3 ms·

Except that using an alternative technology (gsm/tdma) would make their phone laughable. A windows phone with LTE would outsell an iPhone without :). Qualcomm

by aey 9y ago

Except that using an alternative technology (gsm/tdma) would make their phone laughable. A windows phone with LTE would outsell an iPhone without :). Qualcomm is correct to argue that their patents are critical to the device functionality, so they should get a chunk of the profits. Apples market cap went up by 5 Qualcomms since they started selling the iPhone, so they clearly get the lions share of profits. It's hard to argue that the pricing is unfair.

dep_b 9y ago
I've done fine without it. 3G with good coverage is not bad at all.
- aey 9y ago
  Apple could certainly try to prove that theory in the market place. They wouldn't even have to have this lawsuit.
ralfd 9y ago
But People are not buying an iPhone because of LTE, as almost every other phone has that too, but because of the Apple brand, app ecosystem, lock-in, ease of use, design, manufacturing quality, marketing, etc etc ... all that is value Apple provides, not Qualcomm. FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms". How is it not discriminatory to charge companies, who operate in different market segments, different amounts for the same needed part?
- aey 9y ago
  The whole point of granting a patent is that it's a monopoly. I think it can be argued that the amount of time the patent is valid for is not optimal for maximizing the most social gains over all possible futures, but I think it's greater then 0. Yes, people buy apple products for lots of reasons, but would apple have made 50% of Qualcomms market cap in profits from iPhone each year if it was a gsm device? Qualcomm can argue that it's pricing is Fair and Readonable since it does not inhibit Apple from making a mountain of money. There is nothing out of the ordinary for charging people a different price (unless it's because they are a protected class, but that's a separate issue)

by aey 9y ago

dep_b 9y ago

I've done fine without it. 3G with good coverage is not bad at all.

aey 9y ago
Apple could certainly try to prove that theory in the market place. They wouldn't even have to have this lawsuit.

ralfd 9y ago

But People are not buying an iPhone because of LTE, as almost every other phone has that too, but because of the Apple brand, app ecosystem, lock-in, ease of use, design, manufacturing quality, marketing, etc etc ... all that is value Apple provides, not Qualcomm. FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms". How is it not discriminatory to charge companies, who operate in different market segments, different amounts for the same needed part?

aey 9y ago
The whole point of granting a patent is that it's a monopoly. I think it can be argued that the amount of time the patent is valid for is not optimal for maximizing the most social gains over all possible futures, but I think it's greater then 0. Yes, people buy apple products for lots of reasons, but would apple have made 50% of Qualcomms market cap in profits from iPhone each year if it was a gsm device? Qualcomm can argue that it's pricing is Fair and Readonable since it does not inhibit Apple from making a mountain of money. There is nothing out of the ordinary for charging people a different price (unless it's because they are a protected class, but that's a separate issue)