Apple and Nokia settle patent dispute, agree to multi-year license

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    melgross said:

    rob53 said:
    k2kw said:
    gatorguy said:
    Huh. So one minute Apple is calling Nokia "a patent troll" and the next they become business partners. So goes negotiations by PR. 
    Hopefully Apple will wise up and make a deal with Qualcomm .  Don't want any more inferior Intel chips in the iPhone - you're screwing your customers Apple.

    Nothing wrong with the Intel modems. So no, Apple is not screwing with customers.
    True. The only reason Apple still needs Qualcomm is because Verizon, Sprint, and US Cellular still use it (in the US) instead of the more global standard of GSM. When I use my Verizon iPhone 6S in Canada, it switches to GSM. Get rid of CDMA and Qualcomm isn't required. 
    Either late this year, or next year, Apple won't need Qualcomm as Intel has purchased a second radio company that builds CDMA radios, and has sufficient patents to allow Intel to build.d radios with bothe GSM and CDMA.
    So ... it is better to pay Intel than to license the tech from Qualcomm? Why? Because of spite over Qualcomm demanding to be compensated for the intellectual property that they put R&D into developing with no guarantee that the R&D would pay off with a profitable product? Particularly if Intel's tech is inferior to Qualcomm's in the first place?
    Because Qualcomm is seeking extraordinary compensation for use of their patents. Apple is right to seek alternatives.
  • Reply 22 of 24
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    k2kw said:
    gatorguy said:
    Huh. So one minute Apple is calling Nokia "a patent troll" and the next they become business partners. So goes negotiations by PR. 
    Hopefully Apple will wise up and make a deal with Qualcomm .  Don't want any more inferior Intel chips in the iPhone - you're screwing your customers Apple.
    How exactly are you being screwed? Be specific.
    Intel's current chips aren't as powerful as what Qualcomm offers so Apple artificially reduced the higher end performance of the Qualcomm chips to bring them inline with the Intel chips.
    Bah! Except for a tiny number of places around the world, no carrier offers real world speeds that would have utilized the greater speeds of the Qualcomm chip. These companies are all huffing and puffing about higher speeds, but you don't see them anywhere.

    now, Apple has applied for a license to test LTE 5G between their headcourters and an old campus. They got the license today. That's great, but we can't deliver more than about 10% of current LTE speeds almost anywhere.
    1) Your first paragraph contradicts itself. You start enough saying "except for a tiny number of places" and then end with "you don't see them anywhere."

    2) Even if this capability was not available in a single market, it's still means that Intel's chips can be measured as inferior to Qualcomm's offerings in the same device. I'm personally not affected by this, and yet I'm glad that I have the model with the Qualcomm chip in case this helps with the resale value since Apple may update the drivers to support faster speeds in the future.
    No, it's not. We don't see these current extra high speeds except in a very few places anywhere. I'm then talking about the future higher speeds, which companies are huffing and puffing about, such as, just for one example, AT&T, which, last year made a fuss about talking about their new 5G tower installations, which would be ready in a year, when they knew full well that nothing can happen until 2020, at the earliest, since the standard hasn't even been finalized yet, and no cell radios have even been designed because of that.

    two different things.

    who cares if something can be measured as "inferior" when it's useless to have anything better now? It will take years until even the current high speeds propagate out to even a fair number of usable places. By that time, almost no one will even have last year's phone.
  • Reply 23 of 24
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    melgross said:

    rob53 said:
    k2kw said:
    gatorguy said:
    Huh. So one minute Apple is calling Nokia "a patent troll" and the next they become business partners. So goes negotiations by PR. 
    Hopefully Apple will wise up and make a deal with Qualcomm .  Don't want any more inferior Intel chips in the iPhone - you're screwing your customers Apple.

    Nothing wrong with the Intel modems. So no, Apple is not screwing with customers.
    True. The only reason Apple still needs Qualcomm is because Verizon, Sprint, and US Cellular still use it (in the US) instead of the more global standard of GSM. When I use my Verizon iPhone 6S in Canada, it switches to GSM. Get rid of CDMA and Qualcomm isn't required. 
    Either late this year, or next year, Apple won't need Qualcomm as Intel has purchased a second radio company that builds CDMA radios, and has sufficient patents to allow Intel to build.d radios with bothe GSM and CDMA.
    So ... it is better to pay Intel than to license the tech from Qualcomm? Why? Because of spite over Qualcomm demanding to be compensated for the intellectual property that they put R&D into developing with no guarantee that the R&D would pay off with a profitable product? Particularly if Intel's tech is inferior to Qualcomm's in the first place?
    What? You do know that not only does Apple license Qualcomm IP at well over market value, which is why they're suing them for $1 billion, not including past fees, for which they will also be suing them, but they they also pay for the actual physical chips. So they're paying twice.

    so your "argument" makes no sense. If anything, they are paying Qualcomm, and the chip manufacturers more than they would be paying Intel, which is very eagar to get Apple's business.

    and again, back to that tired, and mostly irrelevant argument about performance. Intel's chips go to 150 Mbps. Qualcomm's go to 300 Mbps. I'd like to know anyone who has LTE at over 150Mbps. Anyone at all. I'm supposed to be getting 140 Mbps here in NY, but I get about 35, which varies. Why would I care about Qualcomm? Why would anyone?

    and if they're ripping companies off, which it's been determined they are in a number of locals, then that should mean more. If Qualcomm has to give their illegally obtained profits back, and can't gather them in the future, then we'll see what a company operating legally can really do.
  • Reply 24 of 24
    1st1st Posts: 443member
    Qualcomm is a bit over played their hand everywhere.   Just look at their settlement to BB that was north of 800millipn $. Intel is a more reasonable supplier. 
Sign In or Register to comment.