applecider

IVE was wonderful but,
.
.
At times the pursuit of the ultimate edge was ill advised like
the pursuit of thinnest, especially in the iMac line was silly.  A little bit of function over form would have done both Jobs and Ive some good. 

Please tell us there is more to this than “apple agrees to pay QCOM”.

I second Tychos comments about clickbait and also despise qcom’s business practices.

A problem is that FRAND licensing has not been well defined by either courts or regulatory agencies responsible for adopting standards and their essential patents.

For instance the smallest unit upon which royalty should be based the radio chip or the entire phone is not agreed upon.

For those who don’t follow these issues QCOM has licensed patents to chip makers, but in some instances eg iphone wants patents based upon the final product rather than the part that uses the patent.  Of course by this logic a high end BMW with Qualcomm’s chip would owe a royalty based on the cost of the car. QCOM has also wanted a royalty from chip makers and the final product so called double dipping.

What I find amazing is that their stock QCOM has risen despite the apple disputes and movement to INTL modem chips.

Back street research analyst.....name doesnt really matter... downgrades stock..  he also has a buy on Tesla with a 530 target.  He was at Bernstein but it is unclear that he covered aapl from there.


Rather than complain about stock manipulation, expect it, and make a plan to profit from it.  For me if the stock backs to 190 (which it may based on simple pullback to breakout levels) then I’d be a buyer in some form, like maybe options.