Qualcomm CEO reiterates Apple feud comes down to IP pricing

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    cropr said:
    This statement about it coming down to “IP pricing,” and the assertion that “Qualcomm technology... kickstarted the smartphone industry” reminds me of a former president who made a claim about basic infrastructure being responsible for the success of entrepenuers like Steve Jobs.  Sure, roads and electric grids and such are necessary for a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison to create the businesses they created, but that infrustructure was available to everyone and not everyone created a Microsoft or Apple or Oracle.  

    The underlying technology that Qualcomm had under patent at the time the modern smartphone took form (i.e. the form first introduced by the iPhone and since copied by all others; multitouch, no physical keyboard or scroll wheel, etc) was available to any and all who would have wanted to employ it, and yet only Apple created the form factor and UX that we take for granted as a smartphone today.  Qualcomm is a bit disingenuous in suggesting they or their technology somehow should get credit for having kickstarted the smartphone industry.

    Most of the  2G related patents (the original iPhone was 2G technology)) are expired.  But 4G technology was not available at the launch of the original iPhone, meaning that  all 4G related technology that is included in the current iPhones, could have been invented or co-invented by Apple if Apple would have wanted.   The same applies to the 5G technology that is being developed right now. Apple choose not to invest in radio technology but to license the technology, so it should pay the license fees.

    That Apple created the form factor is not correct (there was an unsuccessful Alcatel phone with touch interface before the iPhone was launched) and also irrelevant as the Qualcomm patents are about the radio technology, not about the user interface or form factor.

    Whether the prices for the license of these payments should be linear dependant on the end user price of the phone, is of course another question.  Apple has indeed a point that this is not fair, but it is a common practice for telecom related patents.  Apple accepted the practice when the iPhone was launched, later realizing that it is a burden and now trying to fight it.  But accepting it in the first place, does jeopardize the chances in court.

    Don't give us this pay to play garbage.  You seem to have missed the memo where Qualcomm has lost literally every major legal case brought against them to date.  They've been busted by anti-trust regulators in several countries and are under investigation, (and soon to be busted), in several more... including the US.
  • Reply 22 of 31
    metrix said:
      Having said that, Obama himself is an example of an extraordinary person who through application of significant effort and intellect made it to the top in his field; public service, and deserves respect for that and for his steady hand at the helm for the eight years he served as president. 
    Clearly Trumps IQ is superior because he says so. I'm sure he can't spell Quotient either. Feel free to remove 
    Let's not make this political guys.

    I am disappointed that a Mod started us down that path...
    teknishnGG1gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 31
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    metrix said:
      Having said that, Obama himself is an example of an extraordinary person who through application of significant effort and intellect made it to the top in his field; public service, and deserves respect for that and for his steady hand at the helm for the eight years he served as president. 
    Clearly Trumps IQ is superior because he says so. I'm sure he can't spell Quotient either. Feel free to remove 
    Let's not make this political guys.

    I am disappointed that a Mod started us down that path…
    Quoting a former US president didn't make it political. His comment was relevant to the discussion and had nothing to do with politics or any political party.


    "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." — George Washington (OMG I just made this political! Close the forum¡)
    edited October 2017 radarthekat
  • Reply 24 of 31
    metrix said:
      Having said that, Obama himself is an example of an extraordinary person who through application of significant effort and intellect made it to the top in his field; public service, and deserves respect for that and for his steady hand at the helm for the eight years he served as president. 
    Clearly Trumps IQ is superior because he says so. I'm sure he can't spell Quotient either. Feel free to remove 
    Let's not make this political guys.

    I am disappointed that a Mod started us down that path...
    100% agreed.  Very disappointing
  • Reply 25 of 31
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 269member
    wizard69 said:
    tundraboy said:
    reminds me of a former president who made a claim about basic infrastructure being responsible for the success of entrepenuers like Steve Jobs. 
    Excuse me, that's not what he said or meant.  And you should know better.  He did not mean that the basic infrastructure was wholly responsible for the success of entrepreneurs as you imply but that the infrastructure (which includes not just roads and bridges but more intangible things like the research and tertiary educational system) that was built using trillions of taxpayers' dollars gave US entrepreneurs a big advantage.  That I think is a pretty reasonable statement.

    The sentiment he raised was a counterpoint to that promoted by people like former Citibank CEO Sandy Weill who once (pre-Great Recession) claimed that he deserved every single dollar of the multimillion bonuses he received because he and no one else was responsible for his company's success.  This was representative of the attitude of a lot of fat cat CEOs.  They were all willing to grab those outsized bonuses when their companies were flying high but when they were on the brink of collapse, they were sure eager to grab the hundreds of billions of rescue dollars that the taxpayers shelled out to keep the US economy from disintegrating.

    And now that their companies have recovered, they're at it again with the same arrogant attitude that the best government regulation is no regulation and that they alone deserve the credit for their companies' success.  That is, until the next crisis when we suckers will have to rescue them again.
    You have twisted things a bit here.  There certainly is an issue with respect to commercial banking here, im not disagreeing with that.   However many business people, even very tiny businesses to great offense to those statements of a few years ago because businesses succeed or fail based on the abilities of the person driving those businesses.    Most business people saw the comments as a massive insult.    Rightfully so too because most businesses do not get bail outs, in fact many people would have rather seen the auto industry fail then the stupidity of giving them handouts.  

    So yeah for any politician to publicly say what was said just demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the reality most businesses operate under and thus was rightfully seen as an insult by many business people.   It is simply ignorant to support a politician in this case based on the behavior of a certain class of "businessmen".  

    * Some people can take "great offense" to accurate information about insights regarding broader economic systems and historical business performance.
    Some want to believe that their success had nothing to do with what their nation's government (at every level) does including US economic policies/government action over time.
    That is their privilege to believe that of course but it would not be an accurate appraisal of the overall US economic system through history imo. 
    * Why? First let me highlight a strawman argument in this debate.
    - No one in this discussion (including a referral to the relevant statements by former president Obama) is claiming that individual successful entrepreneurs / executives have had zero influence on their company's performance.
    Anyone suggesting that this is a position in this debate would again be presenting a strawman.  
    * Instead an accurate initial position is this;
    - First I'll reference some quotes by Obama;
    Jan. 25, 2011: "Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.”
    July 13, 2012; "if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own... we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together... Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges... There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own."


    * "Our free enterprise system"; "this unbelievable American system"; if one looks at the bigger economic picture, it will show that direct government policy and government action (or lack of it) at every level, can greatly affect business performance across the board.
    - And from examining US government policy historically and comparing it to policies in other countries, my position is that the US government (at every level) has positively affected US business and this can be shown through historical comparisons and by looking at the actions of other countries.
    1. The Great Depression has been studied extensively and one main conclusion is that the money supply in the 1930s (as influenced by the central bank) did not expand  enough causing deflation and a shrinking economy.
    - It is a fact that there was a large increase in business bankruptcies in the 1930s.
    - This knowledge of mistakes in the past was put to use by the Treasury Dept. and the Fed in the Great Recession where the severe economic collapse of the Great Depression was avoided.
    Avoiding a general economic Depression is a help to all business as a modern economic system is linked through banking, lending, customer spending.
    2. Using comparative geography and history; let's look at several nations and ask, why aren't business opportunities in these countries = to the US?
    A. Lack of effective police control (a government function) means that wealthy executives (and their families) may choose not to live in many 3rd world countries.
    Venezuela has one of the highest rates of kidnapping for ransom. I don't think that anyone thinks that this helps with legitimate business growth.
    B. Poor government policies such as those of Greece; (which should not have joined the EU/Euro, has bloated government pensions/too early retirement, and poor tax collection) have devastated its economy.
    C. Direct rampant government corruption will stifle business. This is especially a problem in many 3rd world countries where some business can be impossible due to an overabundance of bribes.
    Somalia, South Sudan and North Korea are considered to have the worst government corruption. Does that affect their business performance? Of course it does.
    3. Some countries I mentioned have poor infrastructure. The reason why can be seen due to across the board poor government policies.
    By contrast positive government policies in the US have created infrastructure and research which have benefited business.

    * To Sum It Up; US government economic, police and infrastructure policies and actions over time have affected every business in the US.
    The comparative effect can be seen by examining other countries which have harmful government policies (or lack of positive policies) which have greatly affected the business climate in this nations.
    - If some people choose to reject this information due to some reaction, that is of course their right. 


    edited October 2017
  • Reply 26 of 31
    Soli said:
    metrix said:
      Having said that, Obama himself is an example of an extraordinary person who through application of significant effort and intellect made it to the top in his field; public service, and deserves respect for that and for his steady hand at the helm for the eight years he served as president. 
    Clearly Trumps IQ is superior because he says so. I'm sure he can't spell Quotient either. Feel free to remove 
    Let's not make this political guys.

    I am disappointed that a Mod started us down that path…
    Quoting a former US president didn't make it political. His comment was relevant to the discussion and had nothing to do with politics or any political party.


    "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." — George Washington (OMG I just made this political! Close the forum¡)
    Yeah, sure.
  • Reply 27 of 31
    metrixmetrix Posts: 253member
    metrix said:
      Having said that, Obama himself is an example of an extraordinary person who through application of significant effort and intellect made it to the top in his field; public service, and deserves respect for that and for his steady hand at the helm for the eight years he served as president. 
    Clearly Trumps IQ is superior because he says so. I'm sure he can't spell Quotient either. Feel free to remove 
    Let's not make this political guys.

    I am disappointed that a Mod started us down that path...
    You are right, but I am praying for him to make better decisions.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Soli said:
    Qualcomm is now testing a '5G' chip. I suspect that we may be in for another mobile communications war as Qualcomm tries to assure dominance in this area for decades to come while others try to unseat them. From what I can see Qualcomm is at a disadvantage when looking at companies involved, but Qualcomm could still have a major advantage in terms of patents and technologies. I just hope the consumer doesn't pay the price in stalled progress or disjunct '5G' standards.

    They can only get this dominance if other companies allow them to put their tech into the standard and pull this crap again, otherwise I see  a very quick road to irrelevance.

    Apple would sooner buy Intel (the whole company) to get IP there than play that game again.

    Well, my current cap in Canada is 2Gb for a lot of money... So, I'm pretty sure I don't give a crap about a faster internet until they give me at least 20Gb for that same amount of money. Yeah, I'd get a slightly better latency even at that low cap... If the towers were not overrun by traffic already and actually had all the needed upgrades (when would that happen 2025?).; 

    Lab data for a tech is of no interest to me, even though, it should me being a "tech head" and all.

    5G will be like 3G that emerged in what, 1999, it will be useful eventually in .,..; 2010, 
    but for now its just some marketing bragging with little consequence to users.


  • Reply 29 of 31
    Just as I expected - a bunch of hypocrites. The minute an app developer claims 30% is extortion, everyone comes out with "Well go make your own app store then!"

    But when its happening to Apple it's "Grossly unfair". Which is it? There's a hell of a lot of R&D that's gone into the radio chip that Apple relies on. Without it, there is no smartphone. Cry all you like but this is no different to Apple extorting its developers.
    edited October 2017 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 31
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    pentae said:
    Just as I expected - a bunch of hypocrites. The minute an app developer claims 30% is extortion, everyone comes out with "Well go make your own app store then!"

    But when its happening to Apple it's "Grossly unfair". Which is it? There's a hell of a lot of R&D that's gone into the radio chip that Apple relies on. Without it, there is no smartphone. Cry all you like but this is no different to Apple extorting its developers.
    1) Look up F/RAND.

    2) Now explain to me where Apple is discriminating against, say, MS or Google with their cut because of their deep pockets.
  • Reply 31 of 31
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    pentae said:
    Just as I expected - a bunch of hypocrites. The minute an app developer claims 30% is extortion, everyone comes out with "Well go make your own app store then!"

    But when its happening to Apple it's "Grossly unfair". Which is it? There's a hell of a lot of R&D that's gone into the radio chip that Apple relies on. Without it, there is no smartphone. Cry all you like but this is no different to Apple extorting its developers.
    There is ONE, and precisely SINGLE Mobile 4G market.

    There are two, and more should the need arise ( In China or India ), of App Market.

    The App market which Apple Controls, has roughly 20% of the World Wide Unit Shipment Every year.

    And, the ONE and SINGLE 4G Market has 100% of itself.

    There is a word and Law on Monopoly.

    No one said they didn't do hell of a lot of R&D. But somehow Qualcomm's HELL of a lot of R&D is worth 5 times more then every other *combined*, that is Huawei, Nokia and Ericsson included.

    The so called 30% fees being extortion, has never been worst in pre App industry, where worldwide distributor, wholesale, retail margin included, and Marketing, if you ever want it to be featured. Developers would likely get less then 30% of the Final Retail Price of their software.

    I am pretty sure that Smartphone today, include (mostly ) a Phone, a Computer, a Music player, a Video Player, and Camera. by Camera metrics smartphone cameras has completely wipe out the non DSLR camera industry. Which i expect, most of these will work without an 4G, or specifically LTE Radio Chip.




     
    Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.