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."
Google is still using Qualcomm chips and not trying to move to Intel.
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.
Both of them can be California companies soon if #calexit would just hurry the eff up.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Because despite the terrible summary, the claim isn't about Apple hindering the performance of its chips. It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones. The section about hindering performance is a couple of paragraphs of background in a multi-hundred page document, but for some reason the press has latched onto it.
It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones
If they're hindering the performance of Qualcomm chips to match, wouldn't that premise also be true?
They're claiming that despite Apple not using all the features of the radio, Qualcomm iPhones still outperform Intel iPhones by 30-75%.
because google isn't suing qualcomm for $1 BILLION like Apple is
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.
*theoretically, under specific conditions.
Unfortunately we couldn't get lucky enough for them to actually secede. Than they could have their almighty queen Clinton at the top like they wanted
the state would have more money without the rest of the country
All the more reason to leave. Now.
Have gnu, will travel.
Because despite the terrible summary, the claim isn't about Apple hindering the performance of its chips. It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones. The section about hindering performance is a couple of paragraphs of background in a multi-hundred page document, but for some reason the press has latched onto it.
The relative performance of Qualcomm vs Intel chips may be interesting to you and me. And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm. However, It's more interesting to the average person that Apple may be deliberately slowing their phone down.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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!
> , but why do you think CA couldn't secede because it is in debt?
His point is that they'd be fucked, not because of debt, but because they operate at a loss.
I don't know if that's actually true though, especially not when counting that they would have control over taxation (in such a situation, a California company would owe as much money to the federal government of the 49 states of the USA as it would to the government of Botswana). Even in theory, it's a totally bonkers situation because you wouldn't predict any of the second order effects correctly (which companies stay, which leave, which groups become violent, etc). In practice it is well beyond lunacy: the punishment for secession is quite apparently immediate reconquest, as determined by the civil war.
Because with the exception of a couple of bad years, California has consistently given the feds more than it has gotten back, which means the state would have more money without the rest of the country, not less.
The people who live in California pay Federal taxes. The state government gets some of that (not all for sure, but a very large number) back in Federal grants, military base spending, Federal employee salaries, etc. If California were to secede, the people who live there stop paying Federal taxes and the state stops getting Federal money. How does that result in the state government having more money? Unless of course the state executes a massive increase in its income tax, which of course they'll have to because it's going to need its own military, its own intelligence apparatus, and a lot of other very expensive departments and agencies currently provided by the Federal government.
I suppose, though, that the folks supporting Calexit have thought all these things through and have solutions at hand for all the potential problems. Sorry; you're going to need a passport and visa to visit your relatives in the US, and you'll have to go through this new "extreme vetting" process. Sorry, retired people, your Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut off. Sorry, poor people; no more Medicaid for you. Sorry, 150,000 former Federal employees; your pension is forfeit, and those of you who can't find an equivalent state job are out of a job.
Long-time residents of California are leaving the state in increasing numbers year over year. I doubt if Calexit will do anything to reverse that trend.
They would no longer benefit from the US treaties and who knows how that might throw a monkey wrench into businesses... or it could be better but I doubt it. There would be a costly and immediate disruption either way. They would surely loose a lot of bargaining power. US imports and exports on that coast would be diverted to Oregon or Washington which would be a huge chunk out of their economy.
Interestingly, we in The People's Republic of California, support many of the several shitty states that get back more money from the Federal Guvment than they put in. So, fuck all of y'all. Just kick us the fuck out and let us get the true value of our exports. See what happens, you broke-ass deadbeat states. We'll easily fix out situation. World's 6th largest economy, bitch!
Only I can judge you.
Yup, let's get the fuck out, now.
Only I can judge you.
Because we're not dicks, we wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away. We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money. We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
Only I can judge you.
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.
Because we're not dicks
Citation needed
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money.
Maybe, maybe not. The US maintains foreign military bases where its national interests lie. This does raise a couple of interesting questions, though: (1) would all the civilian employees at California military bases be fired and replaced by US citizens; and (2) would all the "California citizens" in the military be discharged because they're no longer US citizens?
We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
I think you meant "Mecca" and "emigrate", but whatever. Like all the desperate UAians wanting to emigrate to The Netherlands for the legal drugs? It's one thing to visit for a few days for the high; another to decide you want to live in the People's Republic of California. I suppose it would be a boon to all the emergency room operators, like it's been in Colorado.
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.
And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm
The problem is that Qualcomm must prove "harm". Apple merely selecting two vendors and claiming they performed equally when one beat the other does not "harm" either vendor. What damages did Qualcomm suffer? Apple was never going to use 100% Qualcomm chips anyways. Other manufacturers are going to run their own tests and not accept Apple's word because their phones would have different performance results.
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.
#CalExit and then immediately join Mexico - done.
Because just band 4 wasn't enough for a full implementation?
To have an LTE certified device, they needed different antennas and other stuff in the phone. They had most of it, but it was never certified. They tried and it failed, once it was out, there was no way to fix it. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the Nexus 4 didn't do LTE out of the box, it had to be enabled by a cracked radio ROM didn't it?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Because we're not dicks
Citation needed
We're not panicky bitches that live in fear of the latest bogeyman: The Blacks, The Chinese, The Chicanos, The Germans, The Russians, Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, "Terrorists"... We're much more relaxed because our world is a reflection of our chillness, yours is a reflection of your anger and conquest mentality.
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
Well, since we have more working brain cells by not living in a continuous state of fear, we can work with the higher brain sections rather than just the amygdala, so can more logically analyze our defense needs. We have the USA to our right, lets presume they won't attack because we are a great trading partner and the source of most of their food especially during winter, so the Eastern and Northern flanks are covered. To the south, we have Mexico, not a huge military power and not bent on conquest, so our Southern border is safe as well. On the East, we have the Pacific Ocean, not easy to attack us there and the USians with their great fear of everything will not let anything approach us on that coast. We'll be trading like crazy, buying and selling shit so everyone will love us. China doesn't want to project power beyond its immediate borders, not militarily anyway, so who would really be coming at us from the West? Not much need I think for anything larger than maybe the 25th nation's military, which is really not a whole hell of a lot.
We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money.
Maybe, maybe not. The US maintains foreign military bases where its national interests lie. This does raise a couple of interesting questions, though: (1) would all the civilian employees at California military bases be fired and replaced by US citizens; and (2) would all the "California citizens" in the military be discharged because they're no longer US citizens?
We can demand that they vacate the bases or use all Californian employees for anything other than officers and enlisted personnel. We'll tax the shit out of them for the right to be on our land. California Citizens could make a choice and be Californians or USians, then they'll be treated accordingly. We may or may not allow dual-citizenship.
We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
I think you meant "Mecca" and "emigrate", but whatever. Like all the desperate UAians wanting to emigrate to The Netherlands for the legal drugs? It's one thing to visit for a few days for the high; another to decide you want to live in the People's Republic of California. I suppose it would be a boon to all the emergency room operators, like it's been in Colorado.
Thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure about the spelling of "Mecca", I did mean immigrate as I was speaking from my POV, not yours. They would be immigrants to us. So you're saying we don't need to build a yuuge wall? Great, saves us money. Yeah, we'd have problems with the tourists but, hey! if they want to spend some money for an unnecessary emergency room visit, why should we care? Their money, assuming the dollar survives, will be acceptable or exchangeable everywhere.
Stay awesome tsqr!
Only I can judge you.
Sure there will be an effect.
The question is was there harm. Effect is not the legal standard.
If yellow pages lies and says that Jim's 10 minute locksmith and Bob's 30 minute locksmith are the same speed, then Jim's going to lose business, even though he's faster. If Apple lied and claimed that the phones are equivalent, when they're not, then the qualcom iphone sales will be artificially depressed (yes, there are people who care).
The problem with this analogy is manifold. 1) Yellow Pages is in the business of providing listings and do not evaluate the performance of the listings. 2) Consumers really choose (or know sometimes) either modem. They choose the phone, the choose the carrier; they don't choose the chipset. 3) The only parties that might be affected are manufacturers as they are the ones that have a real choice in the matter are other manufacturers. Normally they will do their own testing. LG, Samsung, Huawei, are not simply going to take Apple's word that one chipset is better or equal to another mainly because they will use different components in their models and have to do their own testing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.