Sidebar Sidebar
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

Defthand said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but Apple is not under any obligation to license the Lightning connector. Apple did not apply for SEP for Lightning. If an accessory vendor wants to use Lightning, they have to abide by Apple's terms. If Apple were granted an SEP for the Lightning connector for say data syncing (ridiculous scenario), then all cell phones would have to include the Lightning connector if they wanted to build in wired data syncing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thasan
Wanted797 said:
“Qualcomm wanted to up the $7.50 fee by another $8 to $10,“

What?
Click to expand...

Read it as "Qualcomm wanted to up the $7.50 by between $8 and $10." That makes the final price $15.50 to $17.50; more than doubling at even the low end.
 
blcamp said:
When vendors try to hold Apple hostage, it's inevitably gonna come back and bite them. Apple eventually finds a way to work around them. Sure, Apple would love to do everything in-house but if it's cheaper for a third-party to handle something, why not let them do it? With Qualcomm though, they've already shown themselves not to be a trustworthy partner. Qualcomm is gonna lose, and lose big.
Click to expand...
Quite to the contrary Apple is known for throwing its weight around and sitting on suppliers in order to fatten their own margins - don't seem to like it when the suppliers bite back, though. I'm certain Qualcomm will be fine either way given Android accounts for 85%+ of the market!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooltalk and darksithpro
Michael Goff said:
I wasn’t aware that making Apple accessories was standards essential.
Click to expand...

Explain how that difference makes Qualcomm's pricing approach unfair, but justifies Apple's use of it. If you believe it unfairly impacts how much you pay for an iPhone, then you should expect Apple to pass any savings on to you if Apple prevails. Yeh... they're not gonna do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darksithpro
Wait, we live in a world where a vendor can demand that a purchaser bad mouth a competing *standard* in order to get a supply of a part?

What kind of jacked up ******** is that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thasan
Falhófnir said:
Quite to the contrary Apple is known for throwing its weight around and sitting on suppliers in order to fatten their own margins - don't seem to like it when the suppliers bite back, though. I'm certain Qualcomm will be fine either way given Android accounts for 85%+ of the market!
Click to expand...


I thought that number was inflated, but it appears you're right: https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os

2018Q3
Android: 86,8%

Apple: 13,2%

It seems like Apple fluctuates from 12-19% market share, while Android fluctuates from 80-87%.
 
Monopolies aren't against the law per se, it's abusing that monopoly power that's illegal. It's starting to sound like Qualcomm's going to get it, but of course Qualcomm hasn't presented yet.

Note that they're not tying, but they're actively preventing a customer from using competitor's equipment. Intel has avoided doing that for decades because they believe it crosses the anti-trust line ie: Intel didn't penalize companies that wanted to use AMD chips in their systems.
 
ftaok said:
Perhaps, but Apple is not under any obligation to license the Lightning connector. Apple did not apply for SEP for Lightning. If an accessory vendor wants to use Lightning, they have to abide by Apple's terms. If Apple were granted an SEP for the Lightning connector for say data syncing (ridiculous scenario), then all cell phones would have to include the Lightning connector if they wanted to build in wired data syncing.
Click to expand...

Obligatory licensing is a separate issue. I'm addressing the fee structure. The fairest approach probably is the percentage-based fee. The cost is proportional to the earnings opportunity for the vendor. The consumer cost is relative to what the customer is able to afford. A flat fee for every use case will more likely make affordable goods less affordable, but won't impact those who buy premium goods.
 
HobbesInVA said:
Apple is doing this because their 1st obligation is to create profit for their shareholders. One of the ways is to reduce your liabilities, costs, and taxes. I'm not saying Apple is doing the ethical thing but their obligation is not to make Qualcomm rich or provide customers with the best price.
Click to expand...

#1 - An unethical court battle causes blowback from customers.
#2 - Outrageous price hikes for minimal improvement causes blowback from customers.

Damaging your brand absolutely reduces profits for shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobbesInVA
Starship67 said:
Only beacause every cheap smartphone You can buy at 7-11 and Wal-Mart runs on it in some form or another.
Click to expand...

How do you explain a 6.4% drop in market share from Q42017 to Q32018? Is Apple loosing customers, or is that just new customers buying Android phones? I thought the market was already saturated?
 
mcbumbersnazzle said:
Yes you can. My Xs, has frequent dropouts, lower signals and even "no service" while my old iPhone 8 has a 3 bars. And that's the highest end gigabit version with 2 additional antenna lines on the Xs, can imagine how bad it is with the Xr. Not even mention various issues with 5ghz wifi & slower speeds due to the lower signal. Intel modems are the trashiest of the trash in trashville and apple decided to use them for their $1000 phones. But hey who uses their phone to make phone calls like it's supposed to anymore amirite?
Click to expand...

I understand you may be having issues with your iPhone Xs Max. I literally have no issue with my iPhone Xs Max. I'm on Verizon and my performance is great. Now if it was just me that might be an issue but everyone I know who has an iPhone Xs or Xs Max doesn't have any issue also. I started to compare it to my old iPhone 8 plus which is on Verizon still (It is now my sons), I have the same connectivity performance. I travel all over the U.S., sometime in the most obscure areas and I have never any issues with signal that I did not have with my iPhone 8 plus. So, it's hard for me to understand when all these individuals are having issues when they seem to be in the "major" minority.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stewie
Why should Qualcomm do business with anyone who's delinquent on paying their bills out of greed and not because of inability to pay?

And, the fact that Apple could turn to Intel after being refused by Qualcomm nullifies Apple's anti-competition claim.

More and more Apple sounds less like the innocent victim they make themselves out to be and more like the delinquent greedy liar.
 
joueboy said:
You make it sound easy, why don't you make the chip and sell it to Apple for $1.50. That's what Apple wants to pay anyway and since you love Apple so much then you would be happily take the $1.50. It's a win, win situation and Apple would never this miserable anymore. Right?
Click to expand...

It will very easy for Apple because they have the funds and resources..
 
mikethemartian said:
How does Qualcomm have a monopoly if Apple can buy modems from other companies like Intel?
Click to expand...

This isn't about Qualcomm having a monopoly, it's about them having a standard essentials patent and failing to license it on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

The chip sales are just an interesting drama that happens on top of that (or even, if you prefer, alongside it).
 
darksithpro said:
How do you explain a 6.4% drop in market share from Q42017 to Q32018? Is Apple loosing customers, or is that just new customers buying Android phones? I thought the market was already saturated?
Click to expand...

It's 2 big things. 1st - The smartphone market has hit maturity; there seems to be less awe inspiring innovation. 2nd - Developing countries or those with lower GDP aren't willing or able to spend thousands on an iPhone when someone can get the same basic functionality for less money.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...hones-hard-to-digest/articleshow/65802823.cms

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterc...-india-strategy-is-an-epic-fail/#da82a202edce
 
  • Like
Reactions: darksithpro
WoodpeckerBaby said:
Just ditch Qualcomm standard and make iPhone incompatible with Qualcomm chips in the future. That will change the supply chain manufacturing volume and gradually making manufacturing Qualcomm chips cost prohibitive. Then Qualcomm will piss their pants.
Click to expand...

They still must pay. They just don't need to buy chips.
 
Interesting but I'll wait until this is over and read what the FTC have to say. It is a real shame to see this dispute is over money and it is ultimately the customer who is going to pay.
 
djphat2000 said:
This is about as right as it gets.
My issue with the whole thing is that, there should not be a licensing fee at all. Company A buys a part from Company B. Company A should be able to use the part however they see fit. And not be charged again based on the cost of Company A's total device.
If QCOM wants to make more money. Charge more for the modem. It's a LOT easier that way.
Click to expand...

No it's a tiered system if you look.
Smartphones pay more and dumb phones in emerging markets pay less.
If you charge more across the board it excludes emerging and third world markets from the technology.
The rates have been the same for years. Apple got a discounted rate, then they decided that the discount should apply forever.

Currently the complete license for the standard is capped at $20.
 
HobbesInVA said:
It's 2 big things. 1st - The smartphone market has hit maturity; there seems to be less awe inspiring innovation. 2nd - Developing countries or those with lower GDP aren't willing or able to spend thousands on an iPhone when someone can get the same basic functionality for less money.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...hones-hard-to-digest/articleshow/65802823.cms

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterc...-india-strategy-is-an-epic-fail/#da82a202edce
Click to expand...


The more I read into all of this, the more I suspect Apple is just being plain greedy. Sorry, had to say it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back