5 ms·

>Apple is against. In this case. Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas. You seem to be missing the

by danjoc 9y ago

>Apple is against. In this case. Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas. You seem to be missing the bigger picture. The attack on Qualcomm is against the company, not the patents. Qualcomm snapdragons are the only competitive ARM chips against Apple's A series. Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market. That's not going to help the little guys you claim to care so much about.

admiralpumpkin 9y ago
You're not addressing the poster's point. Does makes sense for Apple to pay a % of total price of phone for one decreasingly relevant part? Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >You're not addressing the poster's point. I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid. >Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement. >Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.
threeseed 9y ago
> Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas When ? I am only aware of one situation in their history i.e. Android where Apple has sought an ongoing royalty. > Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. They are a product company not a components vendor so not sure what market you are referring to. Also Intel sells modem components as well.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >> Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market >What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. Who said Apple would sell CPUs to competitors? You don't monopolize a market by having competitors. Not real ones anyway.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  Has Apple sought a royalty on Android? My belief has been that Apple refused to license any of their patents. They've sued Samsung not to extract royalties, but to stop them infringing Apple's patents, full-stop.
ianamartin 9y ago
I might be able to believe that if Apple were trying to sell the A series chips and compete head-to-head with Qualcomm. But Apple is not doing that. It is keeping that competitive advantage in house. Whether you like Apple or not, you have to understand their business model before you criticize it. Apple doesn’t care about competing with component manufacturers. Not even a little bit. Apple learned this the hard way in the 90s. Don’t compete on price, and don’t compete on specs. Apple happens to be winning on specs right now. The snapdragon procs are not even close to the A-series in performance. But that wasn’t always the case. This is about maximizing profit. Not about putting anyone out of business.

by danjoc 9y ago

admiralpumpkin 9y ago

You're not addressing the poster's point. Does makes sense for Apple to pay a % of total price of phone for one decreasingly relevant part? Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.

danjoc 9y ago
>You're not addressing the poster's point. I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid. >Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement. >Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.

threeseed 9y ago

> Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas When ? I am only aware of one situation in their history i.e. Android where Apple has sought an ongoing royalty. > Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. They are a product company not a components vendor so not sure what market you are referring to. Also Intel sells modem components as well.

danjoc 9y ago
>> Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market >What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. Who said Apple would sell CPUs to competitors? You don't monopolize a market by having competitors. Not real ones anyway.
pwinnski 9y ago
Has Apple sought a royalty on Android? My belief has been that Apple refused to license any of their patents. They've sued Samsung not to extract royalties, but to stop them infringing Apple's patents, full-stop.

ianamartin 9y ago

I might be able to believe that if Apple were trying to sell the A series chips and compete head-to-head with Qualcomm. But Apple is not doing that. It is keeping that competitive advantage in house. Whether you like Apple or not, you have to understand their business model before you criticize it. Apple doesn’t care about competing with component manufacturers. Not even a little bit. Apple learned this the hard way in the 90s. Don’t compete on price, and don’t compete on specs. Apple happens to be winning on specs right now. The snapdragon procs are not even close to the A-series in performance. But that wasn’t always the case. This is about maximizing profit. Not about putting anyone out of business.