Slashdot Mirror
Qualcomm Says Apple Broke Contract, Hindered Performance of Its Chipsets (arstechnica.com)
Qualcomm has filed a 139-page rebuttal of a lawsuit lodged by Apple in January in which the US chipmaker counterclaimed that the iPhone giant was "misrepresenting facts and making false statements." From a report on ArsTechnica: It alleged that Apple had "breached" and "mischaracterized" deals it had in place with Qualcomm and accused the Tim Cook-run firm of interfering with the chipmaker's "long-standing agreements" with iPhone and iPad manufacturers, such as Foxconn. In a statement, Qualcomm said, "Apple effectively chose to limit the performance of the Qualcomm-based iPhones by not taking advantage of the full potential speed of which Qualcomm's modems are capable. Apple's actions were intended to prevent consumers from realizing that iPhones containing Qualcomm chipsets performed far better than iPhones containing chipsets supplied by Intel."
Such the baby these foreigners are.
What you're really paying for when you give "tech" companies your money: 139-page lawsuits against other "tech" companies.
Both companies are American companies.
So, why didn't Qualcomm shat on Google for the Nexus 4's missing LTE capability? After all, the hardware had LTE working on band 20 and it worked with the initial 4.2 Android. I know that Qualcomm and Google probably have a "different Contract". But I think Qualcomm doesn't stand a chance.
I've heard from birdies this is common.. apple pulling fancy tricks with power management on laptops has been a issue for other major IC manufacturers that are "Inside" the laptop. They sacrifice performance for battery life no matter.
Based on my analysis of corporations filing lawsuits against their suppliers, it is usually when the buyer has sufficiently guaranteed win in the lawsuit or have an alternate supplier (internal or external) available. So either the Apple will win this suit or it will switch to some other supplier.
Disclaimer: I own Apple stock and have no direct position in Qualcomm.
Anyone remember the article from a year or two ago, when it was discovered that Apple was sourcing CPUs for its phones from two different manufacturers, and the phones containing CPUs from one source performed marginally better than the phones contain CPUs from the other source?
There was a big to-do, with people trying to figure out which iPhones were "the good ones", and people who had received (or thought they had received) the slower version were complaining and debating whether they ought to return their "inferior" iPhone in order to get one of the "better" ones.
Of course it turned out the difference wasn't really noticeable unless you were specifically benchmarking for it, but the fact that it was detectable at all produced a big (well, medium-sized) scandal and a headache for Apple.
Given that, I'm not at all surprised that Apple now aims for uniform performance across all units of a given model, rather than for best-possible-performance on any given OEM chipset. Uniformity makes everyone happy, whereas an optimal performance will go unnoticed by the people who have it and the people who don't will be pissed off.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Qualcomm is mad Apple dares to explore 2nd source for modem chip sets.
Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform. It's easier to tell developers 'expect this many megabits out of iphoneX in LTE' rather than 'Depending on the modem chipset, which we don't tell you about, expect this many megabits'
My money is on Apple. They don't take shit from vendors. They'll design and fab their own SoCs rather than be under someone else's development schedule. Down to making their own GPU, as seen in recent news.
I doubt Apple likes being under Qualcomm's thumb, having Quallcomm demand a percentage of unit price on every phone sold. That's why they brought Intel in. Yeah, Intel's product isn't better but it gives Apple alternatives and leverage against Qualcomm.
It's clear Qualcomm is looking to publicly embarrass Apple for having the temerity to use Intel's competing LTE chipset for its non-CDMA iPhone 7 units. Perhaps Apple did hamstring the Qualcomm chip so that the performance differential to Intel's chipset would be lower, and thus prevent customers from self-selecting the Qualcomm-equipped models. Even so, that's between Apple and its customers. Qualcomm has no place interceding itself in that process.
"Sent From my iPad"
Perhaps Apple did hamstring the Qualcomm chip so that the performance differential to Intel's chipset would be lower, and thus prevent customers from self-selecting the Qualcomm-equipped models. Even so, that's between Apple and its customers. Qualcomm has no place interceding itself in that process.
No? Qualcomm's claims are all there in the filing. Among them:
235. Apple’s Misstatements About the Relative Performance of the
Qualcomm Versus Intel Modems in iPhone 7 and Its Threat Have Harmed
Qualcomm and Consumers. Absent Apple’s conduct, Qualcomm’s chipsets would
be in higher demand, and Qualcomm would be able to sell more chips to Apple to
meet that demand. Apple’s decision not to use Qualcomm’s enhanced chipsets
denied consumers access to higher-performing devices, and Apple’s threats and
other efforts to hide the truth deprived consumers of meaningful choice. And, as
noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s
chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data
download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
236. By choosing not to use the best performing Qualcomm-based iPhones
(and risking that consumers would find out), Apple faced a potential backlash from
its customers. It avoided that backlash by concealing the truth, at the expense of
Qualcomm and consumers alike.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
This isn't the main claim of the lawsuit, though. Qualcomm is alleging Apple interfered with Qualcomm's patent licensing contracts with manufacturers (like Foxconn, Wistron, Pegatron) by encouraging them not to pay the full royalties Qualcomm asks for and not to comply with independent royalty audits. Apple is alleging that Qualcomm's royalty licensing practices are anticompetitive. It'll all go on for years.
Breakfast served all day!
And, as
noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s
chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data
download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
I don't understand how this, how does this reduce download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network? Is it that the phones become more chatty and thus load the network with a bunch of overhead? That might warrant a class-action against Apple by all mobile users, not sure what the claim would be since IANAL.
Yes, I did not RTFA, this is still slashdot, right?
Only I can judge you.
Yep, I understand Qualcomm's position regarding the claims about performance in the lawsuit. I just don't see how that has any relevance to their case - Apple was under no obligation in how they used Qualcomm's chips. The rest of the lawsuit they have a claim - the other part is just an attempt to embarrass Apple.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
I can't see any justifiable claim that Qualcomm could reasonably make in those statements. Even if Apple did everything Qualcomm said they did, Qualcomm has no standing to sue Apple as the consumers would be hurt not Qualcomm. Now if Apple ran ad after ad saying that Qualcomm chips were terrible, they could sue Apple for those statements.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's a counterclaim. When a party sues another party, the defendant can make counter claims for damages. It's not a defense to the original claim.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
Witness BitZtream getting pwned!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?