maestro64

About

Username
maestro64
Joined
Visits
82
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,844
Badges
2
Posts
4,527
  • Pegatron could start making iPads & MacBooks in Indonesia as early as June

    jmey267 said:
    Good, China is playing a game of chicken that they will loose. Manufactures will leave their country and they depend on the US for so much of their exports this is a loose loose situation for them.
    As I said before, US companies are really good at moving their production around the world. Apple may absorb so of tariff, but if this is true, they will more to next best cost country. The only question, do these other place have the infrastructure to support manufacturing the likes of Apple. 

    China has to weight if Apple leaves most likely they may not come back, especially for non China market products since you can not sell no Chinese made products without high duties places on them.
    racerhomie3
  • Judge rules Qualcomm violated federal antitrust laws, orders remedial action

    ronn said:
    ronn said:
    gatorguy said:
    red oak said:
    wanderso said:
    Seems that Apple might have wanted to wait a few more weeks to settle. 
    It will take many months to work through the appeals process.  And the outcome is not guaranteed.  Apple needed the chips now 

    But as long as the FTC wins at the end, it will not matter.   The contract will get torn up 
    I don't see that happening. 
    Doesn't the ruling mandate that:

    "...Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software."

    Which could give Apple a leg up on redoing the contract.
    Negotiate - From a go-forward perspective.  Renegotiate - if terms were negotiated under bad faith and threats.  There's nothing available that says Apple and QC negotiated their agreement under bad faith or threats.  In fact, there's a fair contingent of AI forum members who insist it was Apple negotiating from a position of strength so the conditions for renegotiation weren't really present.  We don't know so we can't assume.  Regardless, that excerpt you quoted does not mandate renegotiation.
    Everything in Koh's ruling points to Qualcomm operating under bad faith. Hell, she stopped just short of calling Q's witnesses/executive perjurers. They lost on nearly every count and she mandated government oversight for a period of seven years. The parties are holding the contract close to their vests, so no one can say with definitive proof who won. But given the previous worldwide rulings against Qualcomm, this outcome and the upcoming German trials, Qualcomm will be in a world of hurt.
    You seem to be equating her opinion of Qualcomm's overall actions with those of Qualcomm's actions regarding their settlement with Apple.   Renegotiation would occur if the perceived injured party wants to renegotiate.  There's nothing that says Apple would even want to do so or find advantage in doing so.
    Apple already has a new deal with QCOM, they preempted this decision. It was in QCOM best decision to settle with Apple ahead of this decision. If there is going to be court oversight in any future licensing agreements, QCOM did not want that as part of the Apple deal. No one should kid themselves into thinking Apple and QCOM did not know the outcome of the case, They both knew where it was head and they both agree ahead of time to strike a new deal.
    muthuk_vanalingamchasm
  • Judge rules Qualcomm violated federal antitrust laws, orders remedial action

    maestro64 said:
    Yep, no surprise here and most likely the reason QCOM and Apple settle out of court. With this ruling QOM would not have been in a good position with negotiating deal with Apple.
    Not following the logic here. If this ruling had come first, I feel like Apple would have either gone to trial with new precedent set, or gotten a better deal (if reports are to be believed that the deal was not great for Apple). Still seems more likely to me that Apple, faced with Intel's inability to deliver timely modems (that would be licensed from Qualcomm anyway) and a 5-year ramp up for its own team to work around patents in its internally developed modems, was facing years without 5G in the iPhone which would potentially be devastating as early as Fall of 2020. If Apple had lost its trial, the financial loss could be way worse than if it settled when there were still risks for Qualcomm. There were no options, in other words, but for Apple to give its lunch to the bully.
    If you see what Apple got from QCOM which we have limited information, we know Apple paid something for future licensing, QCOM obviously drove the settlement with Apple. Apple does not have too much of history of settling out of court unless they feel it is going to be a far better deal for them. They also fight on principle, which you generally do not see much these days, its usually all about the money and no wants to set any court precedence or let a judge decide. They rather have a close door agreement that no one knows about.

    This loss for QCOM means Intel may have gotten what they needed from QCOM at a reasonable cost which would have gotten Apple what they needed from Intel. QCOM could not afford this especially with rumors of Apple making their own modem chips which most likely will end up in the SOC. The QCOM deal with Apple killed the relationship with Intel which means that Intel does not have a big customer for the modem chip thus the reason we now hearing Intel may shut it all down.

    If you think Apple lost in the deal think again. The decision today is going to cost QCOM a lot of money, at least now they have long term deal with Apple and Apple got what they need directly from the main source without having to work with third parties. There is a lot more going on here than what is obvious and public.
    ronnchasm
  • Apple investors should cash in on US-China trade war, says Merrill Lynch

    lkrupp said:
    Should I buy a new iPhone now, before prices are hiked?
    This is all temporary. Either China or the U.S. will blink. My money is on the U.S. blinking because of public pressure. The U.S. public doesn't want the price of their trinkets going up. Meanwhile the Chinese totalitarian government doesn't have to respond to public pressure. In fact public pressure in China is forbidden and punishable by death.
    Yeah someone will blink, the problem is the US media is already blinking, they are predicting doom and gloom for everyone they are already trying to scare everyone. The media should be supporting the US and telling people it may hurt but it's going to good for everyone. 
    lkrupp
  • New photos show 'beta' Apple Card with NFC-enabled packaging

    macgui said:
    maestro64 said:
    rob53 said:
    Is there a reason Apple went with MasterCard instead of Visa? Lower costs?

    As for interest, the information Barry Sanders presents is eye opening. Credit card companies are legal loansharks and there’s no reason why GS or Apple should be charging so much. 
    Guess what, interest only applies if you are buying stuff you can not afford.

    The primary reason CC interest rates are so high is due to the fact so many people default on their CC payments. The people who pay the high interest are just funding the bad behavior of other people. In my case i am not funding those people bad behavior, I can keep cash in the market and extra 30 days and get 1% or 2% interest, and get paid 1% to 5% for using the card. So the people paying the high interest are funding me to use the card.
    That's right. Yeah CC companies rates are usury in almost all cases. But there's no need to pay them in the first place. Some card company cancelled me years ago because I did not carry a balance. I got it because there was no annual fee, a first back then. I went over a year or so and got a notice that it was being cancelled. I do not recall the exact wording, but it was because of maintaining a zero balance. Later another CC company dropped me because I didn't use their card at all. It was merely an emergency card, again with no annual fee.

    However, people funding bad behavior also make it possible for others to make money by using using the CC judiciously, buying only what you can afford. I have taken advantage over the years of various '__________ days same as cash' and other zero interest offers. Most of them stated they were only available to those with 'approved' credit, though I suspect they hoped you missed a payment.

    I'm also curious about Apple choice of MC over Visa, not that I see or know of any advantage of one over the other.
    If your CC is canceling for not carrying a balance you need a better company CC, I'm never seen that, my discover card is 30 yrs old and it the current back up. Our via of 20 yrs old is the primary and never carried balance on it, and our master card is just used for recurring bills and never leaves the safe. 

    Also you know the government, now requires CC companies to cancle your card if you do not use it for two years. So you have to use then otherwise it will be cancelled.
    Soli