Your original post certainly did not convey that you understood what was going on. You tried to point out that Apple only wanted to pay $1.50 for the modems, that simply isn't true and is not what this article stated. And the whole point of FRAND is that the holder of the FRAND patent must license it at a fair and reasonable price - Apple (along with other companies) and Qualcomm disagree on what that fair and reasonable price is - that's what this whole court case is about!
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
Your original post certainly did not convey that you understood what was going on. You tried to point out that Apple only wanted to pay $1.50 for the modems, that simply isn't true and is not what this article stated. And the whole point of FRAND is that the holder of the FRAND patent must license it at a fair and reasonable price - Apple (along with other companies) and Qualcomm disagree on what that fair and reasonable price is - that's what this whole court case is about!
Agreed. My XS Max smokes my iPhone 7 it replaced. I'm blown away by how good of a phone the XS MAX is.
Further, both the Qualcomm chip and Intel chip are capable of reaching speeds no network actually can deliver. So whether one is marginally better than the other really doesn't matter..
I actually owned iPhone X, Galaxy note 9 and eventually upgraded the X to Xs.
so in my actual speed test, using the same sim card, X would be at 13~15 mbps, note 9 at 90 mbps, while Xs is around 30~40ish Mbps. I'd say Xs download speed with mobile is faster than iPhone X, but still slower than Note 9. All devices are tested using telkomsel sim card, and note 9 is exynos variant.
Okay so you guys have all misunderstood this case severely.
This isn't the Apple vs Qualcomm case. It's the FTC vs Qualcomm. This case is the result of a complaint that Apple made to the FTC, who reviewed it, collected evidence, and ultimately agreed that there was basis for a lawsuit.
Since Apple made the complaint, the Apple-Qualcomm negotiations are some of the primary evidence, but it's not all there is. Huawei, Lenovo, Samsung, Intel and MediaTek have all filed amicus briefs in support of the FTC's position and testified to the court that they also believe the license terms to be illegal, but silently complied out of fear of losing access to Qualcomm's technology. Only Apple has the balls, brand power and cash to survive Qualcomm's attempts at retaliation. That's why the complaint had to come from them.
So far the FTC have done a great job at presenting their evidence, and although Qualcomm has yet to make their defence, it's hard to see any way this ends with anything other than a win for the Government.
Last edited:
No they aren’t, you need to check that one as they aren’t suing them and it’s not the US government.
[doublepost=1547537681][/doublepost]
Qualcomm are not doing whatever they want, it’s like Ericsson, they invested, invented, developed all this tech that makes a mobile phone work as a mobile phone, so when Apple comes along, makes billions and billions and billions in profit from THEIR inventions, they damn well have a right to charge for that! Until Apple invents it’s own equivalent.
Apples arrogance does know no bounds, it’s MO when it wants rock bottom pricing is to simply stop paying its fees, whilst continuing to profit from others work. In the tech world I don’t know of another company who does this certainly not as a normal business practice?
Apple had a deal in place with Qualcomm, it wanted much cheaper pricing and couldn’t get it, so it’s not paying, or telling its suppliers not to pay. That’s arrogance and I did read a post highlighting the agreement that Apple signed to but because the iPhone is making so much money Apple doesn’t like it. Can’t remember exactly what.
Sorry but when Apples lawyers stand up in court and use a child’s drawing of an oblong with round corners as evidence of an invention someone has copied, and then proclaim they have the right to use the colours black and white exclusively, they lose all my respect. In Apples case it’s definitely what goes around comes around.
Last edited:
I agree they have a right to charge for their inventions. I do not agree that they have a right to charge twice for their inventions.
Yes, they are. It is a lawsuit in federal court. The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated (5:17-cv-00220).
Wikipedia said:
(emphasis added).
Qualcomm's other major customers (e.g. Huawei, Lenovo, Samsung) agree and have filed amicus briefs in support of the FTC's position. According to testimony that we've heard over the previous days, they too believed Qcom's terms to be illegal, but didn't challenge them because they were too scared to lose access to essential technologies.
Qualcomm tried to get the case dismissed, and the judge ruled against them. Again, those other major customers filed yet more briefs urging the court not to dismiss the case.
Last edited:
You realise Qualcomm is only selling then the license to use the chip and not supplying the chip. Apple has to buy the chip from a manufacturer for about $30 then pay $7.50-$17.50 to Qualcomm for the licensing of patents - a price well over the FRAND amount.
[doublepost=1547552958][/doublepost]
I think you dont understand, the chip costs $30 from the manufacturer then you pay $7.50 to Qualcomm for patent licenses on top of that. Qualcomm are not supplying the chip rather just billing for using their patients. The problem is the want to charge double FRAND rates for the patients.
Nearly every cellular patent holder charges the same way (percentage of phone price) and Qualcomm has spent billions creating the data technology that Apple and everyone else uses. Here are some of the announced FRAND rates:
In fact, back around the turn of the century when Qualcomm announced their development of 3G, phone makers fell all over themselves ready to pay anything for this groundbreaking technology.
Heck, Apple itself licenses its own "Made for iPhone" IP at a percentage of a third party device's price. Apple even wanted 10% at first, with a $10 minimum, while Qualcomm only asks 3.25% for technology that is many orders of magnitude more important and costly to develop.
Except, with Qualcomm, it's not a percentage of the high price Apple charges us for an iPhone. It's a percentage of the far far lower price that Apple pays Foxconn (e.g $240 for a $600 phone). Apple itself has no Qualcomm license. Instead, they let the factories pay on their far lower price. Plus there's a cap and they got huge rebates.
This is all about raw profit margin, which Cook desperately needs to keep looking good. He has no problem charging his own customers many times what, say, extra memory costs Apple. But paying a relatively small fee for technology invented by others is something Apple hates to do.
Last edited:
My XR is at full signal, and it’s way better reception than my 7 Plus is, be it in the basement of the mall etc
Actually, that's what the Apple-Qualcomm case is about. This case is about antitrust violations by Qualcomm. People are conflating the two cases throughout this thread, probably because the original story used the Qualcomm-Apple relationship as the example of Qualcomm's practices.
[doublepost=1547561590][/doublepost]
The App Store and the Qualcomm patents are not comparable as others have pointed out many times already. There are no FRAND or plausible antitrust issues with the App Store.
Meanwhile in Germany this week -
https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/15/qualcomm-lawsuit/
Looks like children squabbling over who looked at the other funny first! With billions at stake.
https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/15/qualcomm-lawsuit/
Looks like children squabbling over who looked at the other funny first! With billions at stake.
Are you suggesting Apple should come up with a new network standard (Qualcomm doesn't own it) different from all the world (while at the same time doing that without infringing any of Qualcomms patents) and that telcos would somehow double tower investments (using network equipment that Apple doesn't manufacture) so that they could serve regular phones and iPhones?
Last edited:
Near the bottom of this article is a direct test between Intel and Qualcomm modems:
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/01/iphone-xs-lte-performance-tests/
Then read this one: https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/...-clobbers-iphone-x-still-slower-than-qualcomm
PS: Qualcomm was using its position as the owner of several "standard-essential patents", or SEPs, on communications technologies to cut deals it would never have been able to negotiate otherwise.
Qualcomm has refused to license that technology to its competitors and, since the patents are critical for smartphones, has used that position to force companies into signing contracts that they would never agree to otherwise, i.e. it is using its monopoly position to distort the market and is damaging competition.
Last edited:
US government won't allow Qualcomm to be sold to Chinese government. Guaranteed it won't happen.
I agree with your statement and the inital performance numbers. Has any test been done lately? Performance of inital chips are normally not great in the beginning. Also, the test is not an accurate test because it using diffrent HW and SW.
I never said it would be easy but one of the reasons why only Intel has an alternate offering so far is precisely the reason of this trial - Qualcomm is overly protective and uses their patents for predatory pricing of modems when they should be legally obliged to offer them to all for a fair price. As old standards like CDMA become less used, many others besides just Apple will be introducing 5G modems into the market and Qualcomm is very worried about this.
Support 5g standard that’s incompatible with Qualcomm. HuaWei has more than 60% of the 5g patents. That’s not difficult