I get it if Apple is suffering financially. Buuuuut they are not, so all I see is corporate greed. Why not just publicize a letter to Qualcomm to "expose" them of how they treated you and be done with it?
I had to stop taking clients who wanted repairs on newer Apple products, anything newer than a 4S iphone, simply because doing repairs was costly and risky.
They connect to wireless towers through technology developed by Qualcomm. The thing is the most expensive player in the market is complaining about higher consumer costs for patents that many cheaper mobile phone makers use.
The thing is the most expensive player in the market is complaining about higher consumer costs for patents that many cheaper mobile phone makers use.
The bulk of "standard-essential" patents are usually in shared pools accessible through multiple licensees managed by some third party. I'm guessing that Apple's real problem here is that it is licensing some of Qualcomm's non-essential or proprietary extensions and isn't happy with having to pay for those anymore.
Question: if one was not on a monopolistic position, can they decide with whom they wish to do business with, and to what price to hold the moral standard before conceding?
I would also probably have Apple pay 5-10x more than the regular folks, on principle. I agree on anti monopolistic intervention, but at what point one is forced to do business with someone they don't like? (for example with someone who has an army of lawyers ready, and to whom I would walk on a safety circle around)
I don't think that anyone outside of Qualcomm and Apple really has access to the agreements but from what I can see Apple is saying that Qualcomm has pricing provisions in its licensing agreement tied to functional areas of the phone that has nothing to do with its baseband processor. Case in point having a camera in the phone adds license cost. A certain level of on board storage adds cost to the license. Apple doesn't like that and Qualcomm pretty much has said take it or leave it. Qualcomm's snapdragon lineup is a clear competitor to Apple and they are doing what large tech companies that depend on each others patents do. Hire lawyers and sue each other. The part I don't get here though is if there is a monopoly under Qualcomm how is it that Intel is providing Apple's latest baseband chips? It seems that Apple rather disproves its own case as Qualcomm's license didn't seem to keep Apple in with its' "exclusionary tactics". The bigger reality here is that Qualcomm has done a pretty great job of maintaining itself as the go to in bleeding edge baseband and mobile soc chip design. Both of which they can and do charge good margins for.
LMAO! This coming from the company that charges double or more the retail value of the INTEL hardware it uses in it's own computers. Apple's upgrade page charges over $1000 for intel cpu's that retail everywhere on the planet for $539, $600 to add an additional hard drive.. REALLY?? I mean they sell $649-$800 computers for $1200+ with crappier quality control that has just gotten worse over the years and is still generations behind pc users. Even the "New" mac's not released yet are a generation behind current pc's.
That being said, it appears CrApple doesn't like being price gouged for what it wants but has 0 issue price gouging it's own customers.
@BIT_USER: Apple has used Qualcomm modems for years, recently they started to use Intel modems in some iPhone 7 models