3 ms·
> Consider the 64 GB iPhone XS selling for $1000 vs the 512 GB one for $1349. Sure, first, QCOM licensing fee only applies to the first $400, which is in turn
by tooltalk 7y ago
> Consider the 64 GB iPhone XS selling for $1000 vs the 512 GB one for $1349.
Sure, first, QCOM licensing fee only applies to the first $400, which is in turn also based on the wholesale, not retail, price from Apple's contract manufacturers.
second, without QCOM, Apple wouldn't be able to price the iPhone XS at $1000 (or the iPhone 7 at $550), much less sell nearly as many units. Would you even consider paying $550 for the 128GB iPod Touch, which is essentially at feature parity with the iPhone 7, but without QCOM's IP?
- RetroFuture 7y agoWhat a ridiculous argument. Without the OLED screen Apple wouldn't be able to charge $1000 for an iPhone either. And I bet those $1000 that not one of apple's customers, not a single one, bought an iPhone instead of an iPod touch because it had a Qualcomm chip in it. Even in later years half of iPhones include an Intel chip not a Qualcomm one; it has made zero difference. 99.9% of customers don't even know Qualcomm is a thing a won't care if you told them.
- tooltalk 7y ago> 99.9% of customers don't even know Qualcomm is a thing a won't care if you told them. Sure, QCOM is not a marketing/consumer electronic company they way Apple is. Your 99% of consumers buy the iPhones over the iPod because of QCOM's wireless functionality, not because of their branding. And how many of those 99% of consumers do you think would pay $1000 for a OLED iPhone XS without QCOM's patented wireless features that allow to make phones call or data? Or how many would pay half the price? or even a third? The iPhone 7 without OLED, the most popular selling iPhone in many countries, still costs at least twice as much as comparable iPod Touch and sells multiples of the unit sales of the iPod touch.