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 Successfully Appeals $1.05 Billion EU Fine for Paying Apple to Use Its Mobile Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just as general info the court that made this decision, the European General Court is also an EU institution.
I’m still not seeing how Apple negotiating supply parts for a better deal as being bad for the customer. What the nefarious wording of the article doesn’t explain and which you knee jerked over and overlooked is that this deal is legal as the courts found. This is a common practice in EVERY business called rebates.
Meet a certain volume and we will “pay you” money or in business terms rebate you a determined contractual sum of money to use our products. 😉
RouterCFW
macrumors member
They don’t even know how to use an iPhone or that side loading is already possible they’re a bunch of clowns who just want to hurt Apple because they made an eco system that they can’t profit off and cry because they can’t have custom app stores
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
Considering the vart majorit, including Apple are ether part of the board (Apple, HP Inc., Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Renesas Electronics, STMicroelectronics, and Texas Instruments) or are members. The chance of them limiting them is about 0%.
the single Port can curently do Video, audio, data and power?
It contains: Displayport 1.4 standard, displayport 2 Alt mode(containes displayport 2.o and HDMI 1.4b¤), Thunderbolt 3 Standard, PCIe signal, 240W in extended power range, 100W standard power etc. you can have the complete package in one cable and port
Apple implemented lightning in 2012 as a board member and refused to share it or try to make it the new usb standard. USB-IF introduced USB-C in 2014
and current usb-c specifications are above and beyond what phones need. If the next
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
the Eu Commission aren't a court, they are policy and legal experts. Same way, the FTC can be overruled by an independent legal court. and here the grand court have said they ****ed up and are therefore not in the legal right.
explicitly what they said
I think there’s a historical precedent of them limiting Apple. That’s why lightning exists, right? Can we assume they will never limit Apple in the future when Apple currently has a power solution for laptops (MagSafe) that can not be handled by USB today?
Wow I'm surprised that the appeal was successful given the current antitrust climate against big tech.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
There is zero history of them limiting apple, the only "limit ever done" was when USB-IF wasn't done with a standard and apple still decided to use USB-c in their laptop(yes apple broke the USB-c standard first)
Apple is on the Board of directors. They make the rules.
lightning exists because they needed a replacement to their old port and didn't want to use MicroUSB.
Apple was the one who refused to allow any other to use lightning as their default port.
currently, USB-C have MagSafe ability. Nothing stops it from being used.
And computers aren't required to have USB-c
If you think using a multi-piece, non-flush, magnetic USBC cable like the one pictured above is analogous to using a MagSafe cable (especially the newer variant with just the interchangeable replacement cable), then you clearly don’t get the appeal of MagSafe. And that’s cool. But what is being offered above is not even on par with the quality or usability of MagSafe when it launched in 2006, let alone the improved product offered today.
maxoakland
macrumors 68000
Look, you know I think the EU is overreaching and trying to preempt a problem that hasn't shown itself to be a problem yet. They could do better, and they should do better. They picked this fight.
maxoakland
macrumors 68000
And of course it would be impossible for Apple to improve on that design and make it better. Because we all know Apple never does that, right
followed by…
“There’s zero history of them limiting Apple aside from the history I mention here”
USB-C does not have MagSafe ability. USB-C magnetic tip adaptors or cables are not compliant with the USB specifications. Hope the EU doesn’t reject those cables from the region!
Have you got a pointer to that?
Sounds great on the surface, but now we have a single body responsible for all future innovation? That’s a shame because the USB-C connector is a poor design in my opinion. Why put the delicate bit on the side that’s more expensive to fix?
I’m joining the “Apple should do this …” crowd.
Apple should buy Intel and Qualcomm’s legal departments.
Apple should buy Intel and Qualcomm’s legal departments.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
It’s not about it being a multi piece, but the possibility to have it be magnetic, as it’s not included in the specifications.
And I know the appeal, I refused to upgrade my retina MacBook Pro when they removed MagSafe and went all in with usb-c only. And argued to the death why it was a good thing to have a MagSafe port instead of an extra usb c port.
But Apple could create a port specifically made to work exa like MagSafe using USB-C as nothing stop’s then from doing it.
Instead of needing to use a third party solution
Or as now, offer both at the same time.
But currently you imagine limits that doesn’t exist
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
But they weren’t limited by anyone. Apple is the one who limited the use of lightning.
Apple sits on the board of USB-IF. They dictate how new standards and ports are developed. They hate microusb, and decided to develop a different port nobody but they could use. They had every opportunity to implement lightning as the new industry standard.
I have found zero evidence of it being non compliant with usb c standards. And there is no reason it couldn’t become part of it.
EU have zero interest in cables. They are interested in the port in your device that mandates what specific cable to be used.
But I do think they will implement a minimum standard for included cables so we end up better than the usb forum have.
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
Yep, in the legal text they explicitly link to them. This makes the legislation update automatically without a need for a new debate or slow bureaucratic mess. The companies are already members of the USB-IF organization where they can influence the literal experts directly.
Here you have it. EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021
This string is explicitly IEC standard. And this document then links to whatever the USB consortium decides
Sophisticatednut
macrumors 68030
And the USB consortium is only responsible for USB. Nothing stopping other standards such as hdmi and. Wi-Fi etc.
Probably because Apple already used lightning and this would become a lawsuit from Apple for copying their design.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the reference is to a specific edition of a published standard. AFAIK the consortium cannot just modified an already published edition of the standard: they would need to publish a new edition instead.
This means even if the consortium updates the standard, it would be by publishing e.g. a 2022 edition, which would be irrelevant to the regulation until said regulation gets updated to reference the 2022 edition instead of the 2021 one.
Non Europeans who don’t truly understand consumer rights and why the commission is pursuing these issues make me laugh. It’s the classic mentality of eunuchs who were fervent supporters of the very emperors that ordered them to be castrated.