Apple, Qualcomm reach modem licensing deal to end 'no license, no chips' trial

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    wizard69 said:
    Interesting developments but what I find sad is that apparently $13 out of every cell phone Apple sells goes to Qualcomm for licensing. At least that is the way I read this article.  
    The original agreement BEFORE the dust-up was purportedly for $13 per handset mitigated with rebates going back to Apple for an effective royalty payment of $7/handset average. That was reveled by Apple themselves. That hardly sounds as tho it was significantly jacking up the price of iPhones.

    I don't think the new royalties are known yet outside of the players themselves tho there are some upcoming cases where it might be revealed to a selected few. But even some of the cases like the FTC vs. QC might be announced as settled after this surprise development. There's a lot of uncertainty which cases are still on and which will now be dropped as a result. Of course all those directly between the two will be or are already dismissed. 
    edited April 2019 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 122 of 127
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    So typical of the AI comment section. The Android crowd claiming Apple blinked vs the Apple crowd claiming Qualcomm blinked. You can name names if you like but we all know the players by now.
    MplsPcornchip
  • Reply 123 of 127
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,905member
    MplsP said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

    I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
    The latter. 
    Pure conjecture.
    Well of course, as are your comments. So?
    So what's your problem with waiting to find out more before making conjecture. I've already said I'll hold. You, on the other hand....
    half of this site is people commenting on rumors by one analyst or another. Basically conjecture on conjecture. That's what a lot of people come to this site for - to debate topics with other interested people. 

    Half of this site is comprised of reasonable people making common sense deductions of what’s going on while the other half desperately try to twist things to always have Apple come out in the losing end. 
    ...and a handful people bending over backward to always make Apple come out ahead, to be fair. But yes, it's often difficult to have a rational discussion
    gatorguy
  • Reply 124 of 127
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

    I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
    The latter. 
    Pure conjecture.
    Well of course, as are your comments. So?
    So what's your problem with waiting to find out more before making conjecture. I've already said I'll hold. You, on the other hand....
    half of this site is people commenting on rumors by one analyst or another. Basically conjecture on conjecture. That's what a lot of people come to this site for - to debate topics with other interested people. 

    Half of this site is comprised of reasonable people making common sense deductions of what’s going on while the other half desperately try to twist things to always have Apple come out in the losing end. 
    ...and a handful people bending over backward to always make Apple come out ahead, to be fair. But yes, it's often difficult to have a rational discussion
    Meh, at the end of the day, two US companies settled their differences so fine.  Which is why I don’t get too caught up in the anti-google or anti-ms stuff.  China and E.U. are the folks that actively attempt to undermine the US economically through theft of IP or theft of money from arbitrary fines of us tech companies.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 125 of 127
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Finally! This had gone on for way too long. But money talks I suppose.
  • Reply 126 of 127
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    nht said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

    I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
    The latter. 
    Pure conjecture.
    Well of course, as are your comments. So?
    So what's your problem with waiting to find out more before making conjecture. I've already said I'll hold. You, on the other hand....
    half of this site is people commenting on rumors by one analyst or another. Basically conjecture on conjecture. That's what a lot of people come to this site for - to debate topics with other interested people. 

    Half of this site is comprised of reasonable people making common sense deductions of what’s going on while the other half desperately try to twist things to always have Apple come out in the losing end. 
    ...and a handful people bending over backward to always make Apple come out ahead, to be fair. But yes, it's often difficult to have a rational discussion
    Meh, at the end of the day, two US companies settled their differences so fine.  Which is why I don’t get too caught up in the anti-google or anti-ms stuff.  China and E.U. are the folks that actively attempt to undermine the US economically through theft of IP or theft of money from arbitrary fines of us tech companies.
    We tried protectionism.   Didn't work.
  • Reply 127 of 127
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Despite the consensus here that dispute was over the amount of the royalty and fees Qualcomm forced Apple to pay, I don't think that was the basis for it.

    Instead, I think it was the amount Apple had to pay IN COMPARISON to other phone manufacturers.
    By forcing Apple to pay a royalty based on the total price of the phone, Qualcomm was doing two things Apple found unacceptable:
    1)   They were in effect subsidizing manufacturers of cheaper phones that have been proliferating so much lately.
    2)   As a manufacturer of high priced phones (partly because of the software and ecosystem embedded in them) they were making Apple less competitive due to the high license fees Apple had to pay.

    So, did Apple and Qualcomm resolve those issues? 
Sign In or Register to comment.