Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wanted To Use Qualcomm Chips For Its 2018 iPhones, But Qualcomm Refused Because of Companies' Licensing Dispute (cnet.com)
Apple's operating chief said on Monday that Qualcomm refused to sell its 4G LTE processors to the company due to the companies' licensing dispute. According to CNET, that decision "had a ripple effect on how quickly Apple can make the shift to 5G." From the report: Qualcomm continues to provide Apple with chips for its older iPhones, including the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, Apple COO Jeff Williams testified Monday during the US Federal Trade Commission's trial against Qualcomm. But it won't provide Apple with processors for the newest iPhones, designed since the two began fighting over patents, he said. And Williams believes the royalty rate Apple paid for using Qualcomm patents -- $7.50 per iPhone -- is too high.
The FTC has accused Qualcomm of operating a monopoly in wireless chips, forcing customers like Apple to work with it exclusively and charging excessive licensing fees for its technology. The FTC has said that Qualcomm forced Apple to pay licensing fees for its technology in exchange for using its chips in iPhones. The trial kicked off Jan. 4 in US District Court in San Jose, California. Testimony covers negotiations and events that occurred before March 2018 and can't encompass anything after that date. Apple is expected to only use Intel chips in its next iPhones, something that will make Apple late to the market for 5G phones. "By the 2019 holiday season, every major Android vendor in the U.S. will have a 5G phone available," reports CNET. "But Intel's 5G modem isn't expected to hit phones until 2020."
The FTC has accused Qualcomm of operating a monopoly in wireless chips, forcing customers like Apple to work with it exclusively and charging excessive licensing fees for its technology. The FTC has said that Qualcomm forced Apple to pay licensing fees for its technology in exchange for using its chips in iPhones. The trial kicked off Jan. 4 in US District Court in San Jose, California. Testimony covers negotiations and events that occurred before March 2018 and can't encompass anything after that date. Apple is expected to only use Intel chips in its next iPhones, something that will make Apple late to the market for 5G phones. "By the 2019 holiday season, every major Android vendor in the U.S. will have a 5G phone available," reports CNET. "But Intel's 5G modem isn't expected to hit phones until 2020."
It seems like the whole 5G rollout thing is becoming a bit of a mess, maybe delivering 5G in 2020 is not so bad as most people are pretty happy with LTE speeds now and the question of you are getting 5G or not will have been resolved by then, along with somewhat expanded networks.
I will say that Qualcom chips did seem like they were more stable though, so from that aspect Apple has been hurt by this...
It's proven for sure that Apple is right to want to take all chip design in-house.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5G will be limited to cities and areas of concentrated populations. I expect the 5G roll-out, to consumers, won't begin in earnest until the big ISP's determine how costly it actually will be. This won't hurt Apple very much at all. "Wait 'till next year" - Ernie Banks
Can we ever survive without 5G on iphone 9? Crapdroids will have it! OMG OMG! How can the world survive without 5G on iphones??? no gigabit speed!!! no 8k!!!
Isn't that the intention of patents? They grant a limited-time monopoly (in exchange for the design details being made public).
I mean Apple, which made I don't know a metric ton of profit last year (don't ask me how much because I'm too lazy to look it up), doesn't want to pay the royalties on parts used in a product that made them tons of money. The supplier then cut them off for non payment of said royalties. Now Apple is all but hurt that they have to go to another vendor who won't have the same type of parts for them for at least another year? Does that about sum it up? If so, go cry me a fricking river Apple. Open your rusted shut wallet and pay your bills; while your at it why not pay your US tax bill too?
Also, typical Apple. Didn't Jobs do this when he changed the video card in the Cube because the video card company released a few shots of the Cube days before the launch? Jobs seemed to like spiting anyone that dare upstage or damage his ego, usually at the cost of hurting the company. Somehow, this doesn't feel any different.
What? You don't think companies that specialize in a specific area are better at it than generalists?
That depends.
I agree that specialists can be better.
But don't you think it's also true with that specialists without strong competition can grow weak and lazy until suddenly someone comes along with better tech?
That's kind of where I feel like Qualcomm is at, yes they are clearly the best now, but I'm not at all sure it's impossible to dethrone them.
And there have to be many other companies besides Apple chafing at the bit for a strong competitor so Qualcom cannot hold cell phone makers hostage (not talking just Apple here)...
So please, do take it inhouse to save just $2 off of a $1200 phone.
The cost is not at all why, since with R&D costs it would probably cost way more.
The reason would be is if you could provide equivalent or superior quality of service in your own part, without being at the whims of a chip maker who has proven they are willing to withhold supply... and of course there's the matter of being sure as to what supply could be, rather than being taken out by a sudden shortage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's like Harvey Dent -- from one side very good hardware and from the other a blood-sucking patent troll. Some even suggesting to split the company in two.
Qualcomm wanted 1.5% of an iPhone Xr ($499).
Which Apple deems to be too much.
But Apple will happily take 15% from a app sale without any negotiation...
Seriously? On $1000 devices that cost them $300 to make? And I assume this is some sort of actual/essential technology, they are not seeking to license gestures or shapes, correct? And from a company that keeps 30% of developer earnings (a bit more, devs also pay currency conversion, I end up with closer 66% of revenue)?
Apple never ceases to amaze me with their hypocrisy and audacity.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
There's only one thing missing from your analysis, and that's the FRAND contract Qualcomm agreed to when their patent-encumbered designs were selected for the LTE standard. Apple's argument is that the deal they're getting from Qualcomm isn't fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. I'm not sure if it is or if it isn't, but there's certainly enough gray area to dispute that this is all Apple's fault, hence the lawsuit.
Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
The really high speed 5G will only be in cities and more densely populated areas. The long range 5G based on existing cell towers will be rolled out everywhere. It will offer marginally faster speeds, though from what I've read the main benefit is better channel management, meaning towers will be able to pump out more speed overall.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.