They already do and have been for many years. But they still lag behind Qualcomm significantly.
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's U.S. ITC Complaint Falling Apart as Apple Implements Workaround in iOS 12.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They already do and have been for many years. But they still lag behind Qualcomm significantly.
Just wait til apple gets smart enough to start selling their processor designs and modem chips...
I think it’s highly more likely for them to sell modem chips. They might not sell their processors. But modems could be a great source of extra income with no real additional work.
I think it’s highly more likely for them to sell modem chips. They might not sell their processors. But modems could be a great source of extra income with no real additional work.
This
Another possibility is, and I think this is what happened, that Apple had a contract with Qualcomm including all licences, when Apple stopped paying they might have asked to pay for those licences but I am pretty sure QC doesn't allow that (read somewhere), so next thing what happens is infringing.
Modem and licences or nothing at all.
QCOM sure picked the wrong hill to die on.
Intel performance gets better every year, and with Apple likely getting involved, it's going to be a bear they shouldn't have awoken.
The world will be full of ‘major players’ that are just big bullies if others just decide to stand for their crap.
I’m glad smaller companies are sticking it to the big boys.
Seriously? An individual can't be held for infringement in this scenario, only Apple can.
This sh*t is so ugly it makes the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit look like a friendly disagreement.
Why do you say that? Anyone, even an end-user/consumer can be infringing if they “use” an device that by its use infringes.
Qualcomm is fighting for its life. Without its “charge different licensees different amounts based not on the quantity of sales but the dollar value of the sales” and its “charge twice - once for the chip, then again for the license” business models, it looks a lot like every other chip maker in the communications space, most of whom make a lot less return on investment than QC.
In theory they could be. But, of course, Qualcomm would never pursue infringement claims against them.
If Apple sells a device that infringes, then a person who buys and uses that device is infringing unless they’ve separately obtained a license. There’s no patent exhaustion which would typically mean they weren’t infringing.
Practically impossible to enforce when it comes to phones. No one will track all people and force them to pay some fee to use it.
The whole QCOM chip and license model along with royalties would have never been sustainable if they were not monopolistic in the 3G and early 4G era.
Pretty much if you wanted to develop a smart phone, you're going through QCOM for the SoC (whereas Apple makes their own) and modem (which Apple does not) and patents for mobile broadband such as good ole CDMA. So of course QCOM would love to settle with Apple, that's a huge chunk of royalties that are no longer getting paid since Apple's suppliers have cut-off the checks.
Pretty much if you wanted to develop a smart phone, you're going through QCOM for the SoC (whereas Apple makes their own) and modem (which Apple does not) and patents for mobile broadband such as good ole CDMA. So of course QCOM would love to settle with Apple, that's a huge chunk of royalties that are no longer getting paid since Apple's suppliers have cut-off the checks.
Samsung already are and shipping them in some of their phones. Qualcomm still can’t reach per-core performance of the iPhone 7, let alone the XS.
My only qualm with Qualcomm is them holding Samsung back from releasing their own processors in American Samsung galaxy devices although last years snapdragon was better than the Exynos but I know Samsung would put so much more into processor research and development if it wasn't for Qualcomms limitations and patents.
So taking Qualcomm down a level would be justice to me even if it has to be by Apple or any other company......can't deny their amazing radios/modems etc compared to those horrible intel ones though.
So taking Qualcomm down a level would be justice to me even if it has to be by Apple or any other company......can't deny their amazing radios/modems etc compared to those horrible intel ones though.
Qualcomm’s business model is toast. Instead of focusing on innovation the Company grew revenues with predatory pricing strategies.
Now the chickens have come home to roost. Qualcomm’s customers are finding it financially beneficial to develop their own processors and modems, all of which stems from Apple’s patent invalidation suits against Qualcomm IP.
That hasn't happened. If you read the article, it clearly says that (a) Apple was most likely never infringing, (b) Qualcomm's witness explained what Apple would need to do so that even Qualcomm would admit Apple is not infringing, and (c) Apple did exactly that.
[doublepost=1549931048][/doublepost]
That engineer has a well paid job making six digits a year, gets a generous rebate on all Apple products anyway, and doesn't have the habit of sitting on his iPad with his arse.
[doublepost=1549931168][/doublepost]
Apple certainly helps a lot. There are rumours that Apple is going into the creation of radio chips. And if Qualcomm is weakened enough, we can be sure that Samsung will start selling to current Qualcomm customers, and not just building chips for its own use.
[doublepost=1549931215][/doublepost]
Which can change very, very quickly.
[doublepost=1549931438][/doublepost]
Thinking about it for two seconds, I have to completely agree with that. Of course during the whole Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, large parts of Samsung were very happily producing chips that Apple was very happily buying. With Qualcomm, there is _nothing_ that Apple wants from them. As far as Apple is concerned, Qualcomm can just die.
We all know Apple likes redundancy and that proven to be true when Jeff Williams testified that Apple also wanted to use Qualcomm chips in the current Xr/Xs series. But I guess when you have Foxconn not sending royalty checks, that was bound to happen.
However on the modem silicon front, I feel Apple has too good of a relationship with Intel to really ever have an issue with. There is just no way at this point that Apple isn't pursing their own modem interests.
However on the modem silicon front, I feel Apple has too good of a relationship with Intel to really ever have an issue with. There is just no way at this point that Apple isn't pursing their own modem interests.
Not true. If a user buys the device in good faith that it is compliant they can’t be held liable for an infringement. The infringement here is the case of Apple abusing the patent in the creation of the device. Not the end users operation of the device. The end user takes no part in the development or creation of the device and as such bears no burden of any infringement that device makes. The intent to infringe can not be satisfied by the end users purchase of the phone.