5 ms·

> The reason this is not a feature is that it would add a lot of cost related to patents and IP licensing. Looking at the numbers here(1), this is not right. T

by pbalau 7y ago

> The reason this is not a feature is that it would add a lot of cost related to patents and IP licensing. Looking at the numbers here(1), this is not right. They sold ~46 millions iPhones, ~9 millions iPads for a rounded total of ~50 millions devices with a GSM modem. Meanwhile, they "only" sold ~5 millions Macs, which include all the laptops and desktop offerings. Therefore, adding a GSM device to all their mobile offerings would only mean ~10% increase in number of modems (assuming all of those 5 millions macs are actually laptops). I would "blame" the lack of such an offering on the same reason they don't offer many different ports, like headphones, non usbc usb, hdmi etc. 1. https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-financial-results-3581769/ https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-financial-result...

jillesvangurp 7y ago
I think you under-appreciate how stupendously expensive it is to settle patent disputes. There's no question that 4G would have been useful in laptops and given that Apple sells them at a premium, even small increases in market share are very lucrative. The reason they didn't was cost and mitigating risks infringing on relevant patents. For a phone this is essential and not optional, for a laptop this isn't the case.
- pbalau 7y ago
  > I think you under-appreciate how stupendously expensive it is to settle patent disputes. I'm arguing that they already solved this issue, since they are selling so many devices with GSM modems. Unless you can provide documentation demonstrating otherwise, I am not going to believe their agreement is to use GSM modems only on iPhones and these particular models of iPads, but is to use GSM modems on whatever devices they see fit. I don't think Apple are that stupid to limit themselves like that.
  - jillesvangurp 7y ago
    It's very unlike Apple to deliberately ignore an opportunity to sell a bit of convenience as a premium. Lots of ipad owners own iphones and yet buy the ipad with a 4G modem that they technically don't need. An always on Mac Book Air that "just works" is such an obvious thing to do given the target demographic of people using this on the go, that there must be another reason than "we already sell iphones/ipads". I don't buy the "users don't need this argument" since, I see way too many people thethering their macs with separate access points that are definitely not their phone for this not to be a thing at least.
  - ksec 7y ago
    The royalty are based on a percentage of the Wholesale price of Laptop, and since Apple's Laptop are on the higher end, which means their royalty will be higher. Not to mention Smartphone, Tablet, and Other devices each have different royalty rate. Which means you cant use the same terms for your iPhone and use those for your iCars.
- zimbatm 7y ago
  If I remember correctly the price of the Qualcom "essentials" patents is based on the price of the whole device. So in that regard it would make sense to avoid laptops since there are smaller margins and the price tag is also higher.
  - telcodud 7y ago
    Qualcomm has royalty caps for smartphones, tablets, and laptops: https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/f2a607b2-efed-424f-a0de-1d70d91f765f https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/f2a607b2-efed-424... [PDF] Quote: We broadly provide per unit royalty caps that apply to certain categories of complete wireless devices, namely smartphones, tablets and laptops, which effectively provide for a maximum royalty amount per device.
tw04 7y ago
You realize that qualcomm's ridiculous licensing terms entitles them to a percentage of the sales price of the end device, right? At $2-3k per laptop that's not exactly chump change and would likely lead to a noticeable price increase on a laptop that's already considered "overpriced" by the general public.
- zeusk 7y ago
  Am I the only one noticing the irony in Apple complaining about overpriced premium devices (chipsets/modems in this case)?
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    The better analogy is if apple claimed a portion of the income you generated by using their laptop for work.
    - axus 7y ago
      or from the price you charged for your app?
      - notfromhere 7y ago
        its a component, not a marketplace.
  - ldrndll 7y ago
    No, I'm sure you're not the only one who has thought this. However, the apparent irony disappears quite readily when you examine the differences, the most important of which: If you want a laptop but don't want to pay Apple prices, you can buy a laptop from Lenovo/Dell/Asus/you get the point. If you want to play in the 4G/5G space you have to license Qualcomm's IP. They've been pretty aggressive about enforcing this. So aggressive in fact that they've been found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour by a US judge (in a case brought by the FTC), as well as by the EU (twice). So yeah, in the face of that, it's difficult to argue that Apple's position - of selling premium devices in a competitive market - is in any way similar to Qualcomm's predatory tactics. Now if you want to talk about the App Store on the other hand...

by pbalau 7y ago

jillesvangurp 7y ago

I think you under-appreciate how stupendously expensive it is to settle patent disputes. There's no question that 4G would have been useful in laptops and given that Apple sells them at a premium, even small increases in market share are very lucrative. The reason they didn't was cost and mitigating risks infringing on relevant patents. For a phone this is essential and not optional, for a laptop this isn't the case.

pbalau 7y ago
> I think you under-appreciate how stupendously expensive it is to settle patent disputes. I'm arguing that they already solved this issue, since they are selling so many devices with GSM modems. Unless you can provide documentation demonstrating otherwise, I am not going to believe their agreement is to use GSM modems only on iPhones and these particular models of iPads, but is to use GSM modems on whatever devices they see fit. I don't think Apple are that stupid to limit themselves like that.
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  It's very unlike Apple to deliberately ignore an opportunity to sell a bit of convenience as a premium. Lots of ipad owners own iphones and yet buy the ipad with a 4G modem that they technically don't need. An always on Mac Book Air that "just works" is such an obvious thing to do given the target demographic of people using this on the go, that there must be another reason than "we already sell iphones/ipads". I don't buy the "users don't need this argument" since, I see way too many people thethering their macs with separate access points that are definitely not their phone for this not to be a thing at least.
- ksec 7y ago
  The royalty are based on a percentage of the Wholesale price of Laptop, and since Apple's Laptop are on the higher end, which means their royalty will be higher. Not to mention Smartphone, Tablet, and Other devices each have different royalty rate. Which means you cant use the same terms for your iPhone and use those for your iCars.
zimbatm 7y ago
If I remember correctly the price of the Qualcom "essentials" patents is based on the price of the whole device. So in that regard it would make sense to avoid laptops since there are smaller margins and the price tag is also higher.
- telcodud 7y ago
  Qualcomm has royalty caps for smartphones, tablets, and laptops: https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/f2a607b2-efed-424f-a0de-1d70d91f765f https://investor.qualcomm.com/static-files/f2a607b2-efed-424... [PDF] Quote: We broadly provide per unit royalty caps that apply to certain categories of complete wireless devices, namely smartphones, tablets and laptops, which effectively provide for a maximum royalty amount per device.

tw04 7y ago

You realize that qualcomm's ridiculous licensing terms entitles them to a percentage of the sales price of the end device, right? At $2-3k per laptop that's not exactly chump change and would likely lead to a noticeable price increase on a laptop that's already considered "overpriced" by the general public.

zeusk 7y ago
Am I the only one noticing the irony in Apple complaining about overpriced premium devices (chipsets/modems in this case)?
- notfromhere 7y ago
  The better analogy is if apple claimed a portion of the income you generated by using their laptop for work.
  - axus 7y ago
    or from the price you charged for your app?
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      its a component, not a marketplace.
- ldrndll 7y ago
  No, I'm sure you're not the only one who has thought this. However, the apparent irony disappears quite readily when you examine the differences, the most important of which: If you want a laptop but don't want to pay Apple prices, you can buy a laptop from Lenovo/Dell/Asus/you get the point. If you want to play in the 4G/5G space you have to license Qualcomm's IP. They've been pretty aggressive about enforcing this. So aggressive in fact that they've been found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour by a US judge (in a case brought by the FTC), as well as by the EU (twice). So yeah, in the face of that, it's difficult to argue that Apple's position - of selling premium devices in a competitive market - is in any way similar to Qualcomm's predatory tactics. Now if you want to talk about the App Store on the other hand...