Apple's Rumored to Debut First 5G iPhone in 2020 With Intel as Modem Supplier

[dilbert99]

If Apple agreed to pay x for modems in one phone and y in another and then transferred modems at x pricing to y the question would be was that still an authorized sale and covered by patent exclusion.

That is an interesting dilemma, I would find it easier to argue for the price of a part being the same regardless of its use. And I would probably come down on that side.
On the flip side, hmmm, I can't really think of a good reason as to why one particular customer should be charged different prices depending on its use. I could see the difference between a low volume customer vs a high volume customer with the latter getting a bigger discount through economies of scale

 

[Marekul]

Thermal energy is radiation. Radiation doesn’t automatically mean cell damage, the energy level needs to high enough to knock electrons away from cells. Microwaves are not energetic enough.

Thermal energy is not “radiation”. However there is a form of electromagnetic radiation in infrared spectrum also called thermal radiation.

no one is saying that radiation means automatically cell damage. That would be stupid.

“Microwaves are not energetic enough” doesn’t mean anything. Lots of factors come in play. Time of exposure, wavelength, amplitude, distance all that and more is needed to determine whether somethig could be potentially harmful to a human being.
That is why smart people keep their WLAN routers away from kids beds or don’t let their toddlers call for extended time with the phone close to the brain and don’t just go “it’s not radioactive bruh”...

 

[cmaier]

In Lexmark, the court looked at the ability of a patent holder to limit the disposition of cartridges after the initial sale and decided it couldn’t. It did not address whether a patent holder could charge different prices on the initial sale. If Apple agreed to pay x for modems in one phone and y in another and then transferred modems at x pricing to y the question would be was that still an authorized sale and covered by patent exclusion.

A separate question is whether it was a sale or licensing of the patent. I am not saying Qualcomm can limit the resale of iPhones using their chips, but they can include terms in the initial sale requiring Apple to pay more depending on where the product is used based on the terms of the sale. Lexmark, IMHO, would be applicable if Qualcomm tried to extract a fee from a 3rd party buying and reselling iPhones, as was being done with recycled cartridges.

As for FRAND, it is a contractual issue which should be covered by state law with limited Federal jurisdiction. FRAND, as far as I can tell, is not codified into law. The question is did Qualcomm agree to FRAND.

Of course, this all has to be played out in court to decide what is really right.

Patent damages are purely a matter of federal jurisdiction, and federal courts in patent matters will apply FRAND principles if the defendant proves that there is a FRAND obligation. I’m happy to provide loads of caselaw on the subject if you don’t feel like googling.

As for the first part of your response I think you are misapplying. Apple doesn’t buy the chips. It’s contract manufacturers do. Whatever they agree to, they cannot pass a license obligation to apple, which buys the devices from them. Any purported agreement between them and Qualcomm is a contract matter. But under patent law you can’t sell Foxconn a chip and say “all your customers need to pay a patent license fee” and enforce that via a patent infringement action against the customers, because the patent rights are exhausted by the sale no matter what Foxconn purportedly agreed to.

 

[jlc1978]

Patent damages are purely a matter of federal jurisdiction, and federal courts in patent matters will apply FRAND principles if the defendant proves that there is a FRAND obligation. I’m happy to provide loads of caselaw on the subject if you don’t feel like googling.

I think we agree here. If Qualcomm has FRAND agreement it is enforceable.

As for the first part of your response I think you are misapplying. Apple doesn’t buy the chips. It’s contract manufacturers do. Whatever they agree to, they cannot pass a license obligation to apple, which buys the devices from them. Any purported agreement between them and Qualcomm is a contract matter. But under patent law you can’t sell Foxconn a chip and say “all your customers need to pay a patent license fee” and enforce that via a patent infringement action against the customers, because the patent rights are exhausted by the sale no matter what Foxconn purportedly agreed to.

I think we actually agree here as well. It depends on who bought the chips and what the agreement was. If Foxcomm bought them then it is primarily an issue between them and Qualcomm, not Apple. However, if Foxcomm violated the terms of the agreement it may not be an authorized sale between Apple and Foxcomm and then Apple May still be on the hook because it was not sold beyond the initial terms and thus not an authorized sale and thus patent exhaustion may not be a defense. If Apple boughtbthem and had them sent to Foxcomm then the terms of the contract would apply.

I think we can agree on two things:

It is an interesting case; and

The courts will ultimately decide if patent exhaustion applies

At any rate, I tip a glass to you for having a reasoned discussion.

 

[halluxsinister]

I hope whatever Apple decides to do with 5G technology that they test test test so we don’t have another reception mess on our hands.

Oh, they won’t. Apple has found it far more cost-effective to use customers to test their products, rather than testing them properly before offering them for sale. They will continue to do this until it costs them so much in lost sales, warranty claims, and loss of good will for the company, (and hence lost sales across ALL their product lines,) that it becomes MORE expensive to release beta-quality crap and try to foist it on their customers, than not to.

When it does more demonstrable and more importantly QUANTIFIABLE harm, in dollars and cents, to Apple’s reputation to act this way, they’ll stop, and not a second earlier. You know. “Courage.”

 

[cmaier]

I think we agree here. If Qualcomm has FRAND agreement it is enforceable.



I think we actually agree here as well. It depends on who bought the chips and what the agreement was. If Foxcomm bought them then it is primarily an issue between them and Qualcomm, not Apple. However, if Foxcomm violated the terms of the agreement it may not be an authorized sale between Apple and Foxcomm and then Apple May still be on the hook because it was not sold beyond the initial terms and thus not an authorized sale and thus patent exhaustion may not be a defense. If Apple boughtbthem and had them sent to Foxcomm then the terms of the contract would apply.

I think we can agree on two things:

It is an interesting case; and

The courts will ultimately decide if patent exhaustion applies

At any rate, I tip a glass to you for having a reasoned discussion.

Close but not quite. The sale to Foxconn was authorized. No contract violation post sale can render it unauthorized for the purpose of patent exhaustion.

 

[cmaier]

I think we agree here. If Qualcomm has FRAND agreement it is enforceable.



I think we actually agree here as well. It depends on who bought the chips and what the agreement was. If Foxcomm bought them then it is primarily an issue between them and Qualcomm, not Apple. However, if Foxcomm violated the terms of the agreement it may not be an authorized sale between Apple and Foxcomm and then Apple May still be on the hook because it was not sold beyond the initial terms and thus not an authorized sale and thus patent exhaustion may not be a defense. If Apple boughtbthem and had them sent to Foxcomm then the terms of the contract would apply.

I think we can agree on two things:

It is an interesting case; and

The courts will ultimately decide if patent exhaustion applies

At any rate, I tip a glass to you for having a reasoned discussion.

Some more cases:

“The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article. Here, LGE licensed Intel to practice any of its patents and to sell products practicing those patents. Intel's microprocessors and chipsets substantially embodied the LGE Patents because they had no reasonable noninfringing use and included all the inventive aspects of the patented methods. Nothing in the License Agreement limited Intel's ability to sell its products practicing the LGE Patents. Intel's authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2122 (2008)

“The declared purpose of the patent law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to the inventor a limited monopoly, the exercise of which will enable him to secure the financial rewards for his invention. Constitution of the United States, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31, 40. The full extent of the monopoly is the patentee's ‘exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery.’ The patentee may surrender his monopoly in whole by the sale of his patent or in part by the sale of an article embodying the invention. His monopoly remains so long as he retains the ownership of the patented article. But sale of it exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-50; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453; Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355. Hence the patentee cannot control the resale price of patented articles which he has sold, either by resort to an infringement suit, or, consistently with the Sherman Act (unless the Miller-Tydings Act applies), by stipulating for price maintenance by his vendees. Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 456-57, and cases cited.” United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)

 

[jlc1978]

Close but not quite. The sale to Foxconn was authorized. No contract violation post sale can render it unauthorized for the purpose of patent exhaustion.

I do not know what the contractual limitations were on how Foxcomm was authorized to use the chips. If Qualcomm imposed no restrictions I would agree. If they limited them to certain devices then I would say they could sue based on the contractual agreement. Who is liable then becomes a question of who was the initial purchaser.
For example, could Foxcomm put them in non Apple devices if they were More expensive than the ones bought for Apple devices, or did they just buy x amount of chips to use as they saw fit?
[doublepost=1541298000][/doublepost]

Some more cases:

“The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article. Here, LGE licensed Intel to practice any of its patents and to sell products practicing those patents. Intel's microprocessors and chipsets substantially embodied the LGE Patents because they had no reasonable noninfringing use and included all the inventive aspects of the patented methods. Nothing in the License Agreement limited Intel's ability to sell its products practicing the LGE Patents. Intel's authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2122 (2008)

“The declared purpose of the patent law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to the inventor a limited monopoly, the exercise of which will enable him to secure the financial rewards for his invention. Constitution of the United States, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31, 40. The full extent of the monopoly is the patentee's ‘exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery.’ The patentee may surrender his monopoly in whole by the sale of his patent or in part by the sale of an article embodying the invention. His monopoly remains so long as he retains the ownership of the patented article. But sale of it exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-50; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453; Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355. Hence the patentee cannot control the resale price of patented articles which he has sold, either by resort to an infringement suit, or, consistently with the Sherman Act (unless the Miller-Tydings Act applies), by stipulating for price maintenance by his vendees. Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 456-57, and cases cited.” United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)

Key here is “ nothing in the licensing agreement...”. What was the agreement between the seller and buyer? It would appear contract law would be controlling.
In addition, it appears Qualcomm is not saying Apple must charge a set price for iPhones, rather that the terms of the sale set a price based on the authorized use; nor limit its sale of iPhones.

 

[cmaier]

I do not know what the contractual limitations were on how Foxcomm was authorized to use the chips. If Qualcomm imposed no restrictions I would agree. If they limited them to certain devices then I would say they could sue based on the contractual agreement. Who is liable then becomes a question of who was the initial purchaser.
For example, could Foxcomm put them in non Apple devices if they were cheaper than the ones bought for Apple devices, or did they just buy x amount of chips to use as they saw fit?
[doublepost=1541298000][/doublepost]

Key here is “ nothing in the licensing agreement...”. What was the agreement between the seller and buyer?

Again, anything in the agreement between buyer and seller would have no effect on patent exhaustion. Patent exhaustion means that as far as downstream buyers are concerned, they cannot be sued. There may be contractual issues where seller can sue the buyer, but not those who buy from the buyer. It’s black letter - if the seller sells, he no longer can control what happens after that. “Sale of it exhausts the monopoly...”

 

[NetMage]

My thoughts exactly. That’s why I bought the X a few weeks ago. The Xs is not much different but way more expensive.

The Xs is priced identically to the X release prices.

 

[picaman]

I think that Apple is stringing along Intel for purposes of leverage in an eventual negotiation and settlement with Qualcomm that is in both companies’ interest.

 

[jlc1978]

Again, anything in the agreement between buyer and seller would have no effect on patent exhaustion. Patent exhaustion means that as far as downstream buyers are concerned, they cannot be sued. There may be contractual issues where seller can sue the buyer, but not those who buy from the buyer. It’s black letter - if the seller sells, he no longer can control what happens after that. “Sale of it exhausts the monopoly...”

I think you are misapplying the law here. It applies to authorized sales. The cases you cite did not say that licensing agreements were always null and void. I agree, absent any contractual terms to the contrary, patent exhaustion would apply; which is why I have said if Qualcomm’s original agreement specified licensing terms than they should be enforceable. I vaguely recall a case (General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.?)where the courts ruled that a sale violated those terms and thus patent exhaustion was not relevant, because the subsequent sale violate the contractual terms limiting where the product could be used. In the Lexmark case, they should have gone after the purchasers who resold the cartridges in violation ofvthe contract, IMHO.

So I think the applicability, as well as who is liable, depends on the terms of the contract and how clear they were in terms of where the product could be used and what terms applied to that use. If they violated those terms then any sales would be unauthorized and thus not covered by patent exhaustion. The question thus is what where the terms and who, if any, violated them. Since I am not privy to the original terms I cannot say with certainty what occured. Was it a sale accompanied by specific terms of simply a sale with no restrictions on the use of the item.

Should PE be absolute? Maybe, but that means contracts would not be enforceable unless sales were replaced by license agreements.

Absent a court decision in the case we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[bchreng]

At Apple, profits > principles.

Strange world we live in when a $50 Huawei has Qualcomm radio but a future $1K iPhone might have a Mediatek radio.

Wait, I thought Apple’s choice of Intel over Qualcomm was a matter of principle? Their whole spat in the courts with Qualcomm is, isn’t it?

 

[iLLUMI]

Yup, won’t catch me with a 5G phone on my ear.

Or a 5G Apple Watch on your wrist....

 

[cmaier]

I think you are misapplying the law here. It applies to authorized sales. The cases you cite did not say that licensing agreements were always null and void. I agree, absent any contractual terms to the contrary, patent exhaustion would apply; which is why I have said if Qualcomm’s original agreement specified licensing terms than they should be enforceable. I vaguely recall a case (General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.?)where the courts ruled that a sale violated those terms and thus patent exhaustion was not relevant, because the subsequent sale violate the contractual terms limiting where the product could be used. In the Lexmark case, they should have gone after the purchasers who resold the cartridges in violation ofvthe contract, IMHO.

So I think the applicability, as well as who is liable, depends on the terms of the contract and how clear they were in terms of where the product could be used and what terms applied to that use. If they violated those terms then any sales would be unauthorized and thus not covered by patent exhaustion. The question thus is what where the terms and who, if any, violated them. Since I am not privy to the original terms I cannot say with certainty what occured. Was it a sale accompanied by specific terms of simply a sale with no restrictions on the use of the item.

Should PE be absolute? Maybe, but that means contracts would not be enforceable unless sales were replaced by license agreements.

Absent a court decision in the case we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Only the first sale has to be authorized. The sale from Qualcomm to the supplier. I’ve cited several cases where the patent holder tried to argue what you are arguing and the Supreme Court said “nope.” You are citing a 1938 case. But the fact pattern proves my point. The plaintiff didn’t sell a product to anyone. The plaintiff licensed the defendant to sell its OWN product. But only in a small field of use. So the first sale was by the defendant, and was not an authorized sale because it was outside the field of use of the license.

Here we have Qualcomm, the patent holder, selling a product. That sale is a “first sale” so the “first sale doctrine” (another name for exhaustion) applies. Qualcomm was authorized to make the sale, because it’s qualcomms own patents! After that authorized first sale, patents are exhausted. Qualcomm can say to Foxconn “you can’t sell except for a certain price or to certain customers” and may be able to contractually enforce that against Foxconn (maybe!) but Foxconn’s subsequent sales, whether authorized by Qualcomm or not, come with no patent strings attached. The patents are exhausted by qualcomm’s Sale to Foxconn. This isn’t even a gray area. The Supreme Court said it this clearly:


“In sum, patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic. Once a patentee decides to sell whether on its own or through a licensee that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1535 (2017)

 

[Ramchi]

I think that Apple is stringing along Intel for purposes of leverage in an eventual negotiation and settlement with Qualcomm that is in both companies’ interest.

Until then customers paying huge sums hAve to undergo difficulties or issues wrt speed, connectivity issues ? Not sure

Even when Apple under Steve Jobs was fighting against Samsung or Google, they never ditched their components or services....

 

[iLLUMI]

That's good. Because with these prices I'm waiting until at least 2020 to get a new phone lol.

The prices are indeed quite high right now. It has somewhat come to the point where, for example, I'm asking myself do I buy an iPhone XS or the new MacBook Air .... because they are similar prices. Whereas in previous times the iPhone was around $500 cheaper than a MacBook so you could easily justify buying both. One train of thought being that a smaller device should cost less than something larger.

We have national lotteries to win money, so why doesn't some organization start up a lottery where people can win technology?
It doesn't just have to be Apple products. Now that would be really cool and I'm sure more people would have an opportunity to win tech items as opposed to a money based lottery where usually a single person wins the millions of dollars.

I shudder to think what phone prices (iPhone or other) will be like in 2020/2021. At the current price increase rate they are going to get quite expensive. Phones with 5G will no doubt attract a higher premium.
Even if 5G is available in all major cities in 2020 and a 5G iPhone is released that same year .... well, I was going to say people may hold off jumping in, but if people want the latest and greatest or if they need the higher bandwidth then I guess they will jump in right away.

I just hope that 5G opens up new and exciting ways for using smart phones or other devices, especially in the AR field.
Smart phones may be getting smarter, and looking cooler design wise, but really they're also kinda getting boring. I think were due for the next paradigm shift in smart phone tech.

 

[lazard]

Infrastructure matters more than the modem manufacturer - 1GB modem matters not at all if the subscribed speed is just 10Mb - 100Mb with a ridiculously low cap. User experience won't vary.



I am sure that Huawei is not buying the $40 modem or paying $36/phone as royalty - while Apple somehow managed to signup to pay about $200-300/phone!

With minimal to none user experience change, cost of paying such royalty will be born by us, the consumer.

Incidentally, why hasn't Apple bought up these buggers already?

lol, Apple is going to sell their phones for $999+ whether or not they pay $3 in royalty or $300 in royalty.

 

[Michael Goff]

The anti trust question would be “are there other alternatives in the marketplace?” If so, it might not be anti-competitive. Given Qualcomm hasn’t has, so far as I know, been accused of monopolistic practices it probably wouldn’t be a problem if Apple bought them. Apple could continue to sell modems or spin off parts of Qualcomm they didn’t want.

You think Apple would either spin off the best parts of Qualcomm or sell chips to Android makers?
[doublepost=1541310339][/doublepost]

Infrastructure matters more than the modem manufacturer - 1GB modem matters not at all if the subscribed speed is just 10Mb - 100Mb with a ridiculously low cap. User experience won't vary.



I am sure that Huawei is not buying the $40 modem or paying $36/phone as royalty - while Apple somehow managed to signup to pay about $200-300/phone!

With minimal to none user experience change, cost of paying such royalty will be born by us, the consumer.

Incidentally, why hasn't Apple bought up these buggers already?

It’s based on a percentage of the total price.

 

[Solomani]

Werent there rumors that Apple was going to try and build it's own modems?

It's possibly true. But those rumors are fairly recent revelations, which means (if true) Apple is only at the early stages of their own internal (mobile) modem-chip development. It won't be ready to ship on an iPhone for at least 2-3 years. In this article, we are talking about chips that need to be ready to ship by 2019-20.

 

[Lancer]

Cool, just in time for my next iPhone. I'm on a 3 year contract with my iPhone 8.

 

[PowerMacBook]

The phone getting the hardware is 1% of the advancement. It will be years before the infrastructure exists to meet the phone's abilities. First the towers, then the actual bandwidth going to the towers would have to be outrageous.

Not sure how's life in other parts of the world, but when I travel through France -Let say I take the fastest train in the world to travel from Strasbourg (European Parlement) to Paris (capital of France) often connectivity falls back to Edge or even nothing (for a while).
Inside cities 4G is not even a given. Most often it's 3G, and even then that's often on your screen, however connectivity is nill.

 

[jlc1978]

Only the first sale has to be authorized. The sale from Qualcomm to the supplier. I’ve cited several cases where the patent holder tried to argue what you are arguing and the Supreme Court said “nope.” You are citing a 1938 case. But the fact pattern proves my point. The plaintiff didn’t sell a product to anyone. The plaintiff licensed the defendant to sell its OWN product. But only in a small field of use. So the first sale was by the defendant, and was not an authorized sale because it was outside the field of use of the license.

Here we have Qualcomm, the patent holder, selling a product. That sale is a “first sale” so the “first sale doctrine” (another name for exhaustion) applies. Qualcomm was authorized to make the sale, because it’s qualcomms own patents! After that authorized first sale, patents are exhausted. Qualcomm can say to Foxconn “you can’t sell except for a certain price or to certain customers” and may be able to contractually enforce that against Foxconn (maybe!) but Foxconn’s subsequent sales, whether authorized by Qualcomm or not, come with no patent strings attached. The patents are exhausted by qualcomm’s Sale to Foxconn. This isn’t even a gray area. The Supreme Court said it this clearly:


“In sum, patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic. Once a patentee decides to sell whether on its own or through a licensee that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1535 (2017)

In the Lexmark case, the defendant bought legitimately sold products, as well as some that may have been sold in violation of the contractual agreements. That's why I said the course of action probably should have been against the original purchasers, not Impression Products; even if they bought products that violated the contractional agreement between the seller and purchaser.
.
Again, the primary question is is "Was it an outright sale or a did include a license with specific conditions?" The enforceability and liability depends on that. And as far as I can see the 1938 decision has not been made moot by subsequent rulings. Was it an outright sale or did it include a specific contractual limitations on the use or license requirements? That is the key point. If the terms of sale included a specific license fee for the specific use of the chip then the purchaser *Foxcomm or Aople) should be bound by those terms, and use of the chips should be be bound by the contract. Then the question is "Are those contractual agreements binding and against whom if they are violated?" Thew answer depends on the contractual agreement. The controlling law is contract, not patent. The 1938 ruling, IIRC, also imposed limitations on the subsequent purchaser. If patent exhaustion was ironclad the case would have been dismissed; that it is ongoing indicates to me there are other legal issues still in question.

In this case, the payment requirements may have been part of a condition of the sale, and not a restriction post-sale. Apple could sell the product where they wanted and when they wanted, and user could do what they wish with the device after they bought it. Qualcomm did not restrict its ale or refurbishment, they want the original contractual agreement on pricing to be honored.Nor was it an attempt to force Apple to charge a certain price for their product.

First sale is not exhaustion, at least not legally; it applies to copyrighted works although the courts can consider the concept in making a decision. Even under first sale it is is possible to license an item and not sell it. Software is often licensed and not sold, and thus the doctrine of first sale may not apply, at least according to the legal advice I have received when researching the issue a while ago.

Court distinguish between a sale and a license; and different jurisdiction may vary on their interpretation of when first sale applies. For example, a software license can restrict a subsequent sale, since it is a license and not a sale despite what people think when they buy it. When you buy a DVD, for example, and own the physical media, but the license terms include with the disk can restrict you from showing it in a theater. You may own the physical disk but not the right to use it any way you want.

I think you should be able to resell software, but the courts seem to think differently.

 

[Ballis]

They could hold this off until 2030 for all I care. Faster cellular is pretty much my least wanted feature in a phone. 4G is pretty awesome AS it is. Idk what 5G will let me do that 4G wont. Its not like ill be streaming 8K video to a 6 inch display anyways.

 

[zombierunner]

Make your own everything Apple. If you're ditching Qualcomm, ditch Intel too.