Apple designing iPhones, iPads without Qualcomm modems after key testing software withheld...
Amidst an international legal fight against Qualcomm, Apple is said to be mulling a decision to drop the chipmaker's modems in next year's iPhone and iPad models after it was denied access to software used to test key communications components.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, The Wall Street Journal reports Apple is considering building its flagship mobile devices without Qualcomm chipsets, instead opting for cellular modems manufactured by Intel and MediaTek.
Details are murky, but Qualcomm could be to blame for the major iOS device supplier shift. According to the source, Qualcomm stopped sharing hardware testing software with Apple after a lawsuit in January claims the chipmaker uses its "monopoly power" to to squeeze high patent royalties to flout FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) patent commitments.
Qualcomm said its "modem that could be used in the next generation iPhone has already been fully tested and released to Apple," adding that it is "committed to supporting Apple's new devices," the report said.
However, something is amiss, as Apple at this stage of the production process has never before prepared for a contingency in which iPhones and iPads do not incorporate Qualcomm chips, sources said.
The WSJ notes Apple has until three months before a device is released to decide on a modem manufacturer, a date that is coming up soon if the company's current product cycle holds. Apple traditionally launches next-generation products on an annual basis, meaning a new iPad Pro should see launch mid-year, to be followed by a new iPhone in September.
Apple in its suit characterizes Qualcomm's business practices as price-gouging and extortion. At the heart of the matter are secret manufacturer licensing agreements that demand high royalty rates on Qualcomm-owned IP. Apple has been forced to pay fees for patents obscured by a legal shroud since 2007, when the first iPhone was released.
For example, when Infeneon (now Intel) baseband chips were selected to power iPhone communications, Qualcomm required a licensing fee. The situation worsened when in 2011 Apple introduced an iPhone capable of connecting to CDMA networks, a technology dominated by Qualcomm chipsets.
Apple later lodged two lawsuits in China over similar complaints.
For its part, Qualcomm denies Apple's claims and has filed countersuits claiming breach of contract. Qualcomm also filed complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission and lawsuits in Germany and China seeking a halt to import and sale of iOS devices on the basis of patent infringement.
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf on multiple occasions has said the feud comes down to IP pricing, suggesting Apple is simply looking for a better deal. Mollenkopf believes the legal battle will be settled out of court.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, The Wall Street Journal reports Apple is considering building its flagship mobile devices without Qualcomm chipsets, instead opting for cellular modems manufactured by Intel and MediaTek.
Details are murky, but Qualcomm could be to blame for the major iOS device supplier shift. According to the source, Qualcomm stopped sharing hardware testing software with Apple after a lawsuit in January claims the chipmaker uses its "monopoly power" to to squeeze high patent royalties to flout FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) patent commitments.
Qualcomm said its "modem that could be used in the next generation iPhone has already been fully tested and released to Apple," adding that it is "committed to supporting Apple's new devices," the report said.
However, something is amiss, as Apple at this stage of the production process has never before prepared for a contingency in which iPhones and iPads do not incorporate Qualcomm chips, sources said.
The WSJ notes Apple has until three months before a device is released to decide on a modem manufacturer, a date that is coming up soon if the company's current product cycle holds. Apple traditionally launches next-generation products on an annual basis, meaning a new iPad Pro should see launch mid-year, to be followed by a new iPhone in September.
Apple in its suit characterizes Qualcomm's business practices as price-gouging and extortion. At the heart of the matter are secret manufacturer licensing agreements that demand high royalty rates on Qualcomm-owned IP. Apple has been forced to pay fees for patents obscured by a legal shroud since 2007, when the first iPhone was released.
For example, when Infeneon (now Intel) baseband chips were selected to power iPhone communications, Qualcomm required a licensing fee. The situation worsened when in 2011 Apple introduced an iPhone capable of connecting to CDMA networks, a technology dominated by Qualcomm chipsets.
Apple later lodged two lawsuits in China over similar complaints.
For its part, Qualcomm denies Apple's claims and has filed countersuits claiming breach of contract. Qualcomm also filed complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission and lawsuits in Germany and China seeking a halt to import and sale of iOS devices on the basis of patent infringement.
Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf on multiple occasions has said the feud comes down to IP pricing, suggesting Apple is simply looking for a better deal. Mollenkopf believes the legal battle will be settled out of court.
Comments
The WSJ notes Apple has until three months before a device is released to decide on a modem manufacturer. The publication's sources claim the company has not prepared for a contingency in which iPhones and iPads do not incorporate Qualcomm chips at a similar stage in the production process."
I hope not. I wanna see him take down the knockoffs. Hopefully this is practice and not a "war".
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.
Qualcomm sells snapdragon with modem on SOC
It makes perfect sense for Apple to start building their modem right in to their proprietary A12 chip and not separate!
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?
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.
I will posit that ... You don't own a Iphone and never had. You are POSTURING and THROLLING.
Nobody switches platform for the minute difference those modems in real world operational conditions (and not the laboratories), nobody but Throllers.
Qualcom basically extorted Apple and everyone else in the industry for years and is being destroyed in court continously for that reason.
They'll be lucky to be alive in 10 years the way they're going.