The Apple patents used against Samsung were not standards essential. You see, there are two standards and not a double standard. Apple is saying Ericsson's patents are not actually SEP even though Ericsson pledged them as such. As part of this it will need to be determined if they are actually required to implement LTE. If they are, then a rate will need to be determined that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Charging a percentage of the final product for SEPs is ludicrous for any company.
@Phone-UI-Guy : No, Apple is not contesting the validity of Ericsson's patents or claiming Ericsson defrauded any SSO -- either by lying about offering FRAND licensing terms, or by failing to disclose its IPR in standard essential patents. Ericsson was once a leader in mobile tech and still possesses "seminal" wireless patents that are not pledged to any SSO (therefore not bounded by any FRAND terms).
The Apple patents used against Samsung were not standards essential. You see, there are two standards and not a double standard. Apple is saying Ericsson's patents are not actually SEP even though Ericsson pledged them as such. As part of this it will need to be determined if they are actually required to implement LTE. If they are, then a rate will need to be determined that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Charging a percentage of the final product for SEPs is ludicrous for any company.
Seems like an odd strategy. If they aren't SEP then they have no obligation to be FRAND, and Ericsson can charge whatever they like, so why are Apple pursuing that argument?
Why should Apple make more profit than any other manufacturer and charge more for their phones than anyone else? If you answer 'because they can', that would be one answer. What's this 'forced'? If I complained about the high price of an iPhone and said I was being 'forced' to pay, I would be shot down in a heartbeat.
Why do real estate agent's get away with charging sellers a percentage of the sale price of a house when the effort involved in selling is probably fairly fixed?
Apple don't charge much more, (if at all), for their iPhones than Samsung does for their top of the line Galaxy's. Which are the phones that the iPhones should be compared to. And the 2% license fee is not based on profit but selling price or MSRP. If it was based on profit, they wouldn't get any royalty from the many phone venders that don't make any money selling their phones.
Plus your real estate analogy is way flawed. Not even close to this. This more like the contractor that brought a house up to code by raising the water heater above the garage floor and then demanding a percentage of the house selling price because the house couldn't be sold if it wasn't brought up to code. Even though the contractor made no effort in trying to find a buyer and had nothing to do with the remodeling of the kitchen and bathroom. Both of which substantially increased the selling price of the house.
What the real estate broker gets is a commission for his/her effort in finding a qualified buyer for the house. A commission is not a royalty. If Ericsson wants a commission, then they should open a store and sell iPhones. I'm sure Apple would be glad to pay them more than 2% for every iPhone they sell.
Seems like an odd strategy. If they aren't SEP then they have no obligation to be FRAND, and Ericsson can charge whatever they like, so why are Apple pursuing that argument?
I think what Apple is saying that even though these patents in question are not SEP, they are esstential for the working of a mobile phone and therefore should be considered SEP. Thus licensed in a FRAND manner.
If these patents are not essential for the working of a mobile phone, then I'm sure Apple has the means and motivation to find a work around (or just not use the at all), before the current license to use them expires.
Apple don't charge much more, (if at all), for their iPhones than Samsung does for their top of the line Galaxy's. Which are the phones that the iPhones should be compared to. And the 2% license fee is not based on profit but selling price or MSRP. If it was based on profit, they wouldn't get any royalty from the many phone venders that don't make any money selling their phones.
Plus your real estate analogy is way flawed. Not even close to this. This more like the contractor that brought a house up to code by raising the water heater above the garage floor and then demanding a percentage of the house selling price because the house couldn't be sold if it wasn't brought up to code. Even though the contractor made no effort in trying to find a buyer and had nothing to do with the remodeling of the kitchen and bathroom. Both of which substantially increased the selling price of the house.
What the real estate broker gets is a commission for his/her effort in finding a qualified buyer for the house. A commission is not a royalty. If Ericsson wants a commission, then they should open a store and sell iPhones. I'm sure Apple would be glad to pay them more than 2% for every iPhone they sell.
On Amazon.co.uk, the iPhone 6 16Gb is 38% more expensive than a 16Gb S5.
Even now, on Amazon, the 5S 16GB is quoted by Amazon as having a rrp of £699, which would have made it 46% more expensive than the S5
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
... It was just an example of one of many instances where commercial transactions are done on a percentage basis and not a fixed price. ...
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/101704/RedGeminiPA" style="display:inline-block;">@RedGeminiPA</a>
: How do you know that Apple is "forced" to pay more than other companies?
Firstly, Samsung had a similar dispute over licensing renewal a couple of years back and it ended in a settlement last year. According to the Bloomberg article cited here, "the deal boosted Ericsson’s 2013 fourth-quarter sales by 4.2 billion kronor ($520 million) and net income by 3.3 billion kronor." I'm guessing Apple would probably have to pay a lot more since it has so little to counter-offer (ie, cross-license) -- or maybe Ericsson isn't really looking to cross-license anything since it's not in the smartphone biz. Further, it's a well-established industry practice to charge per device in the mobile industry. Qualcomm for instance is been known to charge anywhere between 2%-5% per device for their wireless patents.
@iamnemani: <span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.4em;">Second, Bloomberg also notes, "</span>
[SIZE=13px]Apple, saying that Ericsson is seeking excessive royalty rates, yesterday asked a federal court in [/SIZE]<a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/california/" style="color:rgb(0,51,153);font-size:13px;line-height:1.4em;" target="_blank">California</a>
[SIZE=13px] to rule that Ericsson’s patents aren’t essential to long term evolution, or LTE, standards. Stockholm-based Ericsson said today it filed a complaint in a district court in [/SIZE]<a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/texas/" style="color:rgb(0,51,153);font-size:13px;line-height:1.4em;" target="_blank">Texas</a>
[SIZE=13px], asking for a verdict on whether its fees are fair." So no, this has little to do with SEPs and Ericsson can charge whatever it "feels like." Apple used the same argument to demand $25 - $30 per device royalty from Samsung and won in a jury trial in 2012, so why such double-standard?[/SIZE]
Why should Apple make more profit than any other manufacturer and charge more for their phones than anyone else? If you answer 'because they can', that would be one answer. What's this 'forced'? If I complained about the high price of an iPhone and said I was being 'forced' to pay, I would be shot down in a heartbeat.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
On Amazon.co.uk, the iPhone 6 16Gb is 38% more expensive than a 16Gb S5.
Even now, on Amazon, the 5S 16GB is quoted by Amazon as having a rrp of £699, which would have made it 46% more expensive than the S5
You need to compare apples to apples. You need to see what the original list price of each phone was when they came out and compare those prices. Just because an iPhone retain its' high price longer than a Samsung Galaxy is not proof that Apple charges much more for their iPhones. Apple don't release a new phone (or version), that brings down the value of any of their older phones, every 3 months. You don't really think for a second that if Samsung could charge 30% more for their phones, that they wouldn't? Maybe you think that the reason why Samsung suffered just a big drop in profit last quarter was because they were being nice and didn't want charge more for their phones than they could have.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
This guy, not you, has the illusion that there would be nothing wrong with Sears basing the price of their washers and dryers on the value of the purchasers house that it's going into. So a person living in a million dollar home will end up paying 3X as much, as the person living in a $350,000 home, for the same washer and dryer.
You need to compare apples to apples. You need to see what the original list price of each phone was when they came out and compare those prices. Just because an iPhone retain its' high price longer than a Samsung Galaxy is not proof that Apple charges much more for their iPhones. Apple don't release a new phone (or version), that brings down the value of any of their older phones, every 3 months. You don't really think for a second that if Samsung could charge 30% more for their phones, that they wouldn't? Maybe you think that the reason why Samsung suffered just a big drop in profit last quarter was because they were being nice and didn't want charge more for their phones than they could have.
You were incorrect in your assertion, sorry. Shifting goal posts and equivocation won't fix it.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
That would not be fair, but is that what is happening?
An interesting tidbit for those that may have forgotten: Ericsson is an original member of the Rockstar Consortium, partnering alongside Apple.
Another tidbit: Earlier this year Ericsson reached a licensiong agreement with Samsung on the same SEP package that Apple is complaining about. How much? A little over a $Billion this year (which does include back royalties for some number of months last year that Samsung disputed the amount owed), suggesting several $Billion in royalties over the contract term will flow to Ericsson from Samsung alone. http://www.ericsson.com/news/1757163
There doesn't seem to be anything outrageous or unfair here.
Apple wants to pay Ericsson a certain rate for these standards essential LTE patents. Ericsson wants to Apple to pay a different rate for these standards essential LTE patents. They can't come to an agreement. Hence, Apple takes Ericsson to court to have chance at the rate they want, or to have the court negotiate a rate for them.
Standard operating procedure for standards essentials patent rates.
You need to compare apples to apples. You need to see what the original list price of each phone was when they came out and compare those prices. Just because an iPhone retain its' high price longer than a Samsung Galaxy is not proof that Apple charges much more for their iPhones. Apple don't release a new phone (or version), that brings down the value of any of their older phones, every 3 months. You don't really think for a second that if Samsung could charge 30% more for their phones, that they wouldn't? Maybe you think that the reason why Samsung suffered just a big drop in profit last quarter was because they were being nice and didn't want charge more for their phones than they could have.
According to various documents Ericssons' royalty is tied to the wholesale price of the handset, i.e. the price paid by carriers/resellers, rather than the retail/consumer price. That effective rate is 1.5%, or about $6 on a $400 (wholesale) device. For comparison purposes Qualcomm's standard rate is 3.25% of the device cost, or about $13 on that same handset.
By my calculations when all LTE SEP contributors are included it looks like as much as 16% or more, or around $55 of the handset cost could be going out in SEP royalties on that $400 handset.
You were incorrect in your assertion, sorry. Shifting goal posts and equivocation won't fix it.
You are not even in the same ball park. You can't compare the cost of a nearly 1 year old Samsung Galaxy S5 to a 3 month old iPhone 6 and use that as proof that Apple charges more for their phones. The iPhone 6 is a generation ahead. Nor can you use a 1 year old iPhone 5s because Samsung miscalculated the demand, (by a long shot), for the Galaxy S5 and produced way, way too many of them. Or haven't you heard? Therefore, there's a reason why the Galaxy S5 is on clearance sale everywhere. It's because Samsung needs to get rid of the inventory. Compare the cost of the Galaxy S5 when it first came out to the cost of the iPhone 5s when it came out and you won't see too much of a difference in price. And I bet you won't see too much of a difference in price when you compare the price of the Apple iPhone 6 to their newly announced Samsung A7, when that comes out. Or do you think that the cost of new Samsung A7 will be closer to what their Galaxy S5 sells for now?
You are not even in the same ball park. You can't compare the cost of a nearly 1 year old Samsung Galaxy S5 to a 3 month old iPhone 6 and use that as proof that Apple charges more for their phones. The iPhone 6 is a generation ahead. Nor can you use a 1 year old iPhone 5s because Samsung miscalculated the demand, (by a long shot), for the Galaxy S5 and produced way, way too many of them. Or haven't you heard? Therefore, there's a reason why the Galaxy S5 is on clearance sale everywhere. It's because Samsung needs to get rid of the inventory. Compare the cost of the Galaxy S5 when it first came out to the cost of the iPhone 5s when it came out and you won't see too much of a difference in price. And I bet you won't see too much of a difference in price when you compare the price of the Apple iPhone 6 to their newly announced Samsung A7, when that comes out. Or do you think that the cost of new Samsung A7 will be closer to what their Galaxy S5 sells for now?
Doesn't matter. The royalties aren't tied to retail pricing anyway.
OH, and BTW Ericsson has now counter-sued (in Texas of course) saying they've tried for two years to reach agreement with Apple.
There doesn't seem to be anything outrageous or unfair here.
Apple wants to pay Ericsson a certain rate for these standards essential LTE patents. Ericsson wants to Apple to pay a different rate for these standards essential LTE patents. They can't come to an agreement. Hence, Apple takes Ericsson to court to have chance at the rate they want, or to have the court negotiate a rate for them.
Standard operating procedure for standards essentials patent rates.
Are you guys even reading the article? Not all Ericsson's patents are SEP -- or licensed under FRAND terms.
EDIT: just read Ericsson's filing. I have to backtrack my comment about Ericsson's patents in question -- the lawsuit is about Ericsson's SEPs. Apple is essentially arguing that (1) Ericsson's SEPs are not in fact "essential" -- therefore Apple does not infringe on Ericsson's patents. But, (2) if they are "essential," they must be licensed under FRAND terms.
You are not even in the same ball park. You can't compare the cost of a nearly 1 year old Samsung Galaxy S5 to a 3 month old iPhone 6 and use that as proof that Apple charges more for their phones. The iPhone 6 is a generation ahead. Nor can you use a 1 year old iPhone 5s because Samsung miscalculated the demand, (by a long shot), for the Galaxy S5 and produced way, way too many of them. Or haven't you heard? Therefore, there's a reason why the Galaxy S5 is on clearance sale everywhere. It's because Samsung needs to get rid of the inventory. Compare the cost of the Galaxy S5 when it first came out to the cost of the iPhone 5s when it came out and you won't see too much of a difference in price. And I bet you won't see too much of a difference in price when you compare the price of the Apple iPhone 6 to their newly announced Samsung A7, when that comes out. Or do you think that the cost of new Samsung A7 will be closer to what their Galaxy S5 sells for now?
Galaxy S5 at launch - £550, iPhone 5S 32 Gb at launch - £629
I think the A7 isn't a flagship model and is just a rushed stop-gap based on the A5 while they work on the next flagship, the S6. PC advisor thinks it will be £399, a tad more than the A5 which I think it is destined to replace.
Comments
...and has been standard practice in the industry for years, and long before the iPhone existed. Ericsson isn't an outlier.
A few reasons come to mind.
So the question should be, why do you believe Apple should be profit-less from their handset sales like their less effective competitors?
The Apple patents used against Samsung were not standards essential. You see, there are two standards and not a double standard. Apple is saying Ericsson's patents are not actually SEP even though Ericsson pledged them as such. As part of this it will need to be determined if they are actually required to implement LTE. If they are, then a rate will need to be determined that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Charging a percentage of the final product for SEPs is ludicrous for any company.
@Phone-UI-Guy : No, Apple is not contesting the validity of Ericsson's patents or claiming Ericsson defrauded any SSO -- either by lying about offering FRAND licensing terms, or by failing to disclose its IPR in standard essential patents. Ericsson was once a leader in mobile tech and still possesses "seminal" wireless patents that are not pledged to any SSO (therefore not bounded by any FRAND terms).
Why should Apple make more profit than any other manufacturer and charge more for their phones than anyone else? If you answer 'because they can', that would be one answer. What's this 'forced'? If I complained about the high price of an iPhone and said I was being 'forced' to pay, I would be shot down in a heartbeat.
Why do real estate agent's get away with charging sellers a percentage of the sale price of a house when the effort involved in selling is probably fairly fixed?
Apple don't charge much more, (if at all), for their iPhones than Samsung does for their top of the line Galaxy's. Which are the phones that the iPhones should be compared to. And the 2% license fee is not based on profit but selling price or MSRP. If it was based on profit, they wouldn't get any royalty from the many phone venders that don't make any money selling their phones.
Plus your real estate analogy is way flawed. Not even close to this. This more like the contractor that brought a house up to code by raising the water heater above the garage floor and then demanding a percentage of the house selling price because the house couldn't be sold if it wasn't brought up to code. Even though the contractor made no effort in trying to find a buyer and had nothing to do with the remodeling of the kitchen and bathroom. Both of which substantially increased the selling price of the house.
What the real estate broker gets is a commission for his/her effort in finding a qualified buyer for the house. A commission is not a royalty. If Ericsson wants a commission, then they should open a store and sell iPhones. I'm sure Apple would be glad to pay them more than 2% for every iPhone they sell.
Seems like an odd strategy. If they aren't SEP then they have no obligation to be FRAND, and Ericsson can charge whatever they like, so why are Apple pursuing that argument?
I think what Apple is saying that even though these patents in question are not SEP, they are esstential for the working of a mobile phone and therefore should be considered SEP. Thus licensed in a FRAND manner.
If these patents are not essential for the working of a mobile phone, then I'm sure Apple has the means and motivation to find a work around (or just not use the at all), before the current license to use them expires.
Apple don't charge much more, (if at all), for their iPhones than Samsung does for their top of the line Galaxy's. Which are the phones that the iPhones should be compared to. And the 2% license fee is not based on profit but selling price or MSRP. If it was based on profit, they wouldn't get any royalty from the many phone venders that don't make any money selling their phones.
Plus your real estate analogy is way flawed. Not even close to this. This more like the contractor that brought a house up to code by raising the water heater above the garage floor and then demanding a percentage of the house selling price because the house couldn't be sold if it wasn't brought up to code. Even though the contractor made no effort in trying to find a buyer and had nothing to do with the remodeling of the kitchen and bathroom. Both of which substantially increased the selling price of the house.
What the real estate broker gets is a commission for his/her effort in finding a qualified buyer for the house. A commission is not a royalty. If Ericsson wants a commission, then they should open a store and sell iPhones. I'm sure Apple would be glad to pay them more than 2% for every iPhone they sell.
On Amazon.co.uk, the iPhone 6 16Gb is 38% more expensive than a 16Gb S5.
Even now, on Amazon, the 5S 16GB is quoted by Amazon as having a rrp of £699, which would have made it 46% more expensive than the S5
... It was just an example of one of many instances where commercial transactions are done on a percentage basis and not a fixed price. ...
Apple patents aren't part of a standard.
Why should Apple make more profit than any other manufacturer and charge more for their phones than anyone else? If you answer 'because they can', that would be one answer. What's this 'forced'? If I complained about the high price of an iPhone and said I was being 'forced' to pay, I would be shot down in a heartbeat.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
On Amazon.co.uk, the iPhone 6 16Gb is 38% more expensive than a 16Gb S5.
Even now, on Amazon, the 5S 16GB is quoted by Amazon as having a rrp of £699, which would have made it 46% more expensive than the S5
You need to compare apples to apples. You need to see what the original list price of each phone was when they came out and compare those prices. Just because an iPhone retain its' high price longer than a Samsung Galaxy is not proof that Apple charges much more for their iPhones. Apple don't release a new phone (or version), that brings down the value of any of their older phones, every 3 months. You don't really think for a second that if Samsung could charge 30% more for their phones, that they wouldn't? Maybe you think that the reason why Samsung suffered just a big drop in profit last quarter was because they were being nice and didn't want charge more for their phones than they could have.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
This guy, not you, has the illusion that there would be nothing wrong with Sears basing the price of their washers and dryers on the value of the purchasers house that it's going into. So a person living in a million dollar home will end up paying 3X as much, as the person living in a $350,000 home, for the same washer and dryer.
You need to compare apples to apples. You need to see what the original list price of each phone was when they came out and compare those prices. Just because an iPhone retain its' high price longer than a Samsung Galaxy is not proof that Apple charges much more for their iPhones. Apple don't release a new phone (or version), that brings down the value of any of their older phones, every 3 months. You don't really think for a second that if Samsung could charge 30% more for their phones, that they wouldn't? Maybe you think that the reason why Samsung suffered just a big drop in profit last quarter was because they were being nice and didn't want charge more for their phones than they could have.
You were incorrect in your assertion, sorry. Shifting goal posts and equivocation won't fix it.
If company A buys Erricson tech for their product and pays the royalty for that chip, and company B buys the same tech for their pricey product and Erricson wants royalty based on price of pricey product, how is that fair?
Face it... your argument is shaky to say the least.
That would not be fair, but is that what is happening?
http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/press/backgrounders/ipr_licensing_press_backgrounder.pdf
An interesting tidbit for those that may have forgotten: Ericsson is an original member of the Rockstar Consortium, partnering alongside Apple.
Another tidbit: Earlier this year Ericsson reached a licensiong agreement with Samsung on the same SEP package that Apple is complaining about. How much? A little over a $Billion this year (which does include back royalties for some number of months last year that Samsung disputed the amount owed), suggesting several $Billion in royalties over the contract term will flow to Ericsson from Samsung alone.
http://www.ericsson.com/news/1757163
There doesn't seem to be anything outrageous or unfair here.
Apple wants to pay Ericsson a certain rate for these standards essential LTE patents. Ericsson wants to Apple to pay a different rate for these standards essential LTE patents. They can't come to an agreement. Hence, Apple takes Ericsson to court to have chance at the rate they want, or to have the court negotiate a rate for them.
Standard operating procedure for standards essentials patent rates.
By my calculations when all LTE SEP contributors are included it looks like as much as 16% or more, or around $55 of the handset cost could be going out in SEP royalties on that $400 handset.
You were incorrect in your assertion, sorry. Shifting goal posts and equivocation won't fix it.
You are not even in the same ball park. You can't compare the cost of a nearly 1 year old Samsung Galaxy S5 to a 3 month old iPhone 6 and use that as proof that Apple charges more for their phones. The iPhone 6 is a generation ahead. Nor can you use a 1 year old iPhone 5s because Samsung miscalculated the demand, (by a long shot), for the Galaxy S5 and produced way, way too many of them. Or haven't you heard? Therefore, there's a reason why the Galaxy S5 is on clearance sale everywhere. It's because Samsung needs to get rid of the inventory. Compare the cost of the Galaxy S5 when it first came out to the cost of the iPhone 5s when it came out and you won't see too much of a difference in price. And I bet you won't see too much of a difference in price when you compare the price of the Apple iPhone 6 to their newly announced Samsung A7, when that comes out. Or do you think that the cost of new Samsung A7 will be closer to what their Galaxy S5 sells for now?
Doesn't matter. The royalties aren't tied to retail pricing anyway.
OH, and BTW Ericsson has now counter-sued (in Texas of course) saying they've tried for two years to reach agreement with Apple.
There doesn't seem to be anything outrageous or unfair here.
Apple wants to pay Ericsson a certain rate for these standards essential LTE patents. Ericsson wants to Apple to pay a different rate for these standards essential LTE patents. They can't come to an agreement. Hence, Apple takes Ericsson to court to have chance at the rate they want, or to have the court negotiate a rate for them.
Standard operating procedure for standards essentials patent rates.
Are you guys even reading the article? Not all Ericsson's patents are SEP -- or licensed under FRAND terms.
EDIT: just read Ericsson's filing. I have to backtrack my comment about Ericsson's patents in question -- the lawsuit is about Ericsson's SEPs. Apple is essentially arguing that (1) Ericsson's SEPs are not in fact "essential" -- therefore Apple does not infringe on Ericsson's patents. But, (2) if they are "essential," they must be licensed under FRAND terms.
You are not even in the same ball park. You can't compare the cost of a nearly 1 year old Samsung Galaxy S5 to a 3 month old iPhone 6 and use that as proof that Apple charges more for their phones. The iPhone 6 is a generation ahead. Nor can you use a 1 year old iPhone 5s because Samsung miscalculated the demand, (by a long shot), for the Galaxy S5 and produced way, way too many of them. Or haven't you heard? Therefore, there's a reason why the Galaxy S5 is on clearance sale everywhere. It's because Samsung needs to get rid of the inventory. Compare the cost of the Galaxy S5 when it first came out to the cost of the iPhone 5s when it came out and you won't see too much of a difference in price. And I bet you won't see too much of a difference in price when you compare the price of the Apple iPhone 6 to their newly announced Samsung A7, when that comes out. Or do you think that the cost of new Samsung A7 will be closer to what their Galaxy S5 sells for now?
Galaxy S5 at launch - £550, iPhone 5S 32 Gb at launch - £629
I think the A7 isn't a flagship model and is just a rushed stop-gap based on the A5 while they work on the next flagship, the S6. PC advisor thinks it will be £399, a tad more than the A5 which I think it is destined to replace.