Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not unlike Apple's App Store receiving a 30 percent take for 99¢ and $4.99 apps alike, even though the provided service is the same for both.

Pretty much like any retail operation then? Oh, that's right, Walmart and Amazon both apply the exact same markup when they sell either a 2-buck phone case or a lawn-mower -- 60 cents on both!

We better tell Amazon -- they might not realise that is the real reason they can't post a profit, rather than all that malarky about re-investing, etc.

[doublepost=1498123242][/doublepost]
It's not QCs fault that Apple only makes extremely expensive phones.

You mean: It's not Apple's fault that other phone makers have a losing business model and can't retain a constant ASP, but have to give BOGOF deals to move their commoditized products off of shelves?
 
Last edited:
Hope Qualcomm is smarter to avoid becoming another one of Apple's bankrupt supplier victims like the latest Imagination Technologies.
 
So are they going after Verizon and AT&T then since their inventions are at the heart of every call? The possibilities are endless.

Well, no. Verizon and AT&T pay their contracted royalties.

In this case, Apple doesn't even have a license themselves, so they strong-armed their contract factories to stop paying on their licenses. Talk about throwing your weight around to try to get what you want. Apple has become one of the biggest bullies on the planet.

Also this insane idea that they are entitled to a % of the entire sale and not just the cost of the component they are responsible for is one of the key reasons we don't have a glut of LTE-capable macbook pros, surfaces, etc. It's harmful to the advancement of technology.

So when Apple wanted 100% of Samsung's profits, over a few minor patents out of thousands in a phone, you were against that too?

As I understand the case, Apple doesn't have an issue with paying for the required licenses. They just don't think the payment should be based on % of the entire device, that they shouldn't have to pay for licenses twice (themselves and built into the price of the components they purchase), and that Qualcomm is charging a more than FRAND rate for their patents.

Previous trial history shows that Apple almost always claims that any price is "not FRAND". Heck, even when offered price arbitration by judges, they have refused to comply if the judge's price was higher than they want to pay. Doesn't sound like Apple wants to pay what's fair at all.

And no sir, they cannot be paying for licenses twice, since no license is built into the price of the components they buy.

That's why all the posts about chips are meaningless. Qualcomm doesn't care who you buy chips from, because just like with every other cellular inventor from Moto to Nokia, you have to pay royalties on the IP, not the silicon itself.

Yet the rest of the world does not use it.
You make it seem that no other phone system is worth a bent dime. The billion or so non CDMA users might like to disagree with you.

Like most people, you mistakenly think that CDMA is only used in systems that were once based solely on CDMA, like Verizon was.

What you're missing, is the fact that essentially every phone on the planet uses a CDMA type radio for 3G.

You see, GSM 3G uses a W-CDMA radio, which falls under Qualcomm's patents. Ditto for TD-SCDMA in China, etc.

Lets br clear here. Without Qualcomm, your next iPhone will be 3g.

Not even that, since all 3G is based greatly on Qualcomm work. Ditto for 5G. People should be careful for what they wish. Giving Apple an extra $5-10 PROFIT per phone which they will NOT give to us, is a bad deal in return for us not getting super comms in the future. Apple does not contribute to such standards. They only take.

The model Qualcomm uses allows low cost handsets in emerging markets. If they did not do this there would be no cheap phones because everyone would be paying them $25 a handset or some crazy amount.

Yep, the reason we can have free iPhone apps is because the higher priced apps subsidize the lower priced apps. And the free apps help get more iPhone buyers.

Cellular royalties work the same way. Higher priced phones subsidize all the lower priced phones, which is the primary reason why we such have a huge global network and phone market today.

It's a network and market without which Apple would not have made a quarter trillion dollars in pure profit on their relatively late entrance into phones.
 
Last edited:
Lets br clear here. Without Qualcomm, your next iPhone will be 3g.

Without ARM, your phone will be not a smartphone. The similar phrase can be used for many many many many more companies. It doesn’t make any one of them to hold a commanding attitude to the whole industry and charge unreasonably to other companies.
 
Well, no. Verizon and AT&T pay their contracted royalties.

In this case, Apple doesn't even have a license themselves, so they strong-armed their contract factories to stop paying on their licenses. Talk about throwing your weight around to try to get what you want. Apple has become one of the biggest bullies on the planet.
You made it upside-down. Qualcomm started the bullying. Qualcomm withheld one billion dollar it should give Apple following their "rebate" agreement. Qualcomm does this to let Apple know "I am the boss of this industry. You just cooperated with Korean government when they investigate me. You bad boy! This is a punishment you deserved."

Well, unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to accept that "punishment" silently, so it asked the US court to help, and also fight back by himself (in the same way of withholding payment) when the US court didn't help it very quickly.
 
:D just saying...Qualcomm did the R&D into the tech just as they are for 5g. It's a fact.

https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/5g

Maybe Apple should invent their own proprietary communications standard using substandard Intel modems which, by Apple user's own admissions, are dreadful.

Interestingly I remember my old Samsung Note 4 having a mini Qualcomm 4g sticker on the top of it. I tore it off as soon as I received it but I'm wondering if that was some kind of deal to get the chips cheaper or something....

Yes, QComm did the R&D. But the costs of it being a standard are that they have to license it at Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory Terms. If you’re going to be part of a standard, you can’t use that as a weapon.
 
In this case, Apple doesn't even have a license themselves

So, the 1B rebate that Qualcomm is withholding from Apple (because Apple had the gall to comply with a request for info from Korean authorities investigating Qualcomm), that's just 0% of nothing?

That's what Apple is primarily after, and why it is "strong arming" its supply chain to support it. Because, after all, this is just Apple throwing its weight around, and not Korea, and not the EU, and not others. Just Apple.
 
So, the 1B rebate that Qualcomm is withholding from Apple (because Apple had the gall to comply with a request for info from Korean authorities investigating Qualcomm), that's just 0% of nothing?

Apple calls it a "rebate". But they have no license to give a rebate over. Qualcomm says it was a contract where they paid Apple to do certain things (which they claim Apple failed to do last year). We'll know better during the trial, I think, as full documents are disclosed.

As for Apple gall, are you referring to Apple's August 2016 testimony where they told the Korean authorities that they had "yet to add a second chipset supplier because of Qualcomm's exclusionary conduct" ?

But then only a few weeks later Apple announced iPhone 7 models with an Intel chip. Which means Apple actually had long had a second supplier ready to go. That one is going to be really hard to explain away.

Mind you, neither company qualifies as an angel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
Qualcomm is the appendix of the iPhone body, not the heart - it's better if it's in there, but can be dispensed with and negligible problems will arise. The HEART of iPhone is Apple, iOS and their decades of BSD, Mac OS, Darwin, Carbon, C/C++ and Cocoa Touch knowledge.

Qualcomm - you WISH they couldn't do without you!
 
Qualcomm had nothing to do with creating the revolutionary Touch ID, the world's most popular camera, or the Retina display Apple's customers love.

Creating the retina display? .. bless, that is adorable.. 7 years on and you still think it's a "thing" , when in reality it's an off the shelf lcd ips panel . That the customers love as well. Lol, every second person on here can't wait for the change to OLED.

Ps. Threeolives didn't post this, the quoting has gone a bit astray.
 
Pretty much like any retail operation then? Oh, that's right, Walmart and Amazon both apply the exact same markup when they sell either a 2-buck phone case or a lawn-mower -- 60 cents on both!

Huh??? Your example isn't even similar. Those retailers are reselling goods which they purchased. The logistics for real goods is also complex; some goods require different costs to accommodate and deliver.

Apple isn't a reseller. It doesn't purchase the apps and resell them. It's operating a consignment store. And—to my point—their cost of delivering an app is the same regardless of the app. Therefore, their dissatisfaction with Qualcomm's identical pricing approach is hypocritical.
 
Huh??? Your example isn't even similar. Those retailers are reselling goods which they purchased. The logistics for real goods is also complex; some goods require different costs to accommodate and deliver.

Apple isn't a reseller. It doesn't purchase the apps and resell them. It's operating a consignment store. And—to my point—their cost of delivering an app is the same regardless of the app. Therefore, their dissatisfaction with Qualcomm's identical pricing approach is hypocritical.

No it isn’t. You can use an iPhone without using the App Store. The App Store isn’t standards essential. CDMA is.

Edit: Not to mention that Apple is continuing to work on the API and occasionally makes apps work better because of their changes. Once you get a QComm modem with a set speed, that’s all it is.
 
Apple isn't a reseller. It doesn't purchase the apps and resell them. It's operating a consignment store. And—to my point—their cost of delivering an app is the same regardless of the app. Therefore, their dissatisfaction with Qualcomm's identical pricing approach is hypocritical.

Indeed. Heck, Apple's own initial royalty rate for MFi (Made for iPod/iPhone/iPad) devices was 10% of their retail price, with a $10 minimum.

Apple is no stranger to the idea of charging by percentage, or wanting high royalties.
 
Edit: Not to mention that Apple is continuing to work on the API and occasionally makes apps work better because of their changes. Once you get a QComm modem with a set speed, that’s all it is.

iPhones get baseband modem firmware updates as well as OS updates.

A couple of memorable ones were the one that fixed a bad 3G bug. Another was the update that allowed iPhones to be unlocked.
 
iPhones get baseband modem firmware updates as well as OS updates.

A couple of memorable ones were the one that fixed a bad 3G bug. Another was the update that allowed iPhones to be unlocked.

And none of what you said conflicts with what I said.
 
Qualcomm is the appendix of the iPhone body, not the heart - it's better if it's in there, but can be dispensed with and negligible problems will arise. The HEART of iPhone is Apple, iOS and their decades of BSD, Mac OS, Darwin, Carbon, C/C++ and Cocoa Touch knowledge.

Qualcomm - you WISH they couldn't do without you!
Without Qualcomm, the iPhone would have been a PDA or at best, a phone stuck on EDGE tech.
Removal of the modem is hardly a "negligible problem" for a device that relies heavily on communications to function.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.