I hope they pay it and stop using the Intel modems. I am assuming the reason my 8 Plus has the worst internet reception I've had since the 4S is due to this.
Dude. Return your phone if your phone has issues. Get it fixed. Our 8 has been fine. It’s more likely to be a reception or WiFi issue.
This is simple. #1 If you can't do it you have to buy or pay someone who can...cough.cough..like with world class displays. #2 moot point for a while anyway since Apple gives its users that "premium" experience by using sub par Intel chips that is not disputed ANYWHERE. #3 LIKE ALWAYS, Apple will wait and watch the others implement a new or wanted feature so when they do it it's now officially "premium" and new to their users. Include an extra sticker, hike the price, then collect from the line of zombies. geez....wake up. The same one dimensional business plan year after year. Can't blame Apple in all honesty though. If you keep stretching out your hand and money is blindly handed to it well then....🤑🤑
This is simple. #1 If you can't do it you have to buy or pay someone who can...cough.cough..like with world class displays. #2 moot point for a while anyway since Apple gives its users that "premium" experience by using sub par Intel chips that is not disputed ANYWHERE. #3 LIKE ALWAYS, Apple will wait and watch the others implement a new or wanted feature so when they do it it's now officially "premium" and new to their users. Include an extra sticker, hike the price, then collect from the line of zombies. geez....wake up. The same one dimensional business plan year after year. Can't blame Apple in all honesty though. If you keep stretching out your hand and money is blindly handed to it well then....🤑🤑
Paying based on the end-price of the phone is just lame all around. I hope the lawsuit against Qualcomm moves forward and ends this practice. If I buy a broadband chip, it's non of QC's business after the sale what I do with that chip. Whether I put it in some $5 phone or a $1000 phone... none of their business.
Taiwan dropping it's lawsuit against QC and essentially giving QC a slap on the wrist was a tragedy.
Absolutely lame. There are only a couple markets I can think of where the price you pay for a component (or software) is based on the retail price of the product it goes into. Smartphone cellular patents is one and game engines is another. Every other industry I've worked in (automotive and electronic components primarily) you pay a fixed fee for a component.
Imagine, for example, if Microsoft starting charging customers with high-end gaming rigs or workstations double or triple for Windows 10, just because it's running on a more expensive machine? Or Apple having to pay double for RAM or NAND flash chips that go into a Mac while manufacturers of $300 PCs get it for a discount?
This is the most ridiculous licensing model I've ever seen.
Add medical devices to your list. As of a 2016 study about 90% of royalties in that field were based on a percentage of the device selling price.
So another bunch of greedy aholes who abuse their IP.
Pointing out others who do something similar doesn't make them right.
It also doesn't explain that strange situation where Qualcomm charges both the supplier and Apple for the same tech.
Bizarre.
It's like being charged for the car, and then also being charged again by Bose for the speakers.
The way around the 5G licensing is for Apple to develop a 6G standard that isn't based on existing cellular standards but is able to be used on existing cellular transceivers. At the same time, Apple could come out with their own cellular service, effectively getting rid of all current services in the US.
Yea, not going to happen but I'm tired of FRAND patents costing so much. $21 doesn't sound like a lot but that's only for cellular patents, their are a lot of other royalties Apple has to pay for.
That is much easier said then done. The big chunk of 4G, 5G or 6G is done at network side, where companies like Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei sell their network equipment & software to telecom operators. The phone part is very limited. Apple is basically a Business to Consumer company with no experience in the network equipment business. To come up with a better standard for 6G without fully understanding the technical challenges at the network side seems utopia to me.
On top of that, you cannot sell a phone with only 6G. It stills need to support the older standards as well, because telecom operators around the world never do a nation wide roll-out of new technology. A device with only coverage in the center of big cities is not an option
The way around the 5G licensing is for Apple to develop a 6G standard that isn't based on existing cellular standards but is able to be used on existing cellular transceivers. At the same time, Apple could come out with their own cellular service, effectively getting rid of all current services in the US.
Yea, not going to happen but I'm tired of FRAND patents costing so much. $21 doesn't sound like a lot but that's only for cellular patents, their are a lot of other royalties Apple has to pay for.
They would still need to license tech for their phones to work on older networks.
This is simple. #1 If you can't do it you have to buy or pay someone who can...cough.cough..like with world class displays. #2 moot point for a while anyway since Apple gives its users that "premium" experience by using sub par Intel chips that is not disputed ANYWHERE. #3 LIKE ALWAYS, Apple will wait and watch the others implement a new or wanted feature so when they do it it's now officially "premium" and new to their users. Include an extra sticker, hike the price, then collect from the line of zombies. geez....wake up. The same one dimensional business plan year after year. Can't blame Apple in all honesty though. If you keep stretching out your hand and money is blindly handed to it well then....ߤᰟ䑦lt;/div>
Shawn, I feel sorry for your life. You must have a not very good life to write all that BS. Can smell bitterness even when I’m having a cold.
In other news, Bloomberg has released an ‘insider story’ that Apple will be a follower - of Google and Microsoft and Samsung - and simply ‘borrow’ other company’s IP, and maybe pay for it alter, after a six to ten year court case has been dragged interminably. Bill Gates, now on his death bed from decades of being unscrupulous, is reported to have admiringly said, ‘Gosh.’ No news yet from Legally Apple on what fake stream of red herrings may be used - more details at 11!
That will jack the price of the phone up by at least $60 to protect those margins.
Note that for Qualcomm's part at least, the 3.25% rate (max $13) also includes older generation 3G and 4G licenses (at least Qualcomm's part of that), and it is suggested that the $13 is lower than what Apple is currently paying for 3G and 4G to Qualcomm.
Comments
It also doesn't explain that strange situation where Qualcomm charges both the supplier and Apple for the same tech.
Bizarre.
It's like being charged for the car, and then also being charged again by Bose for the speakers.
On top of that, you cannot sell a phone with only 6G. It stills need to support the older standards as well, because telecom operators around the world never do a nation wide roll-out of new technology. A device with only coverage in the center of big cities is not an option
They would still need to license tech for their phones to work on older networks.
All these licenses are FRAND.