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
Well not really, the iPhones now use more inferior LTE modems.
Apple should strive to put the best hardware possible into their phones. At the prices they charge, this should be a no brainer.
Notice how the prices of iPhones shot up anyway and they aren't using Qualcomm LTE modems? Oh the irony...
That's true, though everything else is a consequence of failing to meet FRAND, isn't it?
If they'd offered fair terms, there'd be no monopoly and any anticompetitive behaviour would have been pretty toothless.
Oops, you have a typo. It is Qualcomm being taken to court for its practices by the federal government not Apple. Just like MS was years ago.
Intel are a business. Not a petulant child.
They know that Apple isn't going to be a long term customer for either processors, graphics or even modems.
We are already seeing Apple's A series ARM processors approaching parity with the low end, low powered Intel x86.
The continued progress of technology requires further integration, power reduction and miniaturisation.
At some point in the future Apple will have a single chip containing processor, modems and graphics and perhaps even memory.
Intel, Qualcomm and everyone else know that this is the future.
That doesn't/shouldn't distract from making money in the present.
I really admire Apple's foresight in getting into their own silicon with ARM so early on. It's the one thing that makes them able to truly differentiate their product with all other mobiles and tablets who are pretty much beholden to Qualcomm or Intel. Buying something not made by Apple your hardware is pretty limited to what everyone else has.
Last edited:
You misunderstand. Qualcomm sold Apple the modem chips for $30, then on top of that Qualcomm wanted to collect a licensing fee for each iPhone sold. Apple wanted to pay $1.50, which would be 5% of the cost of the modem chips. Qualcomm wanted 5% of the cost of the iPhone itself. Eventually the two settled upon $7.50 additional for each iPhone sold. This effectively changed the price of the modem from $30 to $37.50. Then, agree a couple of years, Qualcomm wanted to up the licensing fee from $7.50 to b/w $15.50 and $17.50. This is the point at which Apple got pissed, Qualcomm was already double dipping, and now they wanted to make it even worse.
[doublepost=1547514070][/doublepost]
No, Apple was happy to pay $30 for the chip. Apple was unhappy to then have to pay an additional licensing cost on top of that $30.
Seriously, the reading comprehension by people here is seriously lacking.
There are a couple of really bad downsides to that. One being cost, custom chips generally cost more. Also compatibility. If Apple goes custom SOC for their traditional computers, other Operating Systems will not boot on it, unless a recompile, which won't happen. That means no more boot-camp Win7/10, or Linux distro. you'd be locked into Apple ecosystem 100% forever.
Try to tell that to lawyers if their comprehension is lacking. We’re all aware of Apple paying for the chip but they still have an obligation to pay for licensing. They even considered to settle it but using different calculation as opposed to Qualcomm. Apple justification is FRAND which in plane english Apple still willing to pay but for less money plain and simple. Don’t act like you’re the only person who understand this and every else is a dummy. SMH!
To be clear, I believe Qualcomm shouldn’t charge both patent fees and product fees for the product that uses the patents.
Qualcomm’s violations of its FRAND obligations play a large role in what the FTC alleges. But FRAND violations alone likely wouldn’t represent antitrust violations. Further, the illegality of some of the things which the FTC accuses Qualcomm of wouldn't depend on Qualcomm having FRAND obligations. In other words, if the FTC is right about what it alleges and argues, then even if Qualcomm didn’t have any FRAND obligations, the things it has done would violate the Sherman Act.
Much the same can be said, btw, about some of the findings of the Korean FTC. Korea found that Qualcomm violates its own antitrust laws in a number of ways. And some of those findings didn’t necessarily depend on Qualcomm having FRAND obligations. It had, according to Korea, market dominance in a relevant market and engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior.
Last edited:
Amazing that a 37 dollar modem, the size of a small fingernail would cause so many issues between a 700 billion and a 70 billion dollar corporation and over 8 pages of debate. Also, to think such a tiny chip would take Apple 3-4 years to make themselves. Interesting times.
Yeah, and U.S. law is clear on this point: If you choose to sell an item which substantially embodies patents which you own, your patent rights (when it comes to those patents) are exhausted with regard to that item. The person who bought it isn’t infringing if they use or resale the item.
I wonder if that fake PR firm that Qualcomm hired pays people to make negative posts about Apple in various popular message boards.
Qualcomm's patents, Qualcomm's rules, right? Play by their rules or find another App Store. Oh wait, are we talking about Qualcomm or Apple here? This seems like dangerous territory for Apple to be treading in... perhaps the headline could just as easily read:
Developers Wanted to Use Apple's App Store, But Apple Wouldn't Admit Them
By the way, I'm in favor of a "your technology, your rules" mindset. If you go through the effort to throw the party, you should get to choose the music, if I don't like it, I'm free to leave your party at any time, not force you to change the music. I would strongly caution Apple right now though because it seems like they could be forced to defend themselves against the very thing that they are attacking Qualcomm for.
Developers Wanted to Use Apple's App Store, But Apple Wouldn't Admit Them
By the way, I'm in favor of a "your technology, your rules" mindset. If you go through the effort to throw the party, you should get to choose the music, if I don't like it, I'm free to leave your party at any time, not force you to change the music. I would strongly caution Apple right now though because it seems like they could be forced to defend themselves against the very thing that they are attacking Qualcomm for.
Yes, Not only Reading comprehension..... but also basic concept on business and everything else. As if you are talking to some 10 years old kid. Not only on patents and Chip cost difference, they couldn't even understand difference between revenue and profits.
I read to page 5 of comments and I was like WTF.....
FWIW, Qualcomm is hardly innocent. They're the reason Android OEMs can't update phones once they age 2-4 years. Qualcomm routinely stops developing the necessary software to handover to OEMs for their SoCs so that they can use it to develop their branded Android. The current SoC in most flagships now is the 845. These processors can be updated for a long time as long as Qualcomm is willing to put in the effort, but they'd rather not and sell new chips. While this isn't a crime in itself, it speaks volumes in terms of how far Qualcomm is willing to go to screw over anyone they deal with, including Apple. If Apple were using a third party SoC and not their own design, they'd be facing the exact same problem.
Qualcomm has been evil for years. Issues like this have been a pesky problem with Qualcomm since the 80s.
Qualcomm has been evil for years. Issues like this have been a pesky problem with Qualcomm since the 80s.
Where does it say that Apple didn't recommend what it thought was best for consumers? Apple could have thought there were issues with Wi-max, many did.
But qualcomm are geniuses. "No license, no chip". They make apple buy the license first then sell the chips. Nothing illegal about that.
And Intel doesn't have a license, so when apple buys a modem from Intel, patent exhaustion doesn't apply, apple still has to pay licensing fees.
The US Government suing Qualcomm for its business practices is an example of how Apple's arrogance knows no bounds? I'm trying, but I may need you to connect the dots on this one...
But Qualcomm’s no license, no chips scheme is a big part of why it’s faced antitrust scrutiny (e.g. in Korea and the U.S.). It’s used its monopoly power with regard to certain modems to force industry participants to agree to terms which are anticompetitive.
Further, refusing to license SEPs to competitors such as Intel was a violation of Qualcomm’s FRAND obligations. It’s now been directed (by, e.g., the Korean FTC and recently the federal district court hearing the FTC v Qualcomm case) to license modem makers.
For this reason alone many would stay neutral in a law suit between two ultra bullying corporations!
Greed, competition, market forces would take care of the rest!
Heard Qualcomm is after Samsung, MediTek and other modem manufacturers as well with a concession for Samsung as the last one to be sued by Qualcomm!
The government, which brought this suit... Has to worry a lot more than just about the specific deal between these two companies. Precedent gets established, which forms the basis of future dispute resolution. And when talking about FRAND issues specifically, its a pretty big deal...
By making your technology a required part of the industry standard, you enforce all competitor to use your technology and pay you money for each sale, but at the same time you are also required to give up your rights to TOTALLY decide you asking price (on these technologies) ALL BY YOUR OWN.