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 Expects Apple to 'Solely' Use Intel Modems for 2018 iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So even if Apple switches entirely to Intel or another company's modems either Intel or the other company will have to pay patent license fees to Qualcomm. Is that correct?
tmobile iphone ABSOLUTELY NEED band 71. the lack of band 71 in old iphone was the reason why switched to verizon, it doesn't matter if you have the fastest internet. if your signal can't penetrate buildings such as courthouses then its completely useless to me.
from a personal note, i missed so many important phone calls because of tmobile's lack of building penetration.
from a personal note, i missed so many important phone calls because of tmobile's lack of building penetration.
I'm surprised is still sued *at all* given the lawsuits... Yea, it may only be for "newer phones" going forward, but why ?
Would users be that hurt after a replacement only to find their iPhone 5s is now using an Intel chip?
Why would you continue to use the same company after they were allegedly caught?
Would users be that hurt after a replacement only to find their iPhone 5s is now using an Intel chip?
Why would you continue to use the same company after they were allegedly caught?
When did Apple said they don't owe anything to Qualcomm?
Yes. It doesn't matter if Apple choose modem Intel, Mediatek, Huawei, Samsung or making their own modem via IP company like CEVA, they WILL have to paid Qualcomm. So does everyone else. They will also have to paid to Nokia, Ericsson, ZTE, Huawei, Samsung, LG, and whole lots of other smaller ones ( Most smaller ones are represented by consortium ).
Apple doesn't challenges the validity of any SEP patents from Qualcomm, they wouldn't dare to, even from Apple.
Qualcomm has two set of patents, ones that are inside 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE, and all the Wireless related like WiFi. The other are SoC design and power management etc. And in most scenario, Qualcomm doesn't really allow you to license only the SEP ones, since there is no way you can design a SoC or Smartphone without stepping on their other set of patents, you will have to license all of them.
The cost of this total package, according to Apple CEO Tim Cook, is more then double the price of what they paid than all other major SEP players combined. So 2x ( Nokia, Ericsson, ZTE, Huawei, Samsung, LG, ) = Qualcomm.
What Apple is challenging, is either Qualcomm's SEP are too expensive, and are not FRAND Royalty Rates, OR the other set of patents for SoC and power management etc are too expensive. And it is highly likely Apple has its own patents arsenal that Qualcomm infringed upon for SoC design.
Since they cant come to terms of correct pricing, and there are no other diplomatic way to solve this issues, they will have to go to court and let them decide.
I hope this is easy enough to understand.
That kind of behavior is known as, "Cutting off their nose to spite their face."
I really wish someone would leak more info on the Intel modem. I really need this to have band 71
I did some digging. Turns out as I expected band 71 ( 600Mhz ) is only being used by T-Mobile US worldwide. ( Which means Intel may not support this even the 75xx modem )
And I wonder are there so much difference to 700Mhz? Which current iPhone supports. Even T-Mobile US list both 600Mhz and 700Mhz as extended LTE.
I know T-Mo bought A LOT of the 600 MHz spectrum but they by no means got all of it. I’m not sure how quickly other carriers are worrying about deploying it but T-Mo isn’t the sole user of band 71.
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wire...bidders-incentive-auction-while-verizon-looks
Neither Verizon nor AT&T had it. And Sprint declined to bid. And I am not aware of anywhere else in the world that had 600Mhz auctioned or planned for auction.
It's not about the 10% speed difference. It's idiotic and uninformed to suggest that it's just an e-penis race for speedtests on the internet. The real difference is when you're at a park in the middle of the woods and the SGS 9 is getting 3mbps on LTE and the Intel iPhone 8 has no service. Or when you pull into a station on the subway and the SGS 9 pops right back onto a 30mbps LTE connection and the Intel iPhone 8 is still bumbling around trying to find service for a while. Or when you're in at a large event and the SGS 9 is able to eke out a few hundred kbps, and nothing will load on the Intel iPhone 8. That's the difference, not under good conditions when the SGS 9 pulls 140mbps and the Intel iPhone 8 pulls 100mbps and no one really cares.
Yup. Very well said. It's unfortunate that Intel iPhones have worse reception and worse LTE performance than Qualcomm iPhones.
Go back and test that iPhone 5 today. It probably won't get 20-40mbps. Newer modems have significantly increased speed, some of which has been taken back by capacity constraints. MIMO and CA have increased capacity to keep speeds decent on congested networks and in weak signal areas.
No. You're literally wrong. Intel modems have been proven to be inferior to Qualcomm.
That thing is long gone. I upgrade every year. The only one I've kept is the original iPhone 8GB.
I seem to recall tests done every year that show Apple has to slow down the Qualcomm(Verizon)modems to match the Intel(AT&T) modems. Qualcomm's are clearly superior and Apple is hurting their phones by continuing this fight IMHO. I regret that I will not be having a Qualcomm modem this year
If you had it, you'd find that it's nowhere as fast as it once was. I had to use a first generation Moto G LTE a few months ago while my S7 had it's battery replaced, and it's LTE was so much slower than it was a few years ago, as it doesn't have CA. I really should have just used my trusty old iPhone 4s, it probably would have been a better phone, even without LTE.
Yeah, they cripple some of the capabilities of them, like no 4x4 MIMO on the iPhone 8/X, even though the X16 is capable of it, and thus no 256QAM, but try as they might, they can't seem to slow the Qualcomm modems down to the level of the Intel modems, as the X16-based iPhones still outperform the Intel-based iPhones.
4x4 MIMO requires antenna redesign and given the structure of iPhone X may likely require new materials. Nothing to do with dumping down.
May be I have a soft spot for Infineon design team, and they used to be pretty damn good at it, don't know what happen after Intel acquire them things have slow down a lot. They are not as good as Qualcomm, but not absolute crap as some likes to make it to be.
Finger cross their first Intel Fabbed Modem will be good.
Of course it requires antennas in the phone. The iPhone X was designed without a 4x4 MIMO antenna setup because of the Intel modems not being able to handle it. If the Intel model had been 4x4 MIMO capable, the iPhone X would have had 4x4 MIMO antennas.
Infineon was garbage too. The AT&T iPhone 4 was crap reception wise, while the iPhone 4s was great. The difference? Infineon vs. Qualcomm.
The thing is, when you are on the edge of a cell trying to get data, and you're pushing an SD845/X20 setup to it's absolute limits, everything else is crap. I've even seen the difference between an SD825/X12 and SD835/X16, and I know the SD845/X20 is that much better. Intel modems are behind any of those Qualcomm setups, so they're just going to be that much worse.
Yes. If they used Qualcomm chips they shouldn’t have to pay license fees (though Qualcomm says they do, and that’s what the court will decide). If they use Intel chips they definitely have to pay license fees for any valid patents that would otherwise be infringed.
Of coz they do. You will have to paid license fees no matter what, as long as you want to use 4G, LTE, 3G and heck any wireless technology on earth.
Even Apple doesn't deny this. How much should you paid is entirely different matter.
Why “of course?” If you sell a product that embodies your own patent, the law is that your patent rights are exhausted in that product? When you buy a car you don’t expect to have to pay the car company a patent license fee in order to use it.
I'm usually staunchly against specific patents that tie up an entire technology or whatnot, but in this case, Qualcomm is the only company that has actually put the effort into developing new wireless technologies and improving connectivity. All the other chipmakers haven't put the effort into developing technology that works anywhere near as well as Qualcomm's.
Because the product only embodies the "hardware" implementation of the standard. It doesn't cover the software part of the standard. It is the same with video codec, you are only paying for those transistor included in the video decoder along with its Hardware R&D, to turn it on and use the standard, you will have to paid the licensing body for all the R&D they did on the standard, which is where the real cost are.
In you car analogy, your buying price already included all the patents cost. Much like how your iPhone already included all those patents right. However your Car manufacturer will have to paid patents free to all the components maker and design. That plug you use fill up your gas? It has a anti leaking design that clicks when it is full. That is $x per car.
Think of it as a hardware and software cost. You self built a PC, you will still have to paid $100 extra for a Windows License. Why do Dell and HP computer don't need those cost? Because they are already includes in their selling price.
Nearly 30% of the essential patents are owned by Qualcomm, and they are some of the most important ones too. So no one should be disputing paying Qualcomm. The question is how much, I do think they are charging a little too much.