So it's ok for Apple to charge it's customers 5 times more, yet when a company does the same to Apple they don't like it? Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
So it's ok for Apple to charge it's customers 5 times more, yet when a company does the same to Apple they don't like it? Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
What? Where is Apple charging customers 5 time more?
There is no good or bad "guy" in this. It's an inconsistency over interpretations of terms and definitions, and resulting money, between two legal entities. There's no morality involved.
BTW, I would doubt Qualcomm would stop selling the actual chips to Apple. That additional revenue loss, on top of the loss of royalties mentioned, would destroy their business.
Have you seen their RAM prices lately?
From what I understand, Qualcomm sells the same chip to other manufactures for 5 times less than what they charge apple. That isn't fair. Imagine your in line with a chocolate bar and so is the person in front of you. The person in front pays a dollar, but when they see it's you the cashier charges you five. You would be pissed too lol
In all honesty no I haven't seen ram prices lately, but it's still different it's apple's branded RAM your speaking of if i'm not mistaken. There is no alternative company selling the exact same ram for cheaper. It may house the same components, but, it isn't apple branded. I'm not agreeing with paying a premium, i'm just stating facts. Apple isn't charging customer's five times more for anything. It's their product, they choose what it sells for, we as consumer's choose whether or not to buy.
Except from what I understand, Qualcomm sells the licence to Apple based on the 'Total Selling Price' of the device. So the reason they charge other manufactures 5 times less, is because their phones cost 5 times less. If Apple sold the iPhone at a much cheaper price, the licenses would not cost as much.
It's mentioned in this article.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nsing-payments-to-qualcomm-as-fight-escalates
Wait are you sure? I'm pretty sure the OEM is the reason android isn't updated, not Qualcomm. Can you explain what blobs are?Like most Qualcomm-powered Android devices.
Qualcomm only releases Linux blobs for the newer chips to force planed obsolescence.
Qualcomm is the biggest supplier of Android SOCs and thus the main reason less than 1% of Android devices run the latest version.
Qualcomm surely is a great company, which is pushing hard aptX Bluetooth headphones (they fully own aptX) versus the consortium-licensed AAC headphones. And used FUD against Apple and Intel.
They need to go down, it's a job for Apple.
From what I understand, Qualcomm sells the same chip to other manufactures for 5 times less than what they charge apple. That isn't fair. Imagine your in line with a chocolate bar and so is the person in front of you. The person in front pays a dollar, but when they see it's you the cashier charges you five. You would be pissed too lol
Like most Qualcomm-powered Android devices.
Qualcomm only releases Linux blobs for the newer chips to force planed obsolescence.
Qualcomm is the biggest supplier of Android SOCs and thus the main reason less than 1% of Android devices run the latest version.
Qualcomm surely is a great company, which is pushing hard aptX Bluetooth headphones (they fully own aptX) versus the consortium-licensed AAC headphones. And used FUD against Apple and Intel.
They need to go down, it's a job for Apple.
There is no good or bad "guy" in this. It's an inconsistency over interpretations of terms and definitions, and resulting money, between two legal entities. There's no morality involved.
BTW, I would doubt Qualcomm would stop selling the actual chips to Apple. That additional revenue loss, on top of the loss of royalties mentioned, would destroy their business.
Simplified explanation:
Apple pays Qualcomm a percentage of every iPhone sold.
Average selling price of iPhone goes up based on larger screen and camera (nothing to do with Qualcomm, but they reap the benefits in royalties because of the percentage based royalties owed).
Apple gets mad that they're paying millions extra to Qualcomm for upgrades that they had nothing to do with and sues.
At the end of the day Apple is wrong here. They agreed to a percentage based royalty payment. They only have themselves to blame for continuing to ignore the fact that there is a large demand for larger screened phones which would drive up the ASP.
that solution is called the Intel XMM7560 "it offers download speeds of 1Gbps and upload speeds of 225Mbps. It supports up to 8×4 MIMO, up to 35 LTE bands, and all of the current evolutions of LTE, GSM, and CDMA" - bye bye QualcommIt's crazy how you will stop paying one of your main suppliers... like, how do they feel about continuing to process new orders for chips..
I think this just means Apple has a in-house solution ready to go for the iPhone 8..
If I could save 2 billion in payments over the course of the year. I would develop my own as well lol
In all honesty no I haven't seen ram prices lately, but it's still different it's apple's branded RAM your speaking of if i'm not mistaken. There is no alternative company selling the exact same ram for cheaper. It may house the same components, but, it isn't apple branded. I'm not agreeing with paying a premium, i'm just stating facts. Apple isn't charging customer's five times more for anything. It's their product, they choose what it sells for, we as consumer's choose whether or not to buy.
Does Apple make it's own RAM? I am not sure this argument makes sense. AFAIK there is no such thing as Apple branded RAM. Same with storage. If you look inside I think you will find it to be Samsung or whoever. I could be wrong but if you look at the RAM inside a computer it won't have an Apple sticker on it.
I would say Apple maybe Apple uses it's brand to sell RAM at a premium. The brand distinction is the Apple logo on the outside. This is what accounts for the premium. Most of what is inside I think is random parts from various manufacturers. The end result and sum of them working together is what accounts for the premiums charged.
Correct me if I am wrong.
That was literally my argument lol. Your paying a premium, but the person I was quoting was saying apple charges the user 5 times more. The little apple sticker on the ram is them branding it. You won't see that branding anywhere else but in an apple computer. Therefore, his argument wasn't valid. These chips are identical in every way AFAIK. The only difference is that because apples phones cost more, qualcomm charges more, which isn't fair. but as I stated earlier, If apple knew all of this going in and still signed then yes they should be obligated to pay because they made the agreement, However, just because they signed doesn't mean it's right.
And if they don't brand the ram in the mac book, that makes his argument make even less sense who cares what apple charges for the ram, they aren't even making or branding it.