Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices. There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.
The disagreement on the FRAND side is that Apple feels that Samsung's request isn't meeting FRAND Standards. Samsung itself has admitted that Apple made them a payment offer. One that they refused. Samsung's argument is that the amount Apple wished to pay wasn't high enough.
The issue here is what is Samsung's legitimate asking price. Ie what is the true value of the patent's in question. And remember those patents values are set by law as being formulated as the value before being entered into a standard.
For example a patent that is absolutely necessary to meet the requirement for operating a cellphone on paper is very valuable. But due to being part of a standard is only valued at what that patent would be worth if not part of the cell phone standard. Some will still have some unit by unit value, others will be literally without value. and some of the evidence of this will be what are others who use this patent paying for it. If X company is paying 2 cents a unit on it, then by law and that is what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) is paying for it. Now if everyone else is paying $10 for it (they aren't simply research on all those parts show that is impossible) then of course Apple should also pay the same amount.
The Dutch case Apple's opponent was trying for two things, one a banning of Apple sales (that didn't not occur) and that the court would agree to a large license for those patents, no one currently believes that Apple is going to be paying the high amounts asked for. They will pay for those patents, just not what the other company wanted.
Another example of this was Nokia (the first suit against Apple), Nokia wanted a price far above what Apple believed was FRAND for those particular patents. Nokia demanded X amount, Apple said no. Case went to court, and the amount Apple paid was considered favorable to Apple not Nokia. Meaning Nokia got paid for those patents, but at a value close to what Apple initially offered.
The only real victory against Apple to date on these types of issues was a non FRAND patent in Germany about pushed notifications. Apple had to remove that function (so they couldn't be instant pushed notifications, it could instead be updated notifications that occur every minute instead), not a huge lose, one that in most cases unless you truly depend on second to second updates isn't going to by a significant factor for the majority of Apple's user base.