Slashdot Mirror


Intel Will Exit 5G Phone Modem Business, Hours After Apple and Qualcomm Settle Licensing Dispute (cnet.com)

Intel announced Tuesday afternoon that it will no longer be working on 5G chips for smartphones, leaving Apple with only one supplier for its iPhones, Qualcomm -- the same company that it was battling in court until midday Tuesday. CNET reports: Intel late Tuesday said it plans to exit the 5G smartphone modem business. It had been working on a processor for Apple, with the chip expected to be in iPhones in 2020. Lately there have been worries the chip wouldn't be ready until iPhones released in 2021. "The company will continue to meet current customer commitments for its existing 4G smartphone modem product line, but does not expect to launch 5G modem products in the smartphone space, including those originally planned for launches in 2020," Intel said in a press release. Its only customer in modems is Apple.

Intel added that it will "complete an assessment of the opportunities for 4G and 5G modems in PCs, internet of things devices and other data-centric devices." It also said it will "continue to invest in its 5G network infrastructure business." "We are very excited about the opportunity in 5G and the 'cloudification' of the network, but in the smartphone modem business it has become apparent that there is no clear path to profitability and positive returns," Intel CEO Bob Swan said in a statement.
The announcement comes hours after Apple and Qualcomm announced that they had reached a settlement in their multi-year battling over licensing royalties.

20 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Urg by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to see qualcom's sleazy Frand practices win by default.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Urg by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This might explain the cryptic announcement in November by Qualcom that they felt that they and apple were close to negotiating an agreement. Apple responded by saying "huh? we haven't talked with Qualcom in 6 months".

      How could Qualcom know apple would be agreeing if they were not talking? Maybe they somehow had inside info and knew Intel wasn't going to deliver on 5G so apple would me coming home to mama qualcom asking for forgiveness.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Urg by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Apple can always lower their prices if they want to give Qualcom less.

    3. Re:Urg by thatseattleguy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Those who follow the semiconductor market closely and don't have a horse in the race would beg to disagree with you on all points, especially your assessment of Qualcomm's FRAND practices:
      .

      ...it was pretty obvious that Apple was in the wrong, allegedly caught red handed, and dug the hole deeper with their petty and vindictive reactions. Qualcomm claims to have multiple emails where Apple gave sensitive trade secrets to a competitor, then refused to allow Qualcomm to exercise their contractual audit rights. While there may be some more evidence not presented publicly, it sure looks like Apple was in the wrong.

      Read Demerjian's whole piece here for a more complete picture:
      https://www.semiaccurate.com/2...

    4. Re: Urg by samkass · · Score: 2

      What's unreasonable about a percent? Apple is using Qualcomm inventions to extort people. And yes, they are real inventions, not apple's rounded corners.

      Ignoring the "rounded-corners" trollbait, the honest answer to your question is that Qualcomm's patent enables the chips, which are just one component of the phone. If Apple adds a better screen, better camera, better CPU/GPU, and more RAM, why should that cause Qualcomm to get more money for one of the chips?

      Apple's position has been that the chip suppliers should themselves retain Qualcomm licenses and sell Apple the chips wholesale, incorporating the price of the licensing. So it's not like the chips themselves were unlicensed. But Qualcomm wanted more, and knew it could get it because its patents were incorporated into the standard after they pretended to agree to "FRAND" terms, and Qualcomm knows they have everyone over a barrel.

      Pray they do not change the deal further.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    5. Re: Urg by moronoxyd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please point us to the part in the definition of FRAND that says that you cannot set the license fee based on the price of the final product. I read the definitions of FRAND several times and I just can't find that part.

    6. Re: Urg by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      If Apple adds a better screen, better camera, better CPU/GPU, and more RAM, why should that cause Qualcomm to get more money for one of the chips?

      Apple takes a 30% cut (AFAIK) for all apps sold on the Apple Store. No matter whether the app costs $0.99 or $9.99. Why does Apple set a rate based on the final price and not a fixed price per license?
      The same (once again: AFAIK) for music, videos, books, news papers etc. sold through Apple. Why should Apple get more money per issue sold from a high-price high-quality news paper than from a cheap rag? The service that Apple provides for both is basically the same.

      As long as the percentage that Qualcomm asks for per unit isn't unreasonably high and as long as the percentage is the same for all customers of Qualcomm (taking into account the question of whether the customer themselves has patents that are part of the standard) I don't see how Qualcomm violates the FRAND rules.

    7. Re:Urg by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe they somehow had inside info and knew Intel wasn't going to deliver on 5G

      Anyone who has looked into the sad history of Intel side projects, especially those trying to get a foothold into the mobile / low power world had that "inside info".

  2. Opens door for AMD or Huawei or Nokia? by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    Apple and Samsung should insist that Qualcom license their in-name-only FRAND patents to AMD as a second source. How did these major companies manage to make thensleves dependent on Qualcom? THe only other leverage now will be either the EU or China. I could see China insiting Qualcom lend their patents to Huawei and I cold see the EU insisting Qualcom also allow second sourcing.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Opens door for AMD or Huawei or Nokia? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      If the patents are essential to 5G then how can China be selling 5G equipment outside of China? Do they have a site licence, or did they offer a "Deal you can't refuse" to Qualcom?

  3. What's wrong with Intel? by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    What's wrong with Intel? They had a great streak after that Netburst fiasco (which took some very illegal anti-competitive practices from their part to survive pretty much unscathed), but it's been several years now that they seem to be struggling with new things. AMD finally caught up with them, their new fab process didn't pan out, they've been trying to enter the smartphone business in various ways and it seems they are always failing...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:What's wrong with Intel? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Too many bean counter CEOs.
      Their CEOs used to be EEs.
      Now they are financial "geniuses" who know jack shit about the business they are supposedly running.

    2. Re:What's wrong with Intel? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      It is the whole battle of profit versus profitability. So say you invest 1 million dollars in a business and make 20% profit, bean counters will argue it is more profitable to only invest 100,000 dollars in the business and borrow the rest at 10% interest because they will calculate the profitability against the 100,000, even though you are now making less having to pay off a 900,000 dollar loan. The economist high priest will make the claim you can invest your 900,000 dollars in 9 other business and borrow 9 million dollars more, those other businesses entirely fictitious just like most modern accounting methods.

      So even when they cripple profits and make a fraction of what they used to make, they claim higher profitability as a result of a lower investment (cashing in capital assets) and that is without any sign of other businesses to invest in. Inevitably businesses go bankrupt because anytime any problem occurs, they have no capital reserves to tackle it and go belly up.

      The only reason some corporations have capital reserves now, is they are cheating on taxes in tax havens, hiding their profits there but the returns are less than zero, nothing to invest in, except bribes for corrupt politicians, until the income returns to where it will be taxed, so it can be invested.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. I wonder what this means... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a bit surprising not so much because Intel has been having such a good time in phone silicon(since they haven't); but because I would have assumed that Intel would have considered an at least adequate cell modem to be essential for purposes of selling their CPUs and chipsets for 'IoT' and embedded stuff; as well as 'Centrino' style chipset bundling.

    You can certainly slap a 3rd party cell modem card into an x86(it's a standard option on a fair percentage of laptop lines); but that is considerably less compact than the ARM SoC option; which is a minus for space constrained applications. It's also likely to be more expensive and power hungry, since peripheral integration usually ends up being helpful on those counts.

    Given that, it seems like Intel is either really pessimistic about their situation, enough so that they don't think they can even justify a pet cell modem aggressively sold along with their chips and wifi/bt silicon(either just because the R&D isn't going so well or because they suspect the patent litigation will be hideous); or they are fairly optimistic about Qualcom being more cooperative in the future and being willing to license modems for integration at rates reasonable enough that it's simply not worth reinventing the wheel.

    I'm just not sure which. It doesn't help that Apple's main possible motives point in the same two directions: either a belief that the patent situation is bad enough that they'll get hammered in court/import bans/etc. even if they cultivate a secondary supplier; or a belief that Qualcom's position is weakening and they are likely to be cooperative enough on pricing and not shaking people down on patents that there's no reason to turn down their parts unless something genuinely superior shows up(which, so far, it hasn't).

    Any guesses?

    1. Re:I wonder what this means... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's no small task to build a 5G cellular modem. Getting it certified world-wide is extremely expensive and time consuming too.

      There are patent problems as well. Huawei and other Chinese companies hold a lot of 5G essential patents, so Intel either has to pay them or licence some of its own patents in exchange. So deep cuts into profit margins or licence valuable tech to Chinese competitors.

      I get the impression that Intel is giving up on the really low cost, highly integrated, low power IoT side of things. They were never all that competitive with ARM anyway, which is not surprising as ARM's licencing model meant that there was a lot more innovation and specialization from a wide variety of manufacturers. They launched some demo boards and bought Altera, but it all seems to have been re-focused towards performance applications now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. When did Intel become such a quitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh yeah it was when they first dropped out of the Graphics Card Market in the late 90s, then followed up by dropping all those 'low margin' embedded systems and memory parts whose market they used to dominate.

    Intel stopped being competitive when the MBAs decided they should focus on their 'core market' of desktop and network chips and ignored the fact that that BREADTH of ecosystem benefitted them in less tangible ways, like providing less complicated products to test agains, and to get the R&D and engineering experience from a wide variety of problems, optimizations or test procedures of which might have benefits in other aspects of their business... like when they had that SATA controller failure a few years back. Intel had dealt with similar issues on other process technologies in the past on their embedded systems processors. Having access to all that extra test data from even higher volume products with simpler and easier to debug logic has untold benefits when shifting process technologies. In the past Intel did that across their product lines, before focusing so much on their CPUs that they compromised their own design and testing infrastructure by having CPUs become the leader of process technologies instead of trialling it on other parts first (I think they still do flash on the latest processes, but in the past it could have been flash, ram, or certain high margin embedded controllers where debugging intermittent failures and getting clearer feedback for modifications/updates to process models was easier and clearer to do. I imagine a lot of the 10nm shortcomings are related to exactly this change in technlogical leadership. Intel's time came and went, and unless someone absolutely slaughters the board and sensior leadership to reinstate engineers with some management competence, instead of MBAs with no engineering competence, Intel will continue to falter and eventually fall, no matter how much business they seem to have today.

  6. They just cannot hack it by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a bit surprising not so much because Intel has been having such a good time in phone silicon(since they haven't); but because I would have assumed that Intel would have considered an at least adequate cell modem to be essential

    They probably do consider that essential.

    But the fact is, they just cannot do as good a job as Qualcomm can. Losing Apple meant that there was no way they could fund the years required for Intel to build up the expertise needed.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  7. Real reason by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intel only wanted to do it because Apple guaranteed demand and gave them Qualcomm's IP to use.
    No one else wants to pay Qualcomm patent license fees just to use an inferior chipset from Intel.

  8. Re:I know one thing by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    The patent fees were always a percentage of retail price, being the core technology that makes a "cellphone" a "cellphone".
    The increased phone price wasn't caused by 5G patent fees.
    Apple didn't like the fact that Qualcomm got more money when they switched a 128GB NAND chip for a 512GB chip and charged the customer $300 more for what is effectively a $30 SD card.

  9. Huawei by ghoul · · Score: 2

    Huawei holds more 5G patents than Qualcomm and many of their patents are critical to the 5G standard. Qualcomm and Huawei have crosslicensed.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**