hungry for views) taking sides while the companies are really just maximizing their profits using every legal tool available to them. Although once in a while a CEO gets emotional too and forgets he should be thinking like a Vulcan, not a human.
Do you fight in the playground as well?
Given that > 85% are phones are not Apple (and growing), I hardly think Qualcomm are going anywhere soon.
Which is a fraction of the loss, legal complications, bans, and future write-offs of 5G getting 1yr by their choice of Intel without a back-up.
(sidenote: their tenure degraded their stock value 400bn in the last half year)
Last edited:
Do you really think most people who buy any give smartphone, iPhone or not, even knows what 5G is? And do you think 5G will be relevant to most people within 5 years when LTE still hasn’t reached 100% penetration?
If Apple's WiFi is any indication of how good Apple RF engineers are, then we are in a heap of trouble.
Personally I won’t give a **** for 5G, but Apple is desperately looking for what the market regards as distinctive innovation (in this case: not getting behind...) or something to rationalize their pricepoint.
5G plays a great role in getting themselves back on track again, commercially.
I guess a 3rd camera will not be enough
Not really, since 5G is expensive in patent licenses. If you think iPhones are expensive now, just wait until 5G is added.
It definitely has its extra cost, but at their scales nobody can figure how much discount they get.
Anyway Apple will find its way to charge that multifold to users. I will probably stay away from it as I figure the first batch of customers will be effectively beta testers (which may change if Qualcomm would return...ever)
That’s like asking Joe Bloggs do you know what WiFi is? Grannies aside most people will know exactly what 5G is, they know what the internet is and WiFi and 4G because they are paying for it..!!
Here in the UK most people can get LTE. Stop thinking about your own country, it’s a global market not a local one..
"... trusts Apple unequivocally.."
I hope you realise, some day, how ignorant that entire comment is. The whole if it. Apple is one of the masters of arm-twisting, bullying, anti-competitive practices. Which planet are you on?
And you trust Apple to charge you appropriately? That's like the complete opposite of their entire business model!
You just confirmed what he said, rationalize their price point. I'm quite happy with LTE +/Advanced. I don't want to pay $1,500.00 for a phone because it's "5G".