In related news, tomorrow the local car dealer will file suit against me for using my enormous market power to coerce unfair and unreasonable pricing on a car purchase.
learn to negotiate.
learn to negotiate.
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.
Is Qualcomm inviting Apple to "contribute" to cellular technology? Is that really a path they want to go down?
...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...
Oooooooh snap! I really am sore having to deal with a weaker Intel chip in my phone. I'd have preferred if Apple just paid for the best chip here.
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...
I don't see them being particularly greedy, no more then you would expect. And Samsung seem to be able to sell its phones with its own SOCs in just fine? No idea what you're on about there? In some markets you can only buy some phones with their own SOCs in.
...
True, various countries are belatedly trying to change the rules to benefit their home smartphone makers. But licensing by price of phone is the way virtually EVERY cellular patent has been done for decades. It allows the sale of super low profit phones to the third world, while those who make tons of money pay more.
Let's face it, Apple is NOT hurting for profit by any means, profit they would not have without all the decades and billions of dollars of research that other companies did.
As for license costs in general, Apple has no moral footing considering how much they wanted from Samsung and others (up to $40 a device!) to license far, far less critical patents such as the now mostly defunct slide to unlock.
Moreover, as much as Apple whinges about the way things are licensed, they should have little complaint in this case, as Apple made a deal where they don't pay according to the $650+ they actually sell phones for... but instead have Foxconn license the patents at the $240 cost of producing an iPhone in China.
Fairly recent Congressional inquiries have noted how common it is to license this way:
View attachment 695766
Along with an ITC decision stating that Apple had no reason to complain it was unusual:
View attachment 695768
Last, but not least, the DOJ ruled long ago that licensing by end product cost was okay:
View attachment 695765
We reaffirm that in any case involving multi-component products, patentees may not calculate damages based on sales of the entire product, as opposed to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, without showing that the demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented feature.
Just goes to show how smart Qualcomm is and how it is about time that Apple takes them on.Not buying into all this legal crap, though the intel model is crap,
Just goes to show how smart Qualcomm is and how it is about time that Apple takes them on.
Qualcomm paid for ONE single article on a website that claimed the Intel model is crap, and that article was soaked up by every mainstream publication, even though every expert in the field knew that the article was nonsense, as that blogger used an invalid radio configuration on purpose. But the damage is done, and clueless people on forums like this repeat again and again and again that the Intel model is "crap" because of that article. So of course Apple is unhappy with Qualcomm.
It's kinda like Microsoft's business practices when they were a near-monopoly - only Qualcomm is even worse.
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...
I don't see them being particularly greedy, no more then you would expect. And Samsung seem to be able to sell its phones with its own SOCs in just fine? No idea what you're on about there? In some markets you can only buy some phones with their own SOCs in.
http://www.androidcentral.com/qualcomm-licensing-blocked-samsung-selling-exynos-chips
Since you want to play dumb...
Yea, paying apple is so expensive compered to the profits I'm now making.Qualcomm V Intel is why I returned my £1k + iPhone 7, my iPhone 6S got better reception (all throughout my house, while the 7 dropped out in certain rooms)
Not buying into all this legal crap, though the intel model is crap, and yes apple is lying through thier teeth if they expect us to believe that the intel model is the same as the Qualcomm. It's penny pinching crap for a very expensive phone.
[doublepost=1491891201][/doublepost]
"A few Australian banks nobody has heard of" you sound like one of those champs that think Australia is between Germany and Hungary .
We are talking about contactless tech here, though feel free to ignore the obvious here and move to goal posts to apple's implementation . The arguement is the NFC capabilities in the Apple phone that apple refuses to open up .....and it only works if you pay $$$$....cough anti competitive cough...
What exactly is your take on the Oz banking situation? Security? Maybe lack of equality / diversity ? It's a good way Tim spins facts these days![]()
Qualcomm has polished the cannonball for too long. Your chip is faster, but uses more energy. Intel's chip is slower, but uses less energy. Apple simply throttles Qualcomm's chip for battery life. End users see no difference and don't care how shiny Qualcomm's cannonball is, the speed is fast enough either way.
Done no testing?Sorry , that is incorrect. Had you actually followed the release of the iPhone 7, it had major issues with 4G on numerous networks in EU. It was a real mess, and I could care less about some article, I tested a 6S v 7 at the same residence using the same phone provider. Intel modem is crap, from first hand experience, let me guess, you have done no testing? and are infact spreading false information that it's just the same as the competition ? Can I ask why
Qualcomm V Intel is why I returned my £1k + iPhone 7, my iPhone 6S got better reception (all throughout my house, while the 7 dropped out in certain rooms)
Not buying into all this legal crap, though the intel model is crap, and yes apple is lying through thier teeth if they expect us to believe that the intel model is the same as the Qualcomm. It's penny pinching crap for a very expensive phone.
[doublepost=1491891201][/doublepost]
"A few Australian banks nobody has heard of" you sound like one of those champs that think Australia is between Germany and Hungary .
We are talking about contactless tech here, though feel free to ignore the obvious here and move to goal posts to apple's implementation . The arguement is the NFC capabilities in the Apple phone that apple refuses to open up .....and it only works if you pay $$$$....cough anti competitive cough...
What exactly is your take on the Oz banking situation? Security? Maybe lack of equality / diversity ? It's a good way Tim spins facts these days![]()
So what you're saying is you have no clue how Apple Pay actually works?Erm ACTUALLY
The Australian banks in question tried to get the courts to force Apple to allow them to essentially use their own/other's NFC offerings instead of Apple pay. This meaning that the Australian banks did not want, it appears, to pay the minuscule transaction fees imposed by Apple and instead take a cut of the action for themselves on top of what they already might make.
Apple make the iPhone, they created it. They do not have to have created or invented every part of it, I mean would you use the same logic on Microsoft?? Bill Gates did not invent Windows. He basically bought DOS from the Seattle Computer Company and then took software (legally) from Xerox called Smalltalk. He then put them together and did a bit of tweaking and hey presto Windows was born. If you look at many companies involved in tech arena, most did not create their products from scratch but they are based on a lot of other firm's/people's work. That does not invalidate the end product.
So Apple therefore have a valid product in the iPhone and they then use NFC(that they did not invent but can use the same as nay company) to create Apple pay. Apple pay being more secure and safe than plain old NFC.
I have lost track of the times I have been able to hack NFC.
Where as (as far as I know) there are only 2 people who can hack Apple pay, one is Lt Commander Data and his brother Lore(Star Trek, though pedantically they are played by the same actor but now is not the time to discuss the metaphysical construct of being and non being realities.)
So the Australian baks want to it seems decide what and how Apple should do with the product that the banks did not create or have any input over??
http://www.androidcentral.com/qualcomm-licensing-blocked-samsung-selling-exynos-chips
Since you want to play dumb...
Pay careful attention to the wording. Nobody is playing dumb; you're misreading or misunderstanding.
Samsung cannot sell its SoC to other manufacturers, as your article states. Samsung uses its own chip in its own phones and has for many years. That was part of the agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm.
No, the iPhone is what made the market. Before iPhone, smartphones were different devices entirely. Worldwide smartphone sales shot up as soon as it became popular and Android clones were made... and now there are more people with smartphones than with clean water.Smartphone sales were already on an upward trajectory. The iPhone didn't change that, it rode it.