Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing Trade Secrets and Giving Them To Intel (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the he-said-she-said dept.

Mark Wilson writes: Chip-maker Qualcomm has today accused Apple of stealing trade secrets and sharing them with Intel. The company alleges that Apple wanted Intel to be able to improve its own chips so it could move away from using Qualcomm's. Qualcomm and Apple are already engaged in a legal battle, and with its latest accusations, the chip-maker wants the court to amend its existing lawsuit against the company. Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'. In the new filings, Qualcomm says that upon Apple's request it allowed the iPhone maker deep access to its software and tools, but with strict limits on how those products could be used. It said, "Indeed, it is now apparent Apple engaged in a years-long campaign of false promises, stealth and subterfuge designed to steal Qualcomm's confidential information and trade secrets for the purpose of improving the performance of lower-quality modem chipsets, with the ultimate goal of eliminating Qualcomm's Apple-based business."

100 comments

  1. Obligatory Seinfeld by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." - George Costanza

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Obligatory Seinfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Qualcomm to Intel: Stop using our move

      Intel: Oh, that modulation was *so* obvious. We would have figured it out anyway. We didn't need Apple to tell us that stupid twist.

      Qualcomm: Swirl

      Intel: Whatever, we don't do it anyway

  2. Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    And as this article shows, Apple is reaping the rewards of screwing over Qualcomm: their new phones don't work as phones, or as Internet connected devices, because they're unwilling to pay Qualcomm for their research and efforts at making modems that work.

    1. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know its anecdotal, but my iPhone XS works just fine as a phone and an internet connected device.

      As always, the loudest people are not always the majority.

    2. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      No kidding. My works fine too. What a surprise!

    3. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sure thats a comfort to the people with problems

    4. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      If you live in an area where the signals are strong and the towers are near, you will see no difference between Qualcomm and Intel modems.

      If you live further away from the towers, where signals are weaker and interference more of a problem, you would soon find out that the Qualcomm chips are much more capable than the Intel ones.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sure thats a comfort to the people with problems

      All 12 of them.

    6. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you live in an area where the signals are strong and the towers are near, you will see no difference between Qualcomm and Intel modems.

      If you live further away from the towers, where signals are weaker and interference more of a problem, you would soon find out that the Qualcomm chips are much more capable than the Intel ones.

      So you are saying that this suit by Qualcomm is basebandless.

    7. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and apple also claimed only 9 iphones had bendgate.

    8. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And if it turns out to be true, then I guess you could say Qualcomm's technology got Xeroxed (pun intended).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Qualcomm's not wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. My works fine too. What a surprise!

      But if we put aside the anecdotes and actually take a look at the science of it you can see why people are reporting the relatively poor performance of the newer models of iPhones.

  3. it is no secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a lot of trade secrets are obvious solutions .. or common sense .. or lessons learned from past failures .. all of which can be independently developed

    qualcomm is going to have a difficult time showing this was not the case

    1. Re: it is no secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the "Hurr! AMD! Durr!" comments?

  4. Who isn't? by TexasDiaz · · Score: 2

    Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'.

    Duh. What multi-billion dollar company isn't [rightfully] accused of this?

    1. Re:Who isn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Costco

    2. Re:Who isn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Costco

      This guy buys in bulk.

    3. Re:Who isn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the accusations are true, so what?
      Information wants to be free. Everyone benefits.

    4. Re:Who isn't? by sinij · · Score: 3, Funny

      Costco

      This guy buys in bulk.

      I hate it when they move trade secrets into a different isle and don't tell you where to find them. You would think they are trying to hide them. I then have to wander the entire store looking for where they moved them. Just last week they moved Qualcomm trade secrets from next to cat litter and detergent into next to frozen food section.

    5. Re: Who isn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Aisle

    6. Re: Who isn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably meant isle. Have you ever been to a Costco, they're HUGE!!!

  5. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then shouldn't the new iPhones work better?!?

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely, this is true -- I was there when it happened.
      The Apple employee took the Qualcomm chip (specs) and
      actually showed the Intel rep how to hold them - up until then
      Intel had been holding things wrong and it was a major enlightenment
      for Intel and provided a huge competitive market advantage.

      CAP === 'collagen'

  6. That's the sound of desperation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know when a company shit-talks it's biggest customer you know there is a problem.

    Granted, qualcomm maskes the best modems but they're absolutely furious that Apple has the audacity to seek a second source for parts and help develop competing products.

    Other vendors would join in, but Apple probably the one company that Qualcomm can't bully. Qualcomm even forces Samsung to ship phones with Qualcomm SoCs (Why would Samsung do this when they have their own chip fab? Think about it)

    1. Re:That's the sound of desperation. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      (Why would Samsung do this when they have their own chip fab? Think about it)

      Chip fabs are factories. Developing an SoC requires a large and fairly expensive design team, a larger validation team, and then someone has to write a lot of software. Not that I don't believe Samsung could put this together, in fact I believe they have one here in Austin. But when you deal in commodities, you tend to take the cheapest route from a->b and don't look too far down the road.

    2. Re:That's the sound of desperation. by guruevi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Samsung also has it's own SoC's (which I think what the parent was trying to say) - the Exynos. They only recently developed a decent modem for it in order to cut out QualComm at some point.

      Having done business with QualComm (small electronics developer) I can concur that they're absolutely a horrible company to work with and will happily violate the GPL - they won't give you any Linux source code for "their" SoC reference compilation and then happily point you to the NDA. Oh you want a newer kernel - pay up for a newer chipset because we won't do it on our 2-year old chips.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:That's the sound of desperation. by NuclearCat · · Score: 1

      Horrible or not, unfortunately, Qualcomm acquired many good companies, such as Atheros, who have most consistent Linux-supported wifi card and SoC.
      Any downfall of Qualcomm automatically means downfall of these great products.
      And, is there any SoC vendor who does give reference SDK, with factory calibration tools, without NDA (and crazy fees)?

    4. Re:That's the sound of desperation. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not talking about SDK. The Linux kernel source cannot be limited by an NDA, that's explicitly ruled out by the GPL. Qualcomm uses a heavily modified kernel (statically compiled, not a modular approach) and refuses to release the source code altogether which is a violation of the GPL. Tired going through EFF but unless I want to shoulder my own defense or am myself or find an active Linux kernel developer that would be agrieved by this (Linus and most core developers doesn't seem to care about legally defending the kernel), they wouldn't consider my case.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  7. As always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any publicity is good publicity.

  8. It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been told that NDAs are usually used to hide crappy implementations, not to hide secret advanced technology. Scholars develop neat orthogonal techniques to solve problems, but in industry, there is a dearth of scholars, and the reality is that the actual implementations are ugly hacks, best to keep hidden, unless investors find out that all is not perfect with their Fortune 100 darling, and find our their 100x overvalued sweetheart is in possession of a sausage.

  9. I don't use Apple, but Qualcomm is a shit company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that knocks them down a peg (or several) is good in my book.

  10. Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If Apple handed Qualcomm's Trade Secrets over to Intel, don't you think that Intel would have delivered a better-performing MODEM than what is evidently in the iPhone Xs and Xs Max?

    Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

    Qualcomm is just a damned cry-baby. And an evil greedy one at that!

    Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM. Apple doesn't put up with vendors that try to strong-arm (no Pun) it. I sincerely believe that Apple's goal is to take every critical component "in-house".

    1. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Current evidence is that the modem in the Xs and Xs MAX is indeed a ripoff of a Qualcomm design, but what Apple fucked up is the antenna. The only way to fix the phones is going to be a redesign and a massive recall: they're physically defective.

    2. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Current evidence is that the modem in the Xs and Xs MAX is indeed a ripoff of a Qualcomm design, but what Apple fucked up is the antenna. The only way to fix the phones is going to be a redesign and a massive recall: they're physically defective.

      Prove it.

      Remember, Apple has a dedicated RF lab, and after AntennaGate, is pretty unlikely to repeat that particular design-snafu.

    3. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by known_coward_69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://www.wiwavelength.com/

      Sites are starting to link to this guy

    4. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple may have a dedicated RF lab, but you know who else does and who's required to release those details to the public? The FCC.

      Here you go: proof that the iPhone Xs and Xs MAX are physically defective and have a broken antenna. The short version is that all bars should be at or above that red line. Only two are.

      Then there's the Slashdot article proving people are seeing real world diminished speeds and signals.

      Or you can just Google it. Or wait for the inevitable class action lawsuit we all know is coming.

    5. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's likely some truth. Apple would keep asking for certain features that are Qualcomm specific and then feed Intel the details in how the feature should behave. At some point, Intel now has a feature complete copy.

    6. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      https://www.wiwavelength.com/

      Sites are starting to link to this guy

      That is an interesting link, thanks!

      I agree that Apple probably needs to add/adjust an RF amp for higher-gain; but that may be wishful thinking at this point.

      It doesn't make sense that Apple would have settled for a lower EIRP than the previous model unless they HAD to for some reason.

    7. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.

      "We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot. We all know the reason. You know the reason. apple cuts corners it increase profits. How many time must you be proven an idiot?

    9. Re: Proof is in the Pudding... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No because apple is totally incompetent at stealing since jobs died. He was the master thief at apple.

    11. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM

      Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.

      "We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.

      I would think that the "knowledge" would have to be SOLELY QUALCOMM's to begin with for it to be considered a "Trade Secret". No NDA can keep Apple from revealing knowledge that IT has generated, or that was developed in concert by Apple and Qualcoimm.

      For example, If Apple engineers take Qualcomm's part and then find out ON THEIR OWN that it works better when they adjust the antenna-impedance by a certain amount that isn't suggested in Qualcomm's documentation, THAT knowledge does not magically transmogrify into Qualcomm's, and is CERTAINLY not Qualcomm's "Trade Secret". So no, that sort of thing would NOT apply to Qualcomm's claims. At least not if the Judge is listening...

      And you're right: NDAs aren't favored, precisely because of all these sticky corner-cases.

    13. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Here you go: proof that the iPhone Xs and Xs MAX are physically defective and have a broken antenna.

      So you're saying that Apple knew their antenna was defective when they released these products. Typical of Apple to blame their design failure on someone else.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re: Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.

      I fully believe that the capacitor debacle was caused by INTENTIONALLY-INCORRECT formulas placed where they could be easily found.

      For example, when Eli Lilly publishes a Patent for some drugmaking process, they INTENTIONALLY include unnecessary steps, JUST to make the process more EXPENSIVE for the competition to COPY.

      But in this case, I think that Qualcomm is simply lying through their teeth, and want to try and force Apple to "prove a negative".

    15. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM

      Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?

      Show me an Apple RELEASED Wireless Charger that overheats, AND an EXPLODING iPhone (that means not just smoking or bulging; but a VERIFIED EXPLOSION.

    16. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The little plug iPhone wall chargers overheat and catch fire all the damned time. Talk to your local fire department some time. And Apple products are also notorious for having their batteries bulge and then catch fire. This isn't limited to phones, this is every Apple device with a Li-ion battery. Apple is why you're not allowed to check laptops in your luggage on airlines any more.

    17. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me exact same graphs but for every older iPhone model. Thanks.

    18. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse cheap Chinese knockoffs with Apple product.

    19. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link has those graphs for the iPhone X and iPhone 8. Read the entire thing. You can clearly see that on both of them the phone behaves much closer to spec than the iPhone Xs.

      The iPhone Xs is a defective design. Period.

    20. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

      No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    21. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "cheap Chinese knockoffs" ARE the Apple products. Most "knockoff" products from China are just extras that the company that placed the order didn't want, so they get sold cheaply to recover expenses. Just because Apple charges boutique prices doesn't mean they don't sell you cheap Chinese products.

    22. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL all of apples crap is made in China

    23. Re: Proof is in the Pudding... by Eichmil · · Score: 1

      No, those corners are deliberately rounded, as per their look and feel.

    24. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

      No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.

      Well, curiously enough, Qualcomm was stupid enough to NOT name Intel as a Co-Defendant!

      I am pretty sure that they are not one of the "Does 1-25" listed in the caption of the case, as seen on MacRumors:

      https://www.macrumors.com/2018...

      Personally, I would consider that a SERIOUS mistake on the part of Qualcomm. Generally, you sue everyone and their dog, and let THEM argue to be Discharged as a Party.

      This tells me that Qualcomm is just trying to stir up bad press on Apple, and that they KNOW they don't have a leg to stand on, legally...

      Qualcomm is one smarmy company. Glad to see they are too cheap to rent REAL attorneys!

    25. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya because apple has more lawyers than programmers. That tells you what kind of a thieving company apple is. The have no problem stealing others patents and then taking them to court. Standard scumbucket move in apples playbook.
      Hope apple got new lawyers than those that lost the ebook price fixing case the apple LOST.

    26. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having seen the qcom code. No. Just no.

    27. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel DID deliver a significantly better modem than what they were doing before. It's just like when they stole patented ideas from DEC for the Pentiums and got caught.

    28. Re:Proof is in the Pudding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you own research. Lazy ass apple worshipper.

  11. Re: I don't use Apple, but Qualcomm is a shit comp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Qualcomm advertising campaign just so they can sway public opinion has been ridiculous. âoeWe invent all the stuff thatâ(TM)s in your smartphones... blah blah worship usâ

    They also have a wall in their headquarters with plaques for each of their parents. The more important patents get larger plaques. One of their biggest ones is a plaque for an App Store. A freaking App Store. Iâ(TM)m not surprised that Apple is sick of this shit.

  12. This is why Qualcomm should be avoided at all cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They purchased some good IP for those wireless chips, but they do not like to share how to even use them. Hopefully someone with enough cash to put out some ASICs will try to compete with them one day.

  13. The funny thing... by emil · · Score: 0

    ...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.

    Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.

    Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

    Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?

    1. Re:The funny thing... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      ...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.

      Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.

      Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

      Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?

      Or because they have perfected their own MODEM.

      Remember, they now have produced in-house Bluetooth chips (at least 2 generations thereof); so they obviously have enough in-house RF Engineering talent to take on a WiFi MODEM.

      Intel and Qualcomm are both just stopgaps.

    2. Re:The funny thing... by GabeGhearing · · Score: 4, Informative

      Extremetech's article seems to be mostly mistaken. Intel's Sunny Peak project that Apple isn't using isn't a 5G modem, it's a WiFi/Bluetooth chipset.
      https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

    3. Re:The funny thing... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This isn't about picking Intel over Qualcomm. The allegation (which I'm not qualified to judge if it has merit) is that Apple doesn't like paying higher prices to the one player dominating the market, so is trying to help give a competitor a leg up. The long-term plan being if Intel's chipset improves enough to become a viable alternative to Qualcomm's, the two will compete with each other and lower their prices. Basically like if some company were to sell hardware which could install MacOS on instead of having to buy a Mac. (MacOS will actually run on most PC hardware - the Macs are just PCs running a different OS. It's only Apple's software license which prohibits MacOS from being sold or installed onto generic PC hardware.)

      That's what gives the allegation a veneer of credibility. Apple has done exactly this (albeit legally) with Samsung - going with slower Toshiba NAND and SK Hynix RAM in their devices instead of Samsung. Trying to have LG manufacture the OLED panels for their iPhones as an alternative to Samsung. Apple's MO among suppliers is like Walmart - use its market dominance to bully suppliers into accepting extremely thin margins ("Well if you won't sign this hundred million dollar contract with us at a lower unit price, then we'll just ink a deal with your competitor instead."). That's partly how they maintain such a huge profit margin (over 20%, vs about 5% for the rest of the computer industry), not just by overcharging customers. But it's a tactic which doesn't work when only one supplier dominates the market.

      Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

      x86 is CISC. ARM is RISC. CISC vs RISC has played out numerous times since the 1980s. CISC has won every time. I like the idea behind RISC, but its advantages don't seem to beat out the advantages of CISC when it comes to optimized processor performance. RISC seems to have an advantage when rapidly transitioning to new processing regimes (previously high-end data processing with MIPS, currently with low-power processing with ARM). But it's like once the transition has been made or slows down, CISC allows you to optimize it further, resulting in CISC beating out RISC long-term.

    4. Re: The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. I hope apple tries to make their own chips and Qualcomm sues the shit out of them. Qualcomm has real patent; not rounded corners patents.

    5. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bluetooth is a light appetizer compared to LTE's nine course meal.
      I used to work for Broadcom. Instead of developing their own LTE modem they bought Renesas Mobile for theirs as it was cheaper than developing it.
      It's no simple feat to get one approved by all the carriers.
      I have no doubt that Apple can design one, it's just going to take a long time and they might just skip 4G and develop a 5G one and try to get ahead of the curve.

    6. Re:The funny thing... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      they have perfected their own MODEM.

      Is it as perfect as the exploding PHONES and the overheating CHARGERS?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:The funny thing... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.

      Impressive, Apple will follow up removing the headphone jack by removing the radio. That takes courage.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market conditions aren't the result of CISC isn't beating RISC. They're the result of Intel's *immense* R&D budget which continues to keep their x86 portfolio at or near the top (depending on which segment of the market and where AMD is at any given moment). It's amazing what you can do with nearly infinite amounts of money (or the ability to print your own money, which is pretty much what the x86 ISA is for Intel.)

      The reason those other sectors might win with RISC (such as ARM or MIPS) is normally just a temporary situation until Intel decides it wants to own that segment of the market. Once it throws the vast resources at it's disposal, it's usually a forgone conclusion that Intel will own that market, and it will push x86 there even in situations where that makes no technical sense whatsoever.

      The fact that Intel still hasn't dominated the low end / low power market already is a clear sign that trying to squish CISC into that place is silly -- the chips are wildly power inefficient as their is a vast amount of circuitry to support all those various extended instructions.

      CISC (an x86 in particular) remains a vehicle for Intel to continue their stranglehold on the market. The only reason Intel isn't pushing RISC designs (which would likely be technically superior) but pushes x86 so hard is that x86 continues to be a very high moat for them; if RISC designs actually became mainstream (like they are in the mobile market with ARM) then Intel stands to lose a *lot* of money.

      Intel doesn't want you to have the best solution. Intel wants you to have the solution that earns them the most money and perpetuates their market monopoly.

    9. Re:The funny thing... by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.

      Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.

      In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.

    10. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The long-term plan being if Intel's chipset improves enough to become a viable alternative to Qualcomm's, the two will compete with each other and lower their prices.

      No. They will collude & raise prices.

    11. Re:The funny thing... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.

      Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.

      In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.

      QUITE Insightful!!!

      You don't think those hires were for the Bluetooth (W1,W2) chips?

      My feeling is that they thought they were ready to cut both Intel and Qualcomm loose with the Xs/XR series; but perhaps didn't get Agency Approvals worldwide in time for Production, and so had to use the Intel chips.

      But wasn't the use of Intel also tied to some RF-bands that Qualcomm didn't support? Or was that just a smokescreen?

      And are there REALLY only just TWO Cell MODEM chip Designers (well, three, if you count that Apple sounds like they are doing it, too) on the PLANET?!?

    12. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What overheating chargers?

    13. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x86 is CISC. ARM is RISC. CISC vs RISC has played out numerous times since the 1980s. CISC has won every time. I like the idea behind RISC, but its advantages don't seem to beat out the advantages of CISC when it comes to optimized processor performance. RISC seems to have an advantage when rapidly transitioning to new processing regimes (previously high-end data processing with MIPS, currently with low-power processing with ARM). But it's like once the transition has been made or slows down, CISC allows you to optimize it further, resulting in CISC beating out RISC long-term.

      LOL, CISC didn't win. Do you know how every modern x86 works? They're RISC processors emulating the x86 instruction set. But at their core, they're RISC.

      (This isn't exactly true, but it's true enough - the benefits of a RISC core are enough that even CISC chips use RISC design elements. Declaring either RISC or CISC "winning" ignores how modern CPUs really work - the issue has sort of been side-stepped and the ISA isn't what the processor really runs.)

    14. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they have perfected their own MODEM.

      Is it as perfect as the exploding PHONES and the overheating CHARGERS?

      Why do you keep bringing up Samsung?

    15. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple also bought siri and look at the state of that hot mess. apple can buy all the companies it wants but it cant make people want to stay there and work for apple. The siri guys bolted as soon as they could. Id love to see the number of people that leave a company once they are bought by apple.

    16. Re:The funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple knows a lot about how NOT to collude. But im sure apple will be involved somehow; making sure they are guaranteed the lowest price.

    17. Re:The funny thing... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The fact that Intel still hasn't dominated the low end / low power market already is a clear sign that trying to squish CISC into that place is silly -- the chips are wildly power inefficient as their is a vast amount of circuitry to support all those various extended instructions.

      It's worth nothing that x86 is a really horrible instruction set with an unusually hard stance on backwards compatibility. That's why it's so expensive to make. Other CISC designs are far, far more efficient and easier to design, and there are plenty of CISC designs used in the embedded market (ie, where unmarketable designs go to retire). The 68060 was a really nice design -- far ahead of x86 processors of the time in all regards except floating point math -- but nobody used it since Motorolla (and everyone else) had already announced they were dumping CISC.

      Personally, I'd like to see an all-new CISC ISA that was designed from the ground up to work with a RISC core. That should be able to blow the doors off both existing RISC chips and x86. If it weren't open, RISC-V would already be dead, because from a technical perspective, nobody cares.

      The real reason x86 will continue to dominate is because all the major RISC processors are pretty much the same, so compiler designers basically support two ISAs: x86 and everyone else. It's just too damn hard from a marketing perspective to establish a new ISA.

  14. Americans by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    So Americans steal too? news for me, uh

  15. Well, if only if.... by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

    Maybe if Qualcomm hadn't wanted ridiculous royalties from Apple, it wouldn't have this problem.

    1. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this! Requiring a payment of a percentage of the final product it goes into instead of a percentage of the component is bullshit. Apple has been subsidizing all those cheap android phones for years.

    2. Re: Well, if only if.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Except that's not what Qualcomm demanded. Normally for these kind of chip royalties, a company pays the license then manufactures the chip OR they buy a chip from a licensee. In the case of Apple, they bought chips with Qualcomm tech from another company but Qualcomm also wanted royalties on top of what Apple bought. It's called double dipping and Apple isn't the first company that's accused Qualcomm of doing this.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the amount under debate is around $5 per device. There is a cap of $400 on the device after which the licensing fee doesn't increase. Think of it this way, Qualcomm decided that they should charge $10 license fee on their chips in phones, however cheap phone manufacturers, making phones for $100 would find it exorbitant, so they allow them to pay the license fee as a percentage of the phone price, but once the phone price goes beyond $400, the price is fixed at $10. Apple is trying to force qualcomm to reduce this fixed license fee by unscrupulously claiming that they are paying more for their more expensive phones, when in fact they are paying the same as what oneplus or samsung are paying for their $400 phones. As far as Intel stealing tech is concerned, it is widely known that Qualcomm provided Apple with deep source code access and Qualcomm has a ton of non-standard features which dramatically improve call quality and data rates in severe radio conditions, which is why the previous generation iPhones showed a 30% difference between Intel based and Qualcomm based iPhones in poor radio conditions. As far as the RF behaviour is concerned, Qualcomm used to work very closely with Apple during their RF testing with several Qualcomm engineers going on site to troubleshoot and fix issues, of course that is not happening any more. The last time they didn't use Qualcomm was iPhone 4 which was when the first antenna gate happened, and guess what, the next time they went without Qualcomm another antenna gate is in the offing.

    4. Re:Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if apple did not like the deal they should have went somewhere else for chips. No one was forcing them. And not signed a contract that they later broke. Im sure you would be all for any company the supplies apple with partsto suddenly decide its going to break their signed agreement and start charging apple whatever they want for their parts. apple has never had ethics and i guess its a little to late to expect them to have some now.

    5. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again

      http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/qualcomm-royalty-apple-under-siege/

    6. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s $15 per device.

      http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/qualcomm-royalty-apple-under-siege/

    7. Re: Well, if only if.... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Did you miss this part?:

      Typically, companies that make other parts inside smart phones unrelated to Qualcommâ(TM)s patents, such as graphics chips or audio decoders, license any relevant patents themselves and pay the royalties directly to the patent owners. The cost of the licensing is based on the price of the particular component, not the overall phone price.

      By refusing to make deals directly with mobile chipmakers and forcing smartphone makers to engage, Qualcomm can make it financially difficult for competing chipmakers to displace its chips. Smart phone makers apparently have to pay patent royalties to Qualcomm regardless of which company makes the chips. Thatâ(TM)s the move that the Federal Trade Commission dubbed a âoetaxâ by Qualcomm on all cellphones.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this! Requiring a payment of a percentage of the final product it goes into instead of a percentage of the component is bullshit. Apple has been subsidizing all those cheap android phones for years.

      Exactly as bullshit as Apple requiring 30% of all App sales?

    9. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, the amount that Apple is cribbing about is around $5, they want to pay $10 instead of $15.

    10. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the amount under debate is around $5 per device.

      Hey, that's only $1 Billion per year! Why wouldn't Apple just pay that even though asking for it is probably against the law?

    11. Re: Well, if only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asking for it isn't against the law. Sure there are some trivial patents, but there are several significant patents for which Qualcomm has invested considerable RnD. If you check, among tech companies, Qualcomm has the highest percentage of revenue spent on RnD (I think it is around 20 %), they have to recoup that somehow rather than giving freebies to companies like Apple which squeeze everyone else out of business.

  16. Abysmal quadrupling of datarate! by k2r · · Score: 2

    I‘m not an antenna guru but the bad antenna’ seems to affect the datarate quite nicely:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/g...

  17. Apple-designed modem? by emil · · Score: 1

    Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.

    1. Re:Apple-designed modem? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.

      I understand what you are saying; but just because, for example, Intel shows Apple under NDA the internals for one of their x86 CPUs, doesan't mean that Apple can never create its own CPU. It just means that Intel could sue if they thought they were ripped-off.

  18. Of course apple stole it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple has been lying, cheating and stealing since the company was formed. Hope Qualcomm takes them to the cleaners.

  19. They stole Imagination's GPU design as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's no way they had engineers working for 10 years to build up their own powerful and high-performance architecture. They learnt and stole as much as they could from the very liberal licensing deal they had with Imagination, then stated "we're done with you end of next year" when they had what they needed.

    IP theft is very much alive in America, as always, and with the biggest corporations add to that.

  20. Where's the Beef by rfengineer · · Score: 1

    "Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'." None of which is illegal. This accusation is sloppy, inappropriate, and unless an actual legal violation emerges somewhere, deceitful conduct.

  21. what a fucking bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    qualcomm- ur just pissed that apple doesn't use your shit any more, or use your shit as a primary building block.
    Apple, your all just a buncha dumb fucks..

    But Hurt Babies or
    Billion dollar Babies..
    this is stupid..
    "click-bait"