Qualcomm pushed for iPhone exclusivity in response to $1B incentive payment demand, CEO sa...

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    Who was how much of the other 38%? Please give us a link.
    No idea. Is it important who has it or is it important to substantiate the original claim?

    If it is 90-100%, let's see it backed up at least, because 62% is a long way off 90% and, as I made clear, 62% was the one I saw.


    edited January 12 gatorguy
  • Reply 22 of 73
    LatkoLatko Posts: 354member
    bluefire1 said:
    I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm  chips are far superior to Intels.
    So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G.
    (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves)
    Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s...
    NOT
    edited January 12
  • Reply 23 of 73
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,031moderator
    bluefire1 said:
    I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm  chips are far superior to Intels.
    I’m curious, in what way are they superior that would exhibit itself in the real world.  If Qualcomm modems are even twice as fast as Intel modems (they aren’t, but let’s use an extreme example), it would make no difference, because both are already capable of far faster speeds than even the fastest 4G LTE networks provide under normal load.  

    Do they establish connections faster?  Do they hold connections better?  Do they work at greater distance from towers in areas where that would matter?  These are all areas where one could be better than the other. Perhaps there are other measures where one might be better.  Please be specific, and cite your imperical evidence.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 73
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,031moderator
    acejax805 said:
    It sounds like Mr. Mollenkopf doesn't know his a$$ from a whole in the ground. Qualcomm has been in the business of gaining exclusivity through rebates. It has been documented several times by different Android manufacturers throughout the years. When I heard Huawei was being interviewed as part of the FTC's investigation, I knew Qualcomm would be in hot water. Huawei has done a great job documenting how Qualcomm attempted to gain exclusivity through these rebates (they called them financial bribes). 

    Huawei and Lenovo are both on record stating Qualcomm has in the past threatened retaliation against them if they attempted to challenge Qualcomm's legal terms by either delaying, or cutting off supply of chips.

    Qulcomm's refusal to license their patents is another dangerous game they are playing since most consider their patent holdings to be standard-essential patents. This is a clear violation of FRAND. 

    It takes a company like Apple to stand up to a company like Qualcomm and personally I am glad to see it happen. I'm sure many of the other OEM's who cannot sustain a fight against Qualcomm (or are unwilling to) are glad to see it as well, which can be confirmed by the support Apple is receiving by many of it's competitors (Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Sprint).

    You make the point well; that if the same rebates for exclusivity have been cut with multiple smartphone vendors, it’s more likely that it’s Qualcomm pushing this arrangement than it would be that each smartphone vendor happened to decide on its own to demand a large rebate, out of the blue, thus prompting Qualcomm to think up the idea of requiring exclusivity as a reaction to the rebate demand.  Common sense.  
    edited January 12 ronn
  • Reply 25 of 73
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,031moderator
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    bb-15ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 73
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    Who was how much of the other 38%? Please give us a link.
    No idea. Is it important who has it or is it important to substantiate the original claim?

    If it is 90-100%, let's see it backed up at least, because 62% is a long way off 90% and, as I made clear, 62% was the one I saw.


    LOL. 

    Yours posts are a joke. 
    radarthekatbb-15ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
  • Reply 28 of 73
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,031moderator
    Latko said:
    bluefire1 said:
    I really hope this conflict can be resolved sooner rather than later if for no other reason that when it comes to iPhones, Qualcomm  chips are far superior to Intels.
    So what Apple now got from their “diversification strategy”: commercial bans / legal issues with QualComm for $30 (already passed onto customers in $100...300 overpriced handsets), LTE/Cellular issues, to be solved with numerous undocumented stability iOS updates, no modem supplier diversification, and at least 1 year delay for 5G.
    (which I hardly care about, but can be deadly harmful in a technology-push market where they struggle to differentiate themselves)
    Using their extensive outsourcing experience with Intel & lagging MacBook cpu’s...
    NOT
    Apple is fine.  Don’t worry.  If there’s been some pain in switching to Intel modems, it won’t be the first time in the history of the technology business that a transition included some minor annoyances.  The important thing is, Apple standing up to Qualcomm, taking the hits for those who aren’t big enough to go up against Qualcomm alone, will ultimately be good for the whole industry.  
    bb-15ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 73
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    Who was how much of the other 38%? Please give us a link.
    No idea. Is it important who has it or is it important to substantiate the original claim?

    If it is 90-100%, let's see it backed up at least, because 62% is a long way off 90% and, as I made clear, 62% was the one I saw.


    LOL. 

    Yours posts are a joke. 
    Here is a link...

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/207334
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    Who was how much of the other 38%? Please give us a link.
    No idea. Is it important who has it or is it important to substantiate the original claim?

    If it is 90-100%, let's see it backed up at least, because 62% is a long way off 90% and, as I made clear, 62% was the one I saw.


    LOL. 

    Yours posts are a joke. 
    You have lost me. What was the whole point of your own post, then? 

    After all the flustering, are we now to assume that the 90-100% was just wishful thinking? Pure invention?

    Maybe it wasn't but it definitely didn't tie in very well with what I had seen (62% Q2-18). Do you have a number you can point to?


  • Reply 31 of 73
    mike54mike54 Posts: 319member
    I simply do not trust the version Apple and Intel have been pushing about Qualcomm.
    It seems quite clear now that there is more to this story than Apple and its supporters have been promoting.
    I suspect the motive for this lawsuit is about having Qualcomm pushed aside so Apple and Intel can get in on the business.
    Apple and Intel have been promoting alot of negative PR on Qualcomm to get the public onside.
    The truth is being lost so that Apple and Intel can get their way.


    edited January 12
  • Reply 32 of 73

    Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!

    That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:

    ********

    For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:

    • the "no license-no chips" policy;
    • incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
    • the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
    • past exclusive arrangements with Apple.
    ********

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/01/in-its-courtroom-chess-match-with.html

    We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility.
    What a dumb statement. Even if that were true — although you don’t provide a shred of evidence — that’s like saying, since Mollenkopf is paid by Qualcomm, we shouldn’t believe anything he says. 

    Incidentally then, how do we know you’re not being paid by Qualcomm?
    Trolling or it's meant as satire.  Look at the poster's name and it was his/her/its first post.
    edited January 12 watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 73
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,658member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.

    Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.

    Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 73
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,658member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.

    Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.

    Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
    You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.

    "Given that Android has had a great year"

    Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.

    Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.

    Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
    You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.

    "Given that Android has had a great year"

    Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
    'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.

    Huawei,  Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.

    I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.

    Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.

    That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
  • Reply 37 of 73
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,658member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.

    Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.

    Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
    You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.

    "Given that Android has had a great year"

    Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
    'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.

    Huawei,  Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.

    I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.

    Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.

    That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
    "it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.

    But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...


    edited January 12 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 73
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,451member
    acejax805 said:
    It sounds like Mr. Mollenkopf doesn't know his a$$ from a whole in the ground. Qualcomm has been in the business of gaining exclusivity through rebates. It has been documented several times by different Android manufacturers throughout the years. When I heard Huawei was being interviewed as part of the FTC's investigation, I knew Qualcomm would be in hot water. Huawei has done a great job documenting how Qualcomm attempted to gain exclusivity through these rebates (they called them financial bribes). 

    Huawei and Lenovo are both on record stating Qualcomm has in the past threatened retaliation against them if they attempted to challenge Qualcomm's legal terms by either delaying, or cutting off supply of chips.

    Qulcomm's refusal to license their patents is another dangerous game they are playing since most consider their patent holdings to be standard-essential patents. This is a clear violation of FRAND. 

    It takes a company like Apple to stand up to a company like Qualcomm and personally I am glad to see it happen. I'm sure many of the other OEM's who cannot sustain a fight against Qualcomm (or are unwilling to) are glad to see it as well, which can be confirmed by the support Apple is receiving by many of it's competitors (Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Sprint).

    You make the point well; that if the same rebates for exclusivity have been cut with multiple smartphone vendors, it’s more likely that it’s Qualcomm pushing this arrangement than it would be that each smartphone vendor happened to decide on its own to demand a large rebate, out of the blue, thus prompting Qualcomm to think up the idea of requiring exclusivity as a reaction to the rebate demand.  Common sense.  
    The issue of  rebate isn't as important as the offer of exclusivity. Perhaps it won't matter anyway. Wrong is wrong no matter who proposed it.

    FWIW Mr Mueller whose opinion and articles have been mentioned a few times in this thread already believes it was likely Apple who offered to deal exclusively with Qualcomm in return for a lower royalty. He thinks  Apple is being disingenuous by saying they've always wanted to have multiple suppliers and leaving the impression it was Qualcomm saying that wasn't going  to happen. 

    From FossPatents:

    It's furthermore undisputed (because even a Qualcomm witness said so) that Qualcomm told Apple, in my words: if you want a better deal, you have to give us something of value... 

    Apple: We want a better deal. Not those cutthroat terms. (Discount or incentive payments--just a better deal on the bottom line.)

    Qualcomm: Only if you give us something of value to us. (Such as a volume commitment.)

    Apple: Well, how about exclusivity?

    Qualcomm: We'd prefer a volume commitment. But exclusivity can also work.

    He then goes on to say "Now, what does this mean for the legal case? With a jury, it could have huge psychological impact. Blame-shifting in the eyes of some laypeople. But remember, this is a bench trial." 

    edited January 12 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 73
    bellsbells Posts: 125member

    Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!

    That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:

    ********

    For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:

    • the "no license-no chips" policy;
    • incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
    • the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
    • past exclusive arrangements with Apple.
    ********

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/01/in-its-courtroom-chess-match-with.html

    We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

    Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level

    You are kidding right? Mueller mostly took Samsung and Nokia's in Apple's fight with those two. Further, Qualcomm's CEO's testimony doesn't even make sense. Apple didn't have any leverage over Qualcomm to demand anything. Who else is the FTC going to get to testify other than the companies that have dealings with Qualcomm?

    Additionally, if a robber asks you for the hundred dollars in your pocket, and you agree because he has a gun to your head, that doesn't really mean you agreed in a legally binding manner.

    The district court case doesn't mean anything. Texas is a friendly to patent Plaintiff's that is why everybody sues there. The case was contrary to how a California court rules, and the Texas court had to apply French law. It likely will get appealed. 
    radarthekatbb-15watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 73
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,652member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Notsofast said:
    saltyzip said:
    Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
    I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
    The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
    One company out of many, 62% of all profits.  Still not losing.
    Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!

    If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
    Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.

    Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.

    Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.

    Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
    I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.

    Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.

    Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
    You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.

    "Given that Android has had a great year"

    Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
    'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.

    Huawei,  Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.

    I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.

    Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.

    That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
    "it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.

    But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...


    ASP means nothing - to consumers!

    In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!

    All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.

    The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.

    If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.

    If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.

    Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.

    Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.

    Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.

    As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability  to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.

    Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
    edited January 13
Sign In or Register to comment.