Well, we will have to see how the lawsuit is going and this will have to be settled by late this year if there is any chance Apple will use Qualcomm's 5G modems for next year's iPhone.
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.
Barclays: There's Still a 'Good Chance' Apple Will Have to Use Qualcomm 5G Modems in 2020 iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but but... He started it.Goodness reading about Qualcomm and Apple these days reminds me of all the gossip about middle school squabbles I hear when I pick the kids up from school.
It’s really shocking how similar this all is to a big row my kid was having with her best friend for six months when they both hit puberty at the same time and lost their minds. They finally put it past them and are conducting themselves with impressive dignity these days. Apple and Qualcomm have been at this for years and are allegedly run by adults. It’s rather discouraging.
I am sure over the years Apple has done it's fair share of squashing companies into submission into doing what it wants. Now they have come up against a company they cannot 'squash' they are throwing their toys out the pram because they are not getting what they want.
Did you make an account just to complain about Apple? Maybe it's time to move on to another site - life's too short to read news on a company you don't want to associate with. I heard Samsung has a foldable phone with Qualcomm. Boom - perfect for you.
Why would Qualcomm settle now, when they appear to have all the leverage? If Apple can't build iPhones without them, they're screwed.
[doublepost=1547770146][/doublepost]
Yeah, but you can't just swap out a critical component like that at the last minute. They'd need a long lead time for integration and testing, not to mention manufacturing. All the components need to be locked in well in advance.
Q wants to make money and Apple wants to use the superior part. It’s a delicate dance, but when it clicks, it’s quite lucrative for both parties.
Except Apple will likely still have to pay Qualcomm royalties on all of the patents they own even if they use an in-house developed modem. Also, developing a modem is extremely difficult. Even Intel with their almost unlimited resources makes terrible modems.
That wouldn’t be an antitrust issue. It would be a patent law/licensing issue.
It doesn't matter because of what? Apple wasting internal space to fit in TWO extra modem just to be with Qualcomm?
[doublepost=1547794948][/doublepost]
Exactly. It is not "hard" as in impossible, it needs LOTS of time, trial and error for fine tuning. That is why Mediatek and Samsung, Huawei could have a Modem that works well, they have been shipping hundreds of millions every year and fine tuning it. Obviously their customers aren't as picky as Apple so they don't get much backlash when things aren't at their best.
You don't sign a contract you think is unfair.
Under some circumstances you do. Sometimes you believe the alternative is worse than the unfairness which you are agreeing to. That happens fairly often.
Apple's (and that of other device makers) choice was to agree to Qualcomm's improper terms or not be able to make certain kinds of iPhones (and smartphones). Qualcomm had an effective monopoly with regard to certain kinds of modems. So Apple agreed to (what it and lots of others consider) improper terms for a period of time until it could do otherwise - until Qualcomm no longer had the leverage to impose such terms.
Qualcomm used its monopoly and a number of improper tactics, which worked together and reinforced each other, to force much of the industry to submit to its improper terms. That's why so many regulatory bodies have found that Qualcomm acted illegally, and so many industry participants (beside Apple) have come out against Qualcomm's practices.
Its a huge problem when a company owns a patent on a standard. In all honesty if Qualcomm invested in the production of patents an inventions that made internal modems the best out there... they deserve to get paid. If you don't like it...research your own tech!
I'm simply (very briefly in this case) explaining part of what happened - not according to me, but according to multiple regulatory bodies that investigated the situation and numerous industry participants. Do you think they're all wrong and/or lying?
The previous poster made a statement that isn't consistent with reality. Parties do sign contracts which they think are unfair. Sometimes that's better than the alternative.
You do when you have no choice. If you have only one option, you either sign, or you can't put your product on the market. Why do you think all of the other phone makers have filed briefs agreeing with Apple in the FTC suit against Q? Like Apple, they thought the terms were unfair.
What else do you think the while point of FRAND is? Technology that is considered essential, that you cannot avoid using. That society says must be offered on fair terms. If you could just not sign a deal and go about your way with no issue, then there would be no need for such legislation.