you'd think you guys would have multinational telecoms by now.
They do. By being competitive towards themselves. These telcos buy companies, have them retain there name but absorb tech and put everything under their own umbrella. The only thing that is different is the logo and invoice-look. Works abroad as well. KPN in NL owns telcos in BE, DE, UK. Don't think for a moment they are clever enough to create something unique, incentive to get customers enjoy no roaming fees because you're still on the same network/provider after crossing the border. But I digress, and stress, because of this.
One disclaimer is that I don't know if there is some weird law preventing this.
I dunno if this is "key". Does anyone else even use SIM trays as opposed to "pop the cover off, take the battery out, open that stupid little metal door, and put a SIM in"?
It could be key if others are forced to adopt this design going forward for whatever reason. That seems to be implied by the article, but I don't know if it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
Now with most American carriers implementing shared data plans, and the size of nano SIM, I agree that it is likely that Apple will include.
The biggest hurdle to adoption in Apple's laptop lineup is Moto and Samsung wireless FRAND SEPs demands.
In the current situation, Moto wants $24 and Samsung $22.50 per $1000 MacBook Air sold, for patents in a radio chip that costs $8 to make and sell to Apple. That would equate to over $100 of each $2200 MBP Retina sold.
All these FRAND SEP lawsuits need to be settled before Apple will include LTE in their laptop lineup.
It's not an entirely bad system in that it helps enable budget devices, which are needed in many markets.
Apple gets a patent for sticking a pin in a hole to eject the SIM?
This patent is for a specific combination of features in a SIM socket, such as the ejector arrangement, retaining clips locations, and using certain metal and plastic pieces in multiple ways (including being the axis for the ejector).
Other companies do not have to create their sockets in exactly the same ways that Apple is claiming here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
The biggest hurdle to adoption in Apple's laptop lineup is Moto and Samsung wireless FRAND SEPs demands.
Hmm. You really think so? Seems doubtful that price is holding Apple back. They'd just pass the cost onto their customers with a markup, like they do now to get their high profit margins and for their huge memory increment charges.
In the current situation, Moto wants $24 and Samsung $22.50 per $1000 MacBook Air sold, for patents in a radio chip that costs $8 to make and sell to Apple. That would equate to over $100 of each $2200 MBP Retina sold.
Moto and Samsung are cheap compared to Qualcomm, who asks about 3.2% of the price, or $32 per $1000.
Of course, these highest rates are just a starting point for negotiations. Quantity discounts help. And not that Apple would do it, but cross license IP like everyone else, and rates can drop to a tenth of the original asking price.
This patent is for a specific combination of features in a SIM socket, such as the ejector arrangement, retaining clips locations, and using certain metal and plastic pieces in multiple ways (including being the axis for the ejector).
Other companies do not have to create their sockets in exactly the same ways that Apple is claiming here.
Hmm. You really think so? Seems doubtful that price is holding Apple back. They'd just pass the cost onto their customers with a markup, like they do now to get their high profit margins and for their huge memory increment charges.
Moto and Samsung are cheap compared to Qualcomm, who asks about 3.2% of the price, or $32 per $1000.
Of course, these highest rates are just a starting point for negotiations. Quantity discounts help. And not that Apple would do it, but cross license IP like everyone else, and rates can drop to a tenth of the original asking price.
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
It does raise the question of "why can't we, The People of Europe, shake the shackles of companies...". After all, SFR and vodafone are the same company and definitely should enable me to switch from my vodafone-france (SFR) to my vodafone-NL accont in a simple i-touch...
Apart from having completely different suppliers such as Bouygues in Paris and Telfort in the NL, obviously.
I lived in Europe for many years and while the idea of the worlds largest unified marketed sounded great, the reality was much different. Telecoms as you mention, have so much political power that the unified market doesn't apply to them as far as consumers are concerned. For infrastructure, they get cheap cross border sales, but consumers are screwed.
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
Standalone LTE customers would pay the lower LTE rate of 3.25%.
What Qualcomm said was that they would not charge combination (e.g. LTE + 3G ) devices more than their rate without LTE.
The reason is that those non-LTE royalty rates were often higher (3.4 % to 5%) than the LTE rate.
So if you were already paying 4% of the price of your device without LTE, you'd still pay the same 4% for that device with LTE, instead of adding on another 3.25%.
--
For real example, one Wall Street analyst posted these calculations for the LTE iPad:
"QCOM is the likely baseband chip supplier — we estimate
~ $16 of content for QCOM at ~ 30% operating margins drives $4-$5 of chip operating profits per 4G iPad for QCOM
More importantly, we estimate ~$10-$15 of royalty income for QCOM for every 4G iPad based on a 5% royalty rate on a $300 build price for the iPad3."
In other words, Qualcomm sells JUST their physical chipset to Apple for $16.
Additionally, Qualcomm charges Apple 3.3% to 5% royalty ($10 to $15) for some tablet models to be a combination GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE device.
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
You are way out of your league on this subject.
The "old 3G price" that Qualcomm is willing to carryover to 4G was fairly high Spacepower. Exactly as KDarling said, it's based on the completed device price, not just the cost of a particular Qualcomm chip. Fair? IMHO not really, but it is what it is and an accepted industry practice for setting royalties. Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Motorola among others all collect royalties on a completed device and not a couple of components.
Comments
They do. By being competitive towards themselves. These telcos buy companies, have them retain there name but absorb tech and put everything under their own umbrella. The only thing that is different is the logo and invoice-look. Works abroad as well. KPN in NL owns telcos in BE, DE, UK. Don't think for a moment they are clever enough to create something unique, incentive to get customers enjoy no roaming fees because you're still on the same network/provider after crossing the border. But I digress, and stress, because of this.
One disclaimer is that I don't know if there is some weird law preventing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I dunno if this is "key". Does anyone else even use SIM trays as opposed to "pop the cover off, take the battery out, open that stupid little metal door, and put a SIM in"?
It could be key if others are forced to adopt this design going forward for whatever reason. That seems to be implied by the article, but I don't know if it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
Now with most American carriers implementing shared data plans, and the size of nano SIM, I agree that it is likely that Apple will include.
The biggest hurdle to adoption in Apple's laptop lineup is Moto and Samsung wireless FRAND SEPs demands.
In the current situation, Moto wants $24 and Samsung $22.50 per $1000 MacBook Air sold, for patents in a radio chip that costs $8 to make and sell to Apple. That would equate to over $100 of each $2200 MBP Retina sold.
All these FRAND SEP lawsuits need to be settled before Apple will include LTE in their laptop lineup.
It's not an entirely bad system in that it helps enable budget devices, which are needed in many markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Apple gets a patent for sticking a pin in a hole to eject the SIM?
This patent is for a specific combination of features in a SIM socket, such as the ejector arrangement, retaining clips locations, and using certain metal and plastic pieces in multiple ways (including being the axis for the ejector).
Other companies do not have to create their sockets in exactly the same ways that Apple is claiming here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
The biggest hurdle to adoption in Apple's laptop lineup is Moto and Samsung wireless FRAND SEPs demands.
Hmm. You really think so? Seems doubtful that price is holding Apple back. They'd just pass the cost onto their customers with a markup, like they do now to get their high profit margins and for their huge memory increment charges.
In the current situation, Moto wants $24 and Samsung $22.50 per $1000 MacBook Air sold, for patents in a radio chip that costs $8 to make and sell to Apple. That would equate to over $100 of each $2200 MBP Retina sold.
Moto and Samsung are cheap compared to Qualcomm, who asks about 3.2% of the price, or $32 per $1000.
Of course, these highest rates are just a starting point for negotiations. Quantity discounts help. And not that Apple would do it, but cross license IP like everyone else, and rates can drop to a tenth of the original asking price.
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
You are way out of your league on this subject.
I lived in Europe for many years and while the idea of the worlds largest unified marketed sounded great, the reality was much different. Telecoms as you mention, have so much political power that the unified market doesn't apply to them as far as consumers are concerned. For infrastructure, they get cheap cross border sales, but consumers are screwed.
But, not because we need to. Like evolving to spread across the Earth like a cancer because we figured out how to wear clothes and burn oil.
Originally Posted by sr2012
But, not because we need to. Like evolving to spread across the Earth like a cancer because we figured out how to wear clothes and burn oil.
People against sentience are, within that civilization, unworthy of consideration.
I'm not against sentience, I'm for not destroying this sentience we have come to enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
Standalone LTE customers would pay the lower LTE rate of 3.25%.
What Qualcomm said was that they would not charge combination (e.g. LTE + 3G ) devices more than their rate without LTE.
The reason is that those non-LTE royalty rates were often higher (3.4 % to 5%) than the LTE rate.
So if you were already paying 4% of the price of your device without LTE, you'd still pay the same 4% for that device with LTE, instead of adding on another 3.25%.
--
For real example, one Wall Street analyst posted these calculations for the LTE iPad:
"QCOM is the likely baseband chip supplier — we estimate
~ $16 of content for QCOM at ~ 30% operating margins drives $4-$5 of chip operating profits per 4G iPad for QCOM
More importantly, we estimate ~$10-$15 of royalty income for QCOM for every 4G iPad based on a 5% royalty rate on a $300 build price for the iPad3."
In other words, Qualcomm sells JUST their physical chipset to Apple for $16.
Additionally, Qualcomm charges Apple 3.3% to 5% royalty ($10 to $15) for some tablet models to be a combination GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
No one has paid this Qualcomm numbers yet and they specifically said that LTE customers get the old 3G prices.
You are way out of your league on this subject.
The "old 3G price" that Qualcomm is willing to carryover to 4G was fairly high Spacepower. Exactly as KDarling said, it's based on the completed device price, not just the cost of a particular Qualcomm chip. Fair? IMHO not really, but it is what it is and an accepted industry practice for setting royalties. Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, and Motorola among others all collect royalties on a completed device and not a couple of components.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279766/index.htm