7 ms·

That's a very one-sided pro-Qualcomm piece. The big issue with Qualcomm IP practice is that they don't charge IPR on the modem function, but over the whole dev

by yaantc 9y ago

That's a very one-sided pro-Qualcomm piece. The big issue with Qualcomm IP practice is that they don't charge IPR on the modem function, but over the whole device. So put the same modem in a cheap phone, or in an expensive laptop, and the IPR will be very different. This is really charging IPR on a lot of value completely unrelated to the modem. Historically, the cellular/3GPP world was very phone centric. The specs were for a phone, and the chipset was really the core of the phone. At that time, charging cellular IPR on the device embedding the chipset was reasonable: the device was just a phone, with all the intelligence coming from the chipset. We're obviously no longer living in such a world. But Qualcomm keeps this practice, as it's very profitable for them and their dominant position let them do it (so far). Apple is mad at this, as most of the value of a smartphone is outside of the modem part nowadays (even more for a PC). Other device makers hate it too, but don't have the muscle to go against QCOM and can't afford alienating them. Europe is looking into it too, and will issue a recommendation that cellular IPR is charge only on the modem subsystem, not the including device (basically, Apple position). It will start as a recommendation, but could become law later on. So it looks like it's QCOM against everybody else. Considering the money involved, I'm sure that QCOM has a pretty fat budget to push their angle. Hello Bloomberg ;)

mchafkin 9y ago
did you read the story? we discuss the very disagreement you reference.
- kartD 9y ago
  From the guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ksk 9y ago
    The guidelines are indeed a nice idea. Its a pity a tiny minority seems to care for or follow them. IMO Using them to selectively criticize is worse than not having them in the first place.
- Retric 9y ago
  "Qualcomm’s big innovation" is followed by several exaggerations and falsehoods. So, saying you mention something is meaningless when you include that amount of bias. Read up on Token ring vs Ethernet to get some understanding of the history in this area.
danjoc 9y ago
>So put the same modem in a cheap phone, or in an expensive laptop, and the IPR will be very different. This is really charging IPR on a lot of value completely unrelated to the modem. Pot, meet kettle. Apple charges 30% at the App store, whether I want to sell an app for $1 or $1000. Also, if Apple wanted, they could package the modem separately. Sell it for $50. Again, this mirrors Apple's advice to Samsung to build triangle phones since Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners. Suddenly, clunky workarounds are bad. Quelle suprise. I really can't feel sorry for Apple. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Must be nice to be an Apple IP lawyer. They win no matter what happens.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloha 9y ago
  You don't have to sell your app in the Apple ecosystem - its very hard to build a modern mobile device without Qualcomm IP.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    The stronger argument I think is that Apple did not get its App Store put into a global standard which can't be avoided in exchange for promising to let people sells apps on it under FRAND terms. Apple can do whatever it wants on its own App Store. It's their device and they aren't a monopoly nor is it anti-competitive for them to charge a high fee on their own store. But Qualcomm IP is part of the LTE standard on the express condition that they will license their share of LTE mandatory features fairly. I don't think it's fair to take a percentage cut of the whole package price for an IP license that's part of a global standard.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Yeah, that was the unstated subtext of my post.
- yaantc 9y ago
  This story is very Apple vs. QCOM, but I don't care much about this angle really. What I care about is the underlying question: is it ok to charge IPR on value added way outside the scope of the given IP? I don't think so. QCOM does so. Apple is against. So I'm just sympathetic with Apple position in this strong debate and that's it (I'm not even an Apple user). And I don't feel sorry for Apple. I feel sorry for all the other small manufacturer and companies suffering from this situation, but that are too small to make things move on their own. Apple and Samsung may not have the purest of interest in this debate, but if they move things in what I believe is the right direction, I'll be happy.
hajile 9y ago
That pricing argument is worthless when you start talking about percentages. 5% of a $500 device is quite a lot while 5% of some $25 IoT device is not very much. Qualcomm spends around 5.5 Billion every year in R&D or 23% of net sales. For comparison, apple spends a paltry 2.2% of its net sales on R&D. Dry up Qualcomm's net sales and the R&D will dry up too. All the most crucial wireless patents (the really fundamental ones) have already expired. Why doesn't Apple design another, competing system around Qualcomm's patents and license it for free? The answer is that it takes a decade and tens of Billions of dollars. Apple has the money, but it's cheaper to work the courts over so they pay less. If Apple were the ones who built 4G, you can be very sure they'd be charging at least as much as Qualcomm. Remember, Apple thought the look of their iphone was worth $40 per device when suing Samsung, but now they think the actual technology to make it work isn't even worth $10 per device. If Qualcomm were making the same profit margins (relative to R&D) as Apple, they'd have to go from $10 per device to $100. I'm not a Qualcomm fan (or any big corporation for that matter), but if we were making a list of price gouging companies, I think there are a lot of companies that should be getting fined and regulated (especially Apple) before Qualcomm.
- model_m_warrior 9y ago
  You're the guy who hates big corporations? I'm the guy who wants to end world hunger.
- yaantc 9y ago
  Please see my reply @danjoc. I don't care much about Apple really. The manufacturing world is pretty hard and penny pinching, the practice of charging for value unrelated to one's IP hurts small manufacturers who can't stand to a QCOM. I really don't mind QCOM charging whatever they want on their modem, to sustain their R&D. But I don't agree on their charging unrelated parts just because they can. Hope this clarifies my previous comment.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  All the most crucial wireless patents have already expired The 2G patents (that Qualcomm owned 90% of) have expired.. but who uses that anymore? Qualcomm also owns 13% of the patents used for LTE (which they agreed to license under FRAND terms).. it's those patents they are using to create a monopoly on LTE chips. First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips.. then they say to handset manufacturers, they won't sell you chips unless you agree to pay a royalty on every handset (even if it does not contain Qualcomm chips). They own the same percentage of patents as Erickson, but they produce 4x the revenue from IP licensing (+ the revenue from chipset sales). Edit: if you believe the 13% of LTE patents Qualcomm owns are worth $10... that would be $77 for all of the LTE standard essential patents at the same rate. So we are not far off from your $100 Apple-like price in your post.
mcculley 9y ago
>they don't charge IPR on the modem function, but over the whole device. Is this why there's no option for an LTE modem in a MacBook Pro?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  It's much more cost-effective to have a mobile hotspot, because then you're only paying the Qualcomm tax on a minimal thing.
  - mcculley 9y ago
    I get that. I was wondering why Dell ships laptops with an LTE modem and Apple ships every mobile device except a MacBook with an LTE modem. It makes sense if it is some stupid negotiation tactic. I was wondering why they would not put something in so obvious to the benefit of users.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      I think the key there is that Dell ships with an LTE modem, a separate device with a separate price. They pay royalties to Qualcomm on the price of the modem. Apple would never (for some value of never) ship a laptop with an external device like that. The LTE is either baked into the laptop (at which point Qualcomm would demand a % of the entire laptop's sale price), or it's not included at all. They choose not at all.
      - mcculley 9y ago
        Dell, HP, and Lenovo ship laptops with a built-in LTE modem.
        wernercd 9y ago
        "Built in" as soldered unto the mother boards? Or "Build in" as in an expansion card added to an expansion card slot (even if "internally")? I assume the difference between those two would be the difference between price?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by yaantc 9y ago

mchafkin 9y ago

did you read the story? we discuss the very disagreement you reference.

kartD 9y ago
From the guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ksk 9y ago
  The guidelines are indeed a nice idea. Its a pity a tiny minority seems to care for or follow them. IMO Using them to selectively criticize is worse than not having them in the first place.
Retric 9y ago
"Qualcomm’s big innovation" is followed by several exaggerations and falsehoods. So, saying you mention something is meaningless when you include that amount of bias. Read up on Token ring vs Ethernet to get some understanding of the history in this area.

danjoc 9y ago

>So put the same modem in a cheap phone, or in an expensive laptop, and the IPR will be very different. This is really charging IPR on a lot of value completely unrelated to the modem. Pot, meet kettle. Apple charges 30% at the App store, whether I want to sell an app for $1 or $1000. Also, if Apple wanted, they could package the modem separately. Sell it for $50. Again, this mirrors Apple's advice to Samsung to build triangle phones since Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners. Suddenly, clunky workarounds are bad. Quelle suprise. I really can't feel sorry for Apple. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Must be nice to be an Apple IP lawyer. They win no matter what happens.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Aloha 9y ago
You don't have to sell your app in the Apple ecosystem - its very hard to build a modern mobile device without Qualcomm IP.
- zaroth 9y ago
  The stronger argument I think is that Apple did not get its App Store put into a global standard which can't be avoided in exchange for promising to let people sells apps on it under FRAND terms. Apple can do whatever it wants on its own App Store. It's their device and they aren't a monopoly nor is it anti-competitive for them to charge a high fee on their own store. But Qualcomm IP is part of the LTE standard on the express condition that they will license their share of LTE mandatory features fairly. I don't think it's fair to take a percentage cut of the whole package price for an IP license that's part of a global standard.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Yeah, that was the unstated subtext of my post.
yaantc 9y ago
This story is very Apple vs. QCOM, but I don't care much about this angle really. What I care about is the underlying question: is it ok to charge IPR on value added way outside the scope of the given IP? I don't think so. QCOM does so. Apple is against. So I'm just sympathetic with Apple position in this strong debate and that's it (I'm not even an Apple user). And I don't feel sorry for Apple. I feel sorry for all the other small manufacturer and companies suffering from this situation, but that are too small to make things move on their own. Apple and Samsung may not have the purest of interest in this debate, but if they move things in what I believe is the right direction, I'll be happy.

hajile 9y ago

That pricing argument is worthless when you start talking about percentages. 5% of a $500 device is quite a lot while 5% of some $25 IoT device is not very much. Qualcomm spends around 5.5 Billion every year in R&D or 23% of net sales. For comparison, apple spends a paltry 2.2% of its net sales on R&D. Dry up Qualcomm's net sales and the R&D will dry up too. All the most crucial wireless patents (the really fundamental ones) have already expired. Why doesn't Apple design another, competing system around Qualcomm's patents and license it for free? The answer is that it takes a decade and tens of Billions of dollars. Apple has the money, but it's cheaper to work the courts over so they pay less. If Apple were the ones who built 4G, you can be very sure they'd be charging at least as much as Qualcomm. Remember, Apple thought the look of their iphone was worth $40 per device when suing Samsung, but now they think the actual technology to make it work isn't even worth $10 per device. If Qualcomm were making the same profit margins (relative to R&D) as Apple, they'd have to go from $10 per device to $100. I'm not a Qualcomm fan (or any big corporation for that matter), but if we were making a list of price gouging companies, I think there are a lot of companies that should be getting fined and regulated (especially Apple) before Qualcomm.

model_m_warrior 9y ago
You're the guy who hates big corporations? I'm the guy who wants to end world hunger.
yaantc 9y ago
Please see my reply @danjoc. I don't care much about Apple really. The manufacturing world is pretty hard and penny pinching, the practice of charging for value unrelated to one's IP hurts small manufacturers who can't stand to a QCOM. I really don't mind QCOM charging whatever they want on their modem, to sustain their R&D. But I don't agree on their charging unrelated parts just because they can. Hope this clarifies my previous comment.
rgbrenner 9y ago
All the most crucial wireless patents have already expired The 2G patents (that Qualcomm owned 90% of) have expired.. but who uses that anymore? Qualcomm also owns 13% of the patents used for LTE (which they agreed to license under FRAND terms).. it's those patents they are using to create a monopoly on LTE chips. First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips.. then they say to handset manufacturers, they won't sell you chips unless you agree to pay a royalty on every handset (even if it does not contain Qualcomm chips). They own the same percentage of patents as Erickson, but they produce 4x the revenue from IP licensing (+ the revenue from chipset sales). Edit: if you believe the 13% of LTE patents Qualcomm owns are worth $10... that would be $77 for all of the LTE standard essential patents at the same rate. So we are not far off from your $100 Apple-like price in your post.

mcculley 9y ago

>they don't charge IPR on the modem function, but over the whole device. Is this why there's no option for an LTE modem in a MacBook Pro?

greglindahl 9y ago
It's much more cost-effective to have a mobile hotspot, because then you're only paying the Qualcomm tax on a minimal thing.
- mcculley 9y ago
  I get that. I was wondering why Dell ships laptops with an LTE modem and Apple ships every mobile device except a MacBook with an LTE modem. It makes sense if it is some stupid negotiation tactic. I was wondering why they would not put something in so obvious to the benefit of users.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    I think the key there is that Dell ships with an LTE modem, a separate device with a separate price. They pay royalties to Qualcomm on the price of the modem. Apple would never (for some value of never) ship a laptop with an external device like that. The LTE is either baked into the laptop (at which point Qualcomm would demand a % of the entire laptop's sale price), or it's not included at all. They choose not at all.
    - mcculley 9y ago
      Dell, HP, and Lenovo ship laptops with a built-in LTE modem.
      - wernercd 9y ago
        "Built in" as soldered unto the mother boards? Or "Build in" as in an expansion card added to an expansion card slot (even if "internally")? I assume the difference between those two would be the difference between price?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]