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.
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf Shares Thoughts on Apple Deal but Declines to Give Specific Details
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Six years and a two year option.
That would mean, even if they are developing a 5G modem on their own, they are a long way off.
[doublepost=1555525104][/doublepost]
Six year agreement.
They are further off than two years.
Qualcomm will always be needed, they own the house aka patents and all. I don't know why people like you keep failing to realize that. Nobody on the planet except maybe Huawei is free from QC's clutches.
Edit: Not to mention the time and money it'll take for Apple to design it's own modem (they'll need someone with experience to actually build it) they're at least 7+ years out from a product and by that time QC's will be so much better I doubt it'll be able to compete.
The last line is just my opinion but I doubt their going to pop up with the superior product
Nope. They need a license from qualcomm to do their own chips (FRAND patents). That’s in the agreement.
New this whole court would not turn out good and had a keen inkling something would change - especially that Intel would not keep up with demand; didn't know they bowed out. Intel will severely regret this. They're competing with Broadcom for chips (WiFi+WAAN+Bluetooth) in Windows and Linux laptops and servers. This is going to be a huge missed opportunity that will cost them billions in less than 3yrs! Mark my words on this.
Let's hope this finally leads to 5G/LTE modems within Macs going into the future!
For 2020. (Maybe 2019 but unlikely. Maybe 2021.)
For 2022 and later, I would expect the modem to be Apple. So rid of the Q soon enough.
Note that the deal that was announced for 6(+2 option) years is for PATENT licensing, not any sort of sales guarantee...
The sales agreement is only "multiyear" which could mean as little as "we'll buy QC chips for the 2020 iPhones, and we'll keep buying them for those models for a few few years as those phones age out"...
I hope ur right, I hope this will put some fire in apple management and double their efforts,
RIGHT, keep telling yourself that.
The obvious lesson to draw from this (and the past three years) is that INTC is a super-reliable partner that delivers everything it promises, and always on a schedule that Apple can trust...
No reason whatever for Apple to move to ARM Macs ASAP.
I only care that Apple stock price increases.
How they make that happen with products, I really don't care.
I just want people to buy Apple stuff, whatever that might be.
You're both right in that...
the patents could be valuable. But...
the chances are just as likely the patents aren't valuable at all. It would be no more or less likely to give Apple a boost than any other IP Apple could buy or develop on their own.
The sheer quantity of patents would help in future cross-license negotiations, is my point.
I get your point. But my reply wasn't to your point. It was to a quote stating the IP would likely give Apple a boost. That isn't necessarily true. Even your opinion about the quantity isn't necessarily true. Google got a crap ton of IP from Motorola and thought that IP was going to help in negotiations. Turns out they mostly got a ton of crap. The old adage about quantity and quality applies in both instances.
Some of the IP is bound to be useful; they made working 4g chips after all. That being said, I would rather not have apple-branded intel 2.0 chips
Except we know that intel had enough patents to enable it to at least make a viable financial go of competing with qualcomm in 4G (knowing that they needed a qualcomm license), and many of those same patents are applicable to 5G.
Minor correction.
The license fee for both Ericsson and Qualcomm is paid by the device manufacturer and not the chip manufacturer/vendor.
The licenses are based on multi-mode vs single mode devices and the only way to tell an implementation for the license is downstream at the finished device. The same chip can be used for both.
Do we know that intel doesn't pay a license fee? It makes, uses and sells, so it would seem to need a license, at least to any patents that read on the chip itself.
The market reaction is telling:
- AAPL up ~1.9%
- INTC up ~3.2%
- QCOM up ~12.2%
Although it may make sense for all of them, neither Apple nor Intel will be very happy with the situation. Apple because they had to make significant concessions, and Intel because they have a sizeable investment in 5G modem IP (and a large team working on it), now without a clear path to profit. But they made the only decision they could because Apple was the only customer with the kind of scale that Intel is looking for.
- AAPL up ~1.9%
- INTC up ~3.2%
- QCOM up ~12.2%
Although it may make sense for all of them, neither Apple nor Intel will be very happy with the situation. Apple because they had to make significant concessions, and Intel because they have a sizeable investment in 5G modem IP (and a large team working on it), now without a clear path to profit. But they made the only decision they could because Apple was the only customer with the kind of scale that Intel is looking for.
Despite what some people are insisting in this thread, it's not about the patents that makes Qualcomm a dominant force in mobile modems but it's specifically their implementation ...
Intel or Samsung, despite both being significant participants in the 3GPP body AKA the guys who write the 5G standards COULDN'T save either of their 5G implementations on time to be competitive. This is Apple we're talking about here who are likely starting from scratch and DON'T have significant presence in the 3GPP body so it's very presumptuous to assume that Apple will somehow be ready in as little as 2 years with their own in-house 5G modems for deployment ...
Intel or Samsung, despite both being significant participants in the 3GPP body AKA the guys who write the 5G standards COULDN'T save either of their 5G implementations on time to be competitive. This is Apple we're talking about here who are likely starting from scratch and DON'T have significant presence in the 3GPP body so it's very presumptuous to assume that Apple will somehow be ready in as little as 2 years with their own in-house 5G modems for deployment ...
It's presumptuous to think they won't. Two years is a LONG time in chip development.