Qualcomm Countersues Apple, Says iPhone Wouldn't Be Possible Without Its Technologies

[sudo1996]

I don't get what the value is in bringing this up in a lawsuit. Contributed nothing? Apple made the smartphone mainstream. Without that, Qualcomm wouldn't be selling nearly as many chips.

This is like watching the electrical engineering or computer architecture students talk down to Python-weilding machine learning students. Foundations are made to be used.

 

[apolloa]

Qualcomm is a snake. A big one. Apples gotta get a little dirty to take down this evil entity

Please do enlighten us as to why it's a big snake? Apple is obviously a golden child I'm guessing?

 

[Wanted797]

I'm with Apple on this one. Sound like Qualcomm tried to say 'Our chip is superior! Apple needs it for their success' then when Apple tried to point out that the Intel one works just as well (to cover their own ass) Qualcomm got their back up.

I don't doubt Qualcomm would have tried to drive up their prices for licences. They know Apple has money.

 

[djcerla]

I like Apple and I'm an Apple Shareholder.
But let's be real Apple is an 800 pound Gorilla.
Getting into bed with Apple can be hazardous to you business.
Ask Portal Player and Imagination Tech.

That's exactly why you are an Apple shareholders and (hopefully) not a Imagination one. Imagine a Portal Player-powered iPhone.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Is Qualcomm inviting Apple to "contribute" to cellular technology? Is that really a path they want to go down?

 

[jaymie1983]

Apple could not have developed a lot of things by themselves and shouldn't take credit for others work

 

[iLLUMI]

The "Incredible iPhone Franchise" - is that what they're calling it? The IIF?
It has a cool ring to it (no pun intended).

Sounds like Qualcomm feel that they deserve some recognition for making the iPhone as great as it is. What do they call that ... tall poppy syndrome?

 

[69Mustang]

Apple, however, said there is "no discernible difference" in performance between the Qualcomm and Intel modems in any of the models.

"Aaaaaaand we worked hard to make damn sure of it too." - Apple

Lol, really??
THAT is your take of the Australian bank situation??
Seriously? That Apple has a cockamamie half-baked insecure mobile banking solution, that it quickly jerry-rigged & threw out there... undermining the REAL technology and security innovators (a few Australian banks nobody has heard of), who put together something MUCH more secure than the secure enclave + TouchID & Apple shouldn't hold them back from making their solution the world standard.

Ummmm, ok.

It's funny, you mention secure enclave and touch id; two things that Australian banks aren't asking to access. So why mention them at all? Nary a word about NFC... you know, the thing that Australian banks are asking to access. NFC, the thing that @Kittenyarn was actually referencing. NFC, the thing that Apple did not develop. No matter how we feel about the issue, shouldn't we be intellectually honest and address the actual source of the debate instead of bringing up tangential subjects?

 

[Glideslope]

Desperate Measures for Desperate Times.

 

[orangebluedevil]

Well, as long as it's good for the consumrs, go on.

Apple have also switched to cheaper front glass cover as used in Chinese Vivo & Oppo pre-installed tempered glass over Gorilla Glass or that could match it. Apple is using cheaper tactics in every area possible that doesn't come light to the general public. The front glass cover used in iPhone 7 is more and easily prone to scratches and is the same material that can be found with Chinese OEMs.

I've noticed more scratches and suspected this. But you are the first person to say it's definitively true. Can you cite any sources? When I google this I find zilch.

 

[Glideslope]

Me no like. If this is true (which it appears to be based on third party comments) then I am very angry with Apple for gimping their phones to make Intel look good.

Watch for more as Apple and Intel prepare to join forces in ARM Fabrication post 2018.

 

[toukale]

I like Apple and I'm an Apple Shareholder.
But let's be real Apple is an 800 pound Gorilla.
Getting into bed with Apple can be hazardous to you business.
Ask Portal Player and Imagination Tech.

Are you kidding me? So you are telling those companies not to get their most and biggest account around because if they lose it one day they will be in trouble. What kind of logic is that? Nothing is forever in this life, so are business arrangements. What those companies should do when they get an Apple account is to use that to sign as many others accounts as possible to diversified their accounts. That's not on Apple to worry about.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

I don't get what the value is in bringing this up in a lawsuit. Contributed nothing? Apple made the smartphone mainstream. Without that, Qualcomm wouldn't be selling nearly as many chips.

Defense. The Apple suit is surely not "baseless". A company the size of Apple has plenty of talented lawyers. They wouldn't file a suit that wouldn't be able to withstand a true "Failure to State a Claim" response. That would risk severe sanction both for the company and the attorneys.

They likely filed the countersuit for the most part to press settlement negotiations. The cheap shots are just for media coverage.

 

[Hustler1337]

I'm with Apple on this one. Sound like Qualcomm tried to say 'Our chip is superior! Apple needs it for their success' then when Apple tried to point out that the Intel one works just as well (to cover their own ass) Qualcomm got their back up.

I don't doubt Qualcomm would have tried to drive up their prices for licences. They know Apple has money.

Qualcomm is saying that their chip is superior to Intel's. If you read the article or counterclaim, Qualcomm alleges that Apple deliberately limited the performance of Qualcomm's chip used in the iPhone and prevented Qualcomm from publicising that their chips are in fact faster than Intel's. There are independent tests which prove that Qualcomm's chips are faster.

Also, Qualcomm are alleging that the prices of the licenses they issue are pretty much the standard for all of their licenses. In fact, Apple refused to directly license from Qualcomm and instead chose to does this by way of proxy by using a middleman (the manufacturers) instead. From my perspective, Apple are abusing their significant power to drive down the prices that they pay for their licenses through bullying, intimidation and threats.

 

[Carnegie]

Defense. The Apple suit is surely not "baseless". A company the size of Apple has plenty of talented lawyers. They wouldn't file a suit that wouldn't be able to withstand a true "Failure to State a Claim" response. That would risk severe sanction both for the company and the attorneys.

They likely filed the countersuit for the most part to press settlement negotiations.

I suspect the (Qualcomm) suit is mostly motivated by PR concerns (i.e. wrt the investment community) and possibly to help Qualcomm in shareholder suits that may come in the future.

If the factual allegations made by Apple, which are to a great extent mirrored by those made by several regulatory bodies, are accurate, then Apple's case is certainly not baseless. It's nearer to a slam dunk. If those allegations are largely true, then Qualcomm is in quite a bit of trouble. That would mean that its business model is to a great extent built on illegal (and contract violative) practices and, further, that it has likely realized that for a while - that it knew, or should have known, that a day of reckoning was coming and that its business model was fairly likely to collapse.

Qualcomm's lawsuit could, in part, be about supporting the claim (that it may well eventually have to make) that it thought that its practices were legitimate and that a business model built on those practices was sustainable. That is to say, Qualcomm is going to want to be able to (convincingly) argue that, even if it loses various legal battles and its practices are determined to be improper, that all along it had believed those practices to be proper. If (and this is an important qualifier) the allegations made by Apple and several regulatory bodies are true, that may be the only plausible argument Qualcomm is left with when it comes to defending against shareholder lawsuits.

 

[mytdave]

Both of you knock it off. Grow up.

 

[dBeats]

Qualcomm has polished the cannonball for too long. Your chip is faster, but uses more energy. Intel's chip is slower, but uses less energy. Apple simply throttles Qualcomm's chip for battery life. End users see no difference and don't care how shiny Qualcomm's cannonball is, the speed is fast enough either way.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

bullying, intimidation and threats

In other words, business. This ain't the schoolyard.

As long as it's legal, it's just good business. I guess now we'll find out if it was.

 

[Hustler1337]

In other words, business. This ain't the schoolyard.

As long as it's legal, it's just good business. I guess now we'll find out if it was.

Yep, I agree, it's the reality of business whether we like it or not.

 

[hagjohn]

Qualcomm has polished the cannonball for too long. Your chip is faster, but uses more energy. Intel's chip is slower, but uses less energy. Apple simply throttles Qualcomm's chip for battery life. End users see no difference and don't care how shiny Qualcomm's cannonball is, the speed is fast enough either way.

If you read the article, Apple has supposedly said that there is "no discernible difference" in performance between the 2 chips. That is not true and that is what Qualcomm is complaining about. What Apple has said can hurt Qualcomm's business.

As a consumer, who is buying a very expensive phone, I would much rather have the Qualcomm chip in my phone, than Intel's inferior chip.

 

[Tycho24]

It's funny, you mention secure enclave and touch id; two things that Australian banks aren't asking to access. So why mention them at all? Nary a word about NFC... you know, the thing that Australian banks are asking to access. NFC, the thing that @Kittenyarn was actually referencing. NFC, the thing that Apple did not develop. No matter how we feel about the issue, shouldn't we be intellectually honest and address the actual source of the debate instead of bringing up tangential subjects?

Apologies.
It's a bit nuanced, so please be aware that my intention was not to obfuscate.

My understanding is that it is Apple's stance that NFC only is at their level of security standards when coupled with the TouchID mechanism, through use of the secure enclave for data separation & identity obscurity.
Thus, even "simple" NFC uses like digital hotel key card apps must work via that highly secure method.
I'm sure you're aware of NFC "skimmers" & the like; and how there are certainly some security issues there that the added layer of TouchID/secure enclave solve.
In my opinion- Apple put in some VERY hard work in this area, over a period of years, & has created a consumer-friendly, easy to use, end-to-end payment solution for their customers.
I am hesitant to agree that if an outside party insists that they'd like their less secure option to run atop Apple's platform, bypassing the security measures that are already in place- that Apple should be legally obliged to allow them to disservice their customer base, especially because (imo), it is solely in the service of greed on the part of the Aussie banks.
Wells Fargo seems to be getting quite a little boost from embracing ApplePay!
There's always ads on my ATM; they even gave me a $10 credit the 1st time I used it. Doesn't sound like actions of a company being strong-armed by Apple into using a tech that loses them money...
They're even on track to become the 1st bank here in the US to offer a completely card free ATM experience, via ApplePay. Their gambit paid off! I have found their services so convenient & frictionless, that I slowly migrated the rest of my business from Chase over to them, then closed that account.
These Australian banks are NOT victims.
They are not in danger of losing tons of money by accepting a growing secure payment solution.
All they lose is a bit of control over tracking consumer spending & an infinitesimal fee (.15%).

Edit: please note that fee is a transactional security fee & guarantees the bank indemnity from fraud... also the 15 basis points quoted is the US bank fee; apparently it's about 1/2 that in China and the U.K.

 

[ghostface147]

I don't doubt that without Qualcomm, a CDMA iPhone may have come out a bit later than it did. They own a lot of CDMA patents. I also don't doubt that Apple hindered the Qualcomm modem in the iPhone 7 since they certainly don't want people to think that the Verizon and Sprint models have better LTE performance than the T-Mobile and AT&T ones, which use Intel modems.

 

[goblutes]

This is actually a pretty interesting window into the sausage factory and evolution of this industry. Qualcomm is THE wireless chipset manufacturer. There aren't that many to begin with, and their IP portfolio is unmatched. So of course maximizing licensing fees is a priority for their bottom line. Likewise, it is Apple's interest to encourage Intel, a relatively new player in this game, to compete against Qualcomm. Everybody likes competition, and it helps Cook, the wizard of supply chain management, do what he does best.

Meanwhile, Apple tried to get a way with an inferior product in their GSM phones. This is undeniable. Sure, this shouldn't matter to most consumers, but--come on--it matters to me. I haven't bought an iPhone 7 yet, but I'll be dagummed if I buy one with an Intel chip--more so because it lacks CDMA support. Regarding performance, Apple is the gatekeeper, and networks are the bottleneck. While I find it disappointing that they limit the Qualcomm chipsets, I can get over it. What is frustrating and shameful is that they got caught and tried to shift the blame. Regardless, Qaulcomm and Intel are ready for 5G networks anyway. And, Intel supports CDMA now. So there you go.

 

[Ds6778]

Please do enlighten us as to why it's a big snake? Apple is obviously a golden child I'm guessing?

No, but QC is greedy. They want to be the only player in the game and throw a fit when anyone tries to get around them. Samsung can't even use its in house SOC because of them...

 

[gnasher729]

Funny. This is exactly what the Australian banks are so annoyed about. Apple comes in late (with apple pay in that instance) and uses its market power to bully smaller companies into giving a share of profits without taking any of the risks of developing the technologies in the first place.

That's a total misrepresentation of the facts.

The banks asked a court for permission to act in an anticompetitive way by negotiating with Apple as one group, not as individual companies. And the court rightfully said that they had no such permission. And Apple _has_ created the technology, it is proven, it works, it protects consumers, and it protects the bank by making fraud a lot harder.
[doublepost=1491917456][/doublepost]

profit margin

Alternatively, end user prices.
[doublepost=1491917776][/doublepost]

Are you kidding me? So you are telling those companies not to get their most and biggest account around because if they lose it one day they will be in trouble. What kind of logic is that? Nothing is forever in this life, so are business arrangements. What those companies should do when they get an Apple account is to use that to sign as many others accounts as possible to diversified their accounts. That's not on Apple to worry about.

You also hear people claiming that Apple is in trouble because 66% of their revenue is iPhones. In reality, any company in such a situation needs to grab the money they can make, and prepare for the day it stops. Imagination made lots of money that they wouldn't have made if they had no deal with Apple. Their share prices dropped because the Apple deal is supposed to end within two years, but without that deal the share price wouldn't ever have been as high in the first place.