Well, say Apple designs it's own modems and they turn out to have a design flaw that leads to disconnects or increased power usage - suddenly Qualcomm looks pretty good.
Qualcom his a slimy company and they deserve to get dumped, but they do make good chips, so Apple (or any other company) needs to make sure they have a solid replacement in line first.
Intel is close enough for a first iteration considering the towers your actually connecting right now and with the massive financial pressure Qualcom will be under for the next few years, they won't have much money to spend on R&D...
I don't think this is about the iPad, but the iPhone SE.
It's a much more logical device to start with dropping Qualcomm from. Apple sees the SE as an 'entry' phone, so if its performance is poorer than an iPhone 8 baseband - it's not the end of the world. i.e.: they wouldn't have dared this with the iPhone X coming up - but now that's done - the iPhone SE is next and is a good test bed for dropping this vendor. This may therefore mean that Apple has no intention of updating the iPad until much later in the year - which given that there was just a rather large update, makes sense to me. I'm sure face-id will come to iPad - but Apple have always put the iPad last on its AuthenTec upgrades.
But as others have pointed out here - as a Verizon customer, Qualcomm chips are best. Hopefully Apple have a vendor with a 'secret baseband chip' lined up.
As for Qualcomm being crazy - no they're not - this is about the IP (as stated in the article). They claim that it doesn't matter which vendor you get your silicon from - to use those chips you have to pay Qualcomm royalties - and the'll give you the best price on those royalties if you buy only their silicon. It's a sensible position for them to take. But the problem is that for a vendor as large and as risk-averse as Apple, they need multiple suppliers for most parts - including the baseband chips. Which puts these two companies on a collision course.
I don't think this is about the iPad, but the iPhone SE.
It's a much more logical device to start with dropping Qualcomm from. Apple sees the SE as an 'entry' phone, so if its performance is poorer than an iPhone 8 baseband - it's not the end of the world. i.e.: they wouldn't have dared this with the iPhone X coming up - but now that's done - the iPhone SE is next and is a good test bed for dropping this vendor. This may therefore mean that Apple has no intention of updating the iPad until much later in the year - which given that there was just a rather large update, makes sense to me. I'm sure face-id will come to iPad - but Apple have always put the iPad last on its AuthenTec upgrades.
But as others have pointed out here - as a Verizon customer, Qualcomm chips are best. Hopefully Apple have a vendor with a 'secret baseband chip' lined up.
As for Qualcomm being crazy - no they're not - this is about the IP (as stated in the article). They claim that it doesn't matter which vendor you get your silicon from - to use those chips you have to pay Qualcomm royalties - and the'll give you the best price on those royalties if you buy only their silicon. It's a sensible position for them to take. But the problem is that for a vendor as large and as risk-averse as Apple, they need multiple suppliers for most parts - including the baseband chips. Which puts these two companies on a collision course.
Im on AT&T so GSM/LTE for me anyway. Apple isn't suing Qualcomm just because. Im sure Apple would rather not sue Qualcomm. Qualcomms suit is retaliatory in nature which makes me suspicious of it. The vendor doesn't already pay for the chips? How does this work where one can pass costs downstream? Shouldn't Qualcomm only be getting a percentage of what Apple Pays intel for the chips?
This WILL be settled. Apple will either CREATE its own modem or will have Intel and Meditek make its modems. Either way, Qualcomm is completely behaving like the fool who bit the hand that feeds it.
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
I’m surprised that Qualcomm’s BoD hasn’t stepped in and removed Mollenkopf. Mollenkopf’s handling of this issue is a pathway to Qualcomm’s ultimate marginalization.
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year
The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.
When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.
As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?
LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA.
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year
The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.
When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.
As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?
LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA.
It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year
The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.
When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.
As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?
LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA.
Guess who's leading that 5G revolution? Qualcomm.
Guess who may not be around to carry it out? Qualcomm...
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
Bye! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...
It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year
The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.
When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.
As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?
LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA.
Guess who's leading that 5G revolution? Qualcomm.
You do realize that 5G is being developed by an alliance (not a single company) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Mobile_Networks), so no matter how much Qualcomm lead it, 5G won't be "owned" by Qualcomm. CDMA2000 was developed and owned/licensed by Qualcomm alone. GSM/UMTS/LTE were also developed by an alliance.
On a different note, Qualcomm must know that the sunset for CDMA2000 is near, so why continue to be so arrogant with licensing? Qualcomm should be loosening licensing fees to get more customers onboard with their Snapdragon chipsets for 5G and beyond. After CDMA2000 sunsets, Qualcomm will be competing with Intel/Samsung/Mediatek/others more directly.
As someone who has actually worked with Qualcomm in the past, I can tell you that Qualcomm is a thoroughly evil company to work with. You even HINT that you're looking at alternatives and they threaten to sue you into oblivion.
The idea that they are pulling test resources is not even unexpected-- they play MUCH harder ball than this usually, such as cutting off access to support engineers and documentation. This has been their method of operation since the mid-90s.
At the time, they were the only game in town for CDMA-- luckily there ARE alternatives now and if Apple DOES seek to get rid of Qualcomm there will be lawsuits. That's just how Qualcomm operates.
Another part of the problem is that the licensing agreement that Qualcomm requires is VERY predatory-- they don't just want a fee to use their chips, their fee is based on the cost of the ENTIRE PRODUCT. That's one of the reasons why you haven't seen a cellular modem in the Macbooks-- Qualcomm would get a large fee based on the cost of a $2000-$3000 product, which makes even putting the chips in the device cost prohibitive. This is totally unreasonable and unprecedented in the industry.
This isn't just about money-- Qualcomm is a very difficult company to work with in all areas.
Well, I dont know about the threat or experience, what we do know now is the bold part is incorrect. The fees are paid by third parties manufacture, i.e Foxconn and Pegatron etc. And they are paid by that resold product priced, not final retail price. There is also a cap on Maximum fees per product. So we now know Macbook doesn't have LTE isn't exactly a patents fees problem.
We will know a lot more about the exact figures and Cap once the court case start.
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
First, this sounds very concern trollish. Second, if Apple stops using Qualcomm, they would invest completely into Intel and their technology will improve more quickly. The price of Qualcomm modems will be reduced and Android devices may also jump to Intel. I doubt Apple would ensure that the modems that are in the phones fall within the operating standards they deem as acceptable.
As a Verizon customer I have been very happy with the Qualcomm chips. They are far superior to Intel. Every test shows that. I expect Apple to use the best parts possible and I will be very upset if they don't continue to use Qualcomm chips in the future because of a stupid dispute over how much they pay for the chips. For the first time ever i would consider switching to an Android phone. I pay extra for Verizon because of the quality of the coverage. If the iPhone has worse coverage than an Android phone I WILL LEAVE APPLE.
Having a Android and a Qualcomm baseband does not automatically guarantee you the reception performance. The Antenna design and other parts plays an important role as well.
And the test were done with early Intel modem, the Intel modem in iPhone 8 has improved, and I expect their next baseband, being the first to be Fabbed in house ( Previous one were all still on TSMC, using older node then Qualcomm's parts ), to be a lot better as well.
Having said that, I still dont believe next gen Intel modem will match Qualcomm, especially in CDMA performance. I suspect the LTE performance will be largely similar.
Note: Just another point, using an Intel modem wont make any difference in coverage, it will likely be slower, but if you are covered with a Qualcomm you will still be covered in an Intel modem.
You've obviously missed a little factoid that Apple designs the most efficient and powerful custom silicon in the mobile industry. Apple has already shown they can best Qualcomm in raw performance and efficient in CPU. They've proven they can create best-of-breed GPU silicon. They've shown they have the wireless chops to build the W1 chip in the AirPods. They've shown they can make incredibly power efficient chips in the Apple Watch. And some how you think they'd drop the ball on this even though there is no evidence to the contrary?
Well, say Apple designs it's own modems and they turn out to have a design flaw that leads to disconnects or increased power usage - suddenly Qualcomm looks pretty good.
Qualcom his a slimy company and they deserve to get dumped, but they do make good chips, so Apple (or any other company) needs to make sure they have a solid replacement in line first.
Only Intel and Mediatek has the patents to fab CDMA modem. Which is why only these two are listed as alternative.
Both Intel and Mediatek uses some of the CEVA IP.
I am going the assume the only reason why Apple cant develop their Baseband in house is because of the CDMA support. Which is still being used US, Japan and China.
300M Baseband chip is no small business. In fact that is the size of PC market. I wonder if Apple could partner with Intel or Mediatek only for the CDMA patents support and make their own baseband.
Which brings to another point, I highly doubt Intel has enough 14nm resources to Fab additional 150M chips.
Doing it with Mediatek will be a lot easier, Apple is basically taking over the Fab capacity of TSMC, which Qualcomm was using it to Fab for Apple's iPhone anyway.
Apple WILL have to paid Qualcomm's patents fees even if they make their own modem or buy it from others.
What Apple is saying to Qualcomm is they are already making some heavy profits by selling modem, then charges a lot for patents.
So there is only two scenarios;
Apple wins, Apple paid less patents fees, Apple uses their own Chip. Qualcomm Lost big time.
Qualcomm wins, Apple paid the SAME amount of patents fees, Apple continue to use their own, Qualcomm lose 150M Chip business order, and any chance of the WiFi chip inside Mac. ( Which Apple are design their own anyway so I guess didn't matter )
And my guess why Qualcomm's executive Derek Aberle decides to leaves at the end of this year is because he knew Apple wont budge, and likely he knew Qualcomm wont budge either.
You've obviously missed a little factoid that Apple designs the most efficient and powerful custom silicon in the mobile industry. Apple has already shown they can best Qualcomm in raw performance and efficient in CPU. They've proven they can create best-of-breed GPU silicon. They've shown they have the wireless chops to build the W1 chip in the AirPods. They've shown they can make incredibly power efficient chips in the Apple Watch. And some how you think they'd drop the ball on this even though there is no evidence to the contrary?
Well, say Apple designs it's own modems and they turn out to have a design flaw that leads to disconnects or increased power usage - suddenly Qualcomm looks pretty good.
Qualcom his a slimy company and they deserve to get dumped, but they do make good chips, so Apple (or any other company) needs to make sure they have a solid replacement in line first.
Then Apple should create a new, better replacement technology to CDMA and License it under FRAND terms to everyone very cheaply. I'm sure Samsung , Google and the carriers would get on board if it meant better technology at a cheaper price.
As someone who has actually worked with Qualcomm in the past, I can tell you that Qualcomm is a thoroughly evil company to work with. You even HINT that you're looking at alternatives and they threaten to sue you into oblivion.
The idea that they are pulling test resources is not even unexpected-- they play MUCH harder ball than this usually, such as cutting off access to support engineers and documentation. This has been their method of operation since the mid-90s.
At the time, they were the only game in town for CDMA-- luckily there ARE alternatives now and if Apple DOES seek to get rid of Qualcomm there will be lawsuits. That's just how Qualcomm operates.
Another part of the problem is that the licensing agreement that Qualcomm requires is VERY predatory-- they don't just want a fee to use their chips, their fee is based on the cost of the ENTIRE PRODUCT. That's one of the reasons why you haven't seen a cellular modem in the Macbooks-- Qualcomm would get a large fee based on the cost of a $2000-$3000 product, which makes even putting the chips in the device cost prohibitive. This is totally unreasonable and unprecedented in the industry.
This isn't just about money-- Qualcomm is a very difficult company to work with in all areas.
thank you...i have often wondered why we don't see cellular MacBooks...this explains it.
Comments
It's a much more logical device to start with dropping Qualcomm from. Apple sees the SE as an 'entry' phone, so if its performance is poorer than an iPhone 8 baseband - it's not the end of the world. i.e.: they wouldn't have dared this with the iPhone X coming up - but now that's done - the iPhone SE is next and is a good test bed for dropping this vendor. This may therefore mean that Apple has no intention of updating the iPad until much later in the year - which given that there was just a rather large update, makes sense to me. I'm sure face-id will come to iPad - but Apple have always put the iPad last on its AuthenTec upgrades.
But as others have pointed out here - as a Verizon customer, Qualcomm chips are best. Hopefully Apple have a vendor with a 'secret baseband chip' lined up.
As for Qualcomm being crazy - no they're not - this is about the IP (as stated in the article). They claim that it doesn't matter which vendor you get your silicon from - to use those chips you have to pay Qualcomm royalties - and the'll give you the best price on those royalties if you buy only their silicon. It's a sensible position for them to take. But the problem is that for a vendor as large and as risk-averse as Apple, they need multiple suppliers for most parts - including the baseband chips. Which puts these two companies on a collision course.
Apple will either CREATE its own modem or will have Intel and Meditek make its modems.
Either way, Qualcomm is completely behaving like the fool who bit the hand that feeds it.
LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA.
On a different note, Qualcomm must know that the sunset for CDMA2000 is near, so why continue to be so arrogant with licensing? Qualcomm should be loosening licensing fees to get more customers onboard with their Snapdragon chipsets for 5G and beyond. After CDMA2000 sunsets, Qualcomm will be competing with Intel/Samsung/Mediatek/others more directly.