"Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates."
Android devices that have that same Qualcomm LTE tech in it costs as little as $120, and by this I mean LTE-enabled devices from name-brand companies like LG, Motorola, and Samsung that have the Qualcomm CPU in addition to the Qualcomm modem. Or, which is more likely in the case of Samsung LTE tablets - use their own Exynos SOC and modems for which they have to license the standards from Qualcomm.
Finally, check Qualcomm's revenues. They are less than $25 billion a year. And they made a lot of stuff - networking equipment, satellite equipment, software and services - in addition to making and licensing modems and CPUs. Considering that Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year, there is no way that Apple is paying Qualcomm very much per device. Remember: Samsung sells like 350 million smartphones a year, and most of those are with Qualcomm CPUs AND modems. In fact, nearly all of the 1.5 billion smartphones sold each year have Qualcomm tech, or has tech that was licensed from Qualcomm, particularly if MediaTek (the manufacturer for the hardware used in nearly all the cheap Chinese and Indian mobile devices) has to pay Qualcomm royalties too, and I would imagine that they do. (The MediaTek chips are cheaper than the Intel ones .. but the Intel ones are much better.) So Apple isn't paying Qualcomm a whole lot. $1 billion a year sounds like a ton, but works out to about $4 an iPhone in return for 2G/3G/LTE capability. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them licensing fees of $50 per device over "trade dress" stuff like rounded corners and the shape of app icons. Hopefully Qualcomm's lawyers will remind the judge of that very fact, and ask Apple to explain whether LTE capability is more important to a modern smartphone than trade dress. They would have a hard time claiming so, now that the current and upcoming iPhones look a lot more like the Samsung Galaxy S8 than they do the iPhone 3GS that Apple wanted Samsung to pay $50 a device for the privilege of making devices that looked somewhat similar to.
You should read more closely - the $1billion was "rebates that Qualcomm withheld from Apple". Apple was getting those rebates by agreeing to only use Qualcomm modems. So if Apple is getting $1B in rebates, you can be damn sure Apple was paying a lot more than that.
Perhaps you should take your nonsense and poorly researched posts elsewhere...
Yet out of everything I stated only the $1 billion part was wrong. You are just someone who doesn't like differing opinions. But I would like to hear your opinion over Apple demanding $50 per device from Samsung because of rounded corners and icon shapes in comparison to what Qualcomm wants for the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place. You could pack all the horsepower in the Ax chips that you want, and it wouldn't be much good if your data connection was limited to 1G analog signals would it? And by the way ... Apple was sued for patent infringement over their ARM designs for the Ax chips by the University of Wisconsin ... and lost and had to pay up big. So yeah, I guess that is why you would rather I comment elsewhere, right?
If Apple wins against Qualcomm the way they beat Nokia then Qualcomm will end up with a ton of work (at probably an inflated rate). Never been to impressed by Apple's lawyers - they should have ended up owning samsung.
"Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates."
Android devices that have that same Qualcomm LTE tech in it costs as little as $120, and by this I mean LTE-enabled devices from name-brand companies like LG, Motorola, and Samsung that have the Qualcomm CPU in addition to the Qualcomm modem. Or, which is more likely in the case of Samsung LTE tablets - use their own Exynos SOC and modems for which they have to license the standards from Qualcomm.
Finally, check Qualcomm's revenues. They are less than $25 billion a year. And they made a lot of stuff - networking equipment, satellite equipment, software and services - in addition to making and licensing modems and CPUs. Considering that Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year, there is no way that Apple is paying Qualcomm very much per device. Remember: Samsung sells like 350 million smartphones a year, and most of those are with Qualcomm CPUs AND modems. In fact, nearly all of the 1.5 billion smartphones sold each year have Qualcomm tech, or has tech that was licensed from Qualcomm, particularly if MediaTek (the manufacturer for the hardware used in nearly all the cheap Chinese and Indian mobile devices) has to pay Qualcomm royalties too, and I would imagine that they do. (The MediaTek chips are cheaper than the Intel ones .. but the Intel ones are much better.) So Apple isn't paying Qualcomm a whole lot. $1 billion a year sounds like a ton, but works out to about $4 an iPhone in return for 2G/3G/LTE capability. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them licensing fees of $50 per device over "trade dress" stuff like rounded corners and the shape of app icons. Hopefully Qualcomm's lawyers will remind the judge of that very fact, and ask Apple to explain whether LTE capability is more important to a modern smartphone than trade dress. They would have a hard time claiming so, now that the current and upcoming iPhones look a lot more like the Samsung Galaxy S8 than they do the iPhone 3GS that Apple wanted Samsung to pay $50 a device for the privilege of making devices that looked somewhat similar to.
Reportedly apple is paying qcom about $20 per iPhone which is a considerable amount. This issue is complex, but qcom is or was getting paid royalties by the contract manufacturers and apple was paying in addition to this with some rebates supposedly. To know what should be paid the whole concept of FRAND licensing comes into play. I think that QCOM is true and fully screwed especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on patent exhaustion.
It is curious. $20 per iPhone when a Moto G4 that has a Qualcomm SOC and a Qualcomm modem can be had for $149? I guess Qualcomm is charging more if the device costs more? If that be the case, $20 to Motorola means that they can no longer make and sell a quality device for $149. $20 off a $650 iPhone 7 on the other hand ... it is easy to see Qualcomm's point there even if you disagree with it because without 3G and LTE speeds far fewer people pay $650 for an iPhone.
Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year. At $20 a pop we are talking $5 billion per annum. That would mean that Apple alone is responsible for 1/5 to 1/4 of Qualcomm's $20-$25 billion in annual revenue. Which is hard to fathom when most of the 1.2 billion Android devices that get sold each year have the SOC too and not just the modem, devices from the $850 Galaxy S8+ at the high end to the ZTE ZMax Pro, which is the cheapest device with Qualcomm chips ($99) at the low end. And - as mentioned earlier - Qualcomm sells many more things than smartphone chips.
But considering that Qualcomm would still have 75% to 80% of their business even if you are right about the $20 per device Apple wins a complete victory and then abandons them entirely, then under no scenario are they "screwed." 1.2 billion Android devices annually - and they make more than smartphone chips - remember? And that is the worst case scenario. The far more likely scenario is Apple gaining a partial victory where they are paying Qualcomm about half what they are now, and Apple remaining with Qualcomm because they do, in fact, make the best chips. If you want gigabit LTE, for instance, Qualcomm is the only game in town right now. And gigabit LTE isn't even 5G. Who knows how long it will take before Intel or whoever else competes with Qualcomm can develop support for that.
So Apple will likely decide the same thing with Qualcomm as they did with Samsung concerning components: not liking them much but realizing they are better off with them than without them.
The point here is that QCOM gets more from apple than from MOT, their chip may be the same but it costs more for apple than Motorola. I think you understand this but want to make the arguement that apple can afford more so they should pay more. My son had QCOM stock, he sold it realizing that there is a potential world of hurt between Qualcomm position and FRAND. And really if every patent holder could get a percentage of final product cost then cellphones would be more precious than homes. It's the whole FRAND issue and standard essential patents.
"Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates."
Android devices that have that same Qualcomm LTE tech in it costs as little as $120, and by this I mean LTE-enabled devices from name-brand companies like LG, Motorola, and Samsung that have the Qualcomm CPU in addition to the Qualcomm modem. Or, which is more likely in the case of Samsung LTE tablets - use their own Exynos SOC and modems for which they have to license the standards from Qualcomm.
Finally, check Qualcomm's revenues. They are less than $25 billion a year. And they made a lot of stuff - networking equipment, satellite equipment, software and services - in addition to making and licensing modems and CPUs. Considering that Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year, there is no way that Apple is paying Qualcomm very much per device. Remember: Samsung sells like 350 million smartphones a year, and most of those are with Qualcomm CPUs AND modems. In fact, nearly all of the 1.5 billion smartphones sold each year have Qualcomm tech, or has tech that was licensed from Qualcomm, particularly if MediaTek (the manufacturer for the hardware used in nearly all the cheap Chinese and Indian mobile devices) has to pay Qualcomm royalties too, and I would imagine that they do. (The MediaTek chips are cheaper than the Intel ones .. but the Intel ones are much better.) So Apple isn't paying Qualcomm a whole lot. $1 billion a year sounds like a ton, but works out to about $4 an iPhone in return for 2G/3G/LTE capability. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them licensing fees of $50 per device over "trade dress" stuff like rounded corners and the shape of app icons. Hopefully Qualcomm's lawyers will remind the judge of that very fact, and ask Apple to explain whether LTE capability is more important to a modern smartphone than trade dress. They would have a hard time claiming so, now that the current and upcoming iPhones look a lot more like the Samsung Galaxy S8 than they do the iPhone 3GS that Apple wanted Samsung to pay $50 a device for the privilege of making devices that looked somewhat similar to.
You should read more closely - the $1billion was "rebates that Qualcomm withheld from Apple". Apple was getting those rebates by agreeing to only use Qualcomm modems. So if Apple is getting $1B in rebates, you can be damn sure Apple was paying a lot more than that.
Perhaps you should take your nonsense and poorly researched posts elsewhere...
Yet out of everything I stated only the $1 billion part was wrong. You are just someone who doesn't like differing opinions. But I would like to hear your opinion over Apple demanding $50 per device from Samsung because of rounded corners and icon shapes in comparison to what Qualcomm wants for the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place. You could pack all the horsepower in the Ax chips that you want, and it wouldn't be much good if your data connection was limited to 1G analog signals would it? And by the way ... Apple was sued for patent infringement over their ARM designs for the Ax chips by the University of Wisconsin ... and lost and had to pay up big. So yeah, I guess that is why you would rather I comment elsewhere, right?
If Apple wins against Qualcomm the way they beat Nokia then Qualcomm will end up with a ton of work (at probably an inflated rate). Never been to impressed by Apple's lawyers - they should have ended up owning samsung.
They've lost already many times on these points in many countries, they have NO LEG TO STAND ON.
Even idiot lawyers could beat them, that's how bad it is for them right now.
I think there is more to the Qualcomm story than money:
For the past 10 years (even 20 years) phone manufacturers have been forced to make a different set of phones for each of the major networks (Essentially Verizon vs AT&T) and those phones could not be ported over to the other 'side'.
The reason? Qualcomm's modems only work with a single network type.
Apple and Intel are trying to break that logjam.
And, Qualcomm is dragging its feet. And, for years they had the support of the networks who sold the phones but then locked them into its own network -- but that whole business plan has been disintegrating over the past couple years and, today, it is almost dead.
Qualcomm could probably settle this whole dispute by producing modems that work on either network type like Intel is doing...
I think there is more to the Qualcomm story than money:
For the past 10 years (even 20 years) phone manufacturers have been forced to make a different set of phones for each of the major networks (Essentially Verizon vs AT&T) and those phones could not be ported over to the other 'side'.
The reason? Qualcomm's modems only work with a single network type.
Apple and Intel are trying to break that logjam.
And, Qualcomm is dragging its feet. And, for years they had the support of the networks who sold the phones but then locked them into its own network -- but that whole business plan has been disintegrating over the past couple years and, today, it is almost dead.
Qualcomm could probably settle this whole dispute by producing modems that work on either network type like Intel is doing...
I think there is more to the Qualcomm story than money:
For the past 10 years (even 20 years) phone manufacturers have been forced to make a different set of phones for each of the major networks (Essentially Verizon vs AT&T) and those phones could not be ported over to the other 'side'.
The reason? Qualcomm's modems only work with a single network type.
Apple and Intel are trying to break that logjam.
And, Qualcomm is dragging its feet. And, for years they had the support of the networks who sold the phones but then locked them into its own network -- but that whole business plan has been disintegrating over the past couple years and, today, it is almost dead.
Qualcomm could probably settle this whole dispute by producing modems that work on either network type like Intel is doing...
Not only that, it is true the other way around actually. Intel doesn't have CDMA support in their modems for iPhone 7, so a customer who bought iPhone 7 with Intel modem cannot use it in a CDMA carrier. But a customer who bought an iPhone7 with QC modem can use it in all US carriers.
I think there is more to the Qualcomm story than money:
For the past 10 years (even 20 years) phone manufacturers have been forced to make a different set of phones for each of the major networks (Essentially Verizon vs AT&T) and those phones could not be ported over to the other 'side'.
The reason? Qualcomm's modems only work with a single network type.
Apple and Intel are trying to break that logjam.
And, Qualcomm is dragging its feet. And, for years they had the support of the networks who sold the phones but then locked them into its own network -- but that whole business plan has been disintegrating over the past couple years and, today, it is almost dead.
Qualcomm could probably settle this whole dispute by producing modems that work on either network type like Intel is doing...
I think there is more to the Qualcomm story than money:
For the past 10 years (even 20 years) phone manufacturers have been forced to make a different set of phones for each of the major networks (Essentially Verizon vs AT&T) and those phones could not be ported over to the other 'side'.
The reason? Qualcomm's modems only work with a single network type.
Apple and Intel are trying to break that logjam.
And, Qualcomm is dragging its feet. And, for years they had the support of the networks who sold the phones but then locked them into its own network -- but that whole business plan has been disintegrating over the past couple years and, today, it is almost dead.
Qualcomm could probably settle this whole dispute by producing modems that work on either network type like Intel is doing...
Not only that, it is true the other way around actually. Intel doesn't have CDMA support in their modems for iPhone 7, so a customer who bought iPhone 7 with Intel modem cannot use it in a CDMA carrier. But a customer who bought an iPhone7 with QC modem can use it in all US carriers.
Ok...
Good points....
But I still am dumbfounded by the commonality of the restrictions on cell carriers...
... My iPhone 5 which I just gave to a friend forced her to switch carriers because it can't access CDMA.
........ And, it was purchased from Apple, not AT&T...
It seems that you have to shop carefully if you want a phone that can access either system. That just doesn't seem like something Apple would or should support....
Comments
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1885020-List-of-unlocked-phones-that-work-on-all-major-US-carriers-and-MVNOs
Not only that, it is true the other way around actually. Intel doesn't have CDMA support in their modems for iPhone 7, so a customer who bought iPhone 7 with Intel modem cannot use it in a CDMA carrier. But a customer who bought an iPhone7 with QC modem can use it in all US carriers.