Qualcomm Says Apple Broke Contract, Hindered Performance of Its Chipsets (arstechnica.com) 92
Qualcomm has filed a 139-page rebuttal of a lawsuit lodged by Apple in January in which the US chipmaker counterclaimed that the iPhone giant was "misrepresenting facts and making false statements." From a report on ArsTechnica: It alleged that Apple had "breached" and "mischaracterized" deals it had in place with Qualcomm and accused the Tim Cook-run firm of interfering with the chipmaker's "long-standing agreements" with iPhone and iPad manufacturers, such as Foxconn. In a statement, Qualcomm said, "Apple effectively chose to limit the performance of the Qualcomm-based iPhones by not taking advantage of the full potential speed of which Qualcomm's modems are capable. Apple's actions were intended to prevent consumers from realizing that iPhones containing Qualcomm chipsets performed far better than iPhones containing chipsets supplied by Intel."
Re: (Score:2)
Both of them can be California companies soon if #calexit would just hurry the eff up.
Re: (Score:2)
> , but why do you think CA couldn't secede because it is in debt?
His point is that they'd be fucked, not because of debt, but because they operate at a loss.
I don't know if that's actually true though, especially not when counting that they would have control over taxation (in such a situation, a California company would owe as much money to the federal government of the 49 states of the USA as it would to the government of Botswana). Even in theory, it's a totally bonkers situation because you wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately we couldn't get lucky enough for them to actually secede. Than they could have their almighty queen Clinton at the top like they wanted
Re: (Score:2)
the state would have more money without the rest of the country
All the more reason to leave. Now.
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, let's get the fuck out, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because with the exception of a couple of bad years, California has consistently given the feds more than it has gotten back, which means the state would have more money without the rest of the country, not less.
The people who live in California pay Federal taxes. The state government gets some of that (not all for sure, but a very large number) back in Federal grants, military base spending, Federal employee salaries, etc. If California were to secede, the people who live there stop paying Federal taxes and the state stops getting Federal money. How does that result in the state government having more money? Unless of course the state executes a massive increase in its income tax, which of course they'll have to b
Re: (Score:2)
They would no longer benefit from the US treaties and who knows how that might throw a monkey wrench into businesses... or it could be better but I doubt it. There would be a costly and immediate disruption either way. They would surely loose a lot of bargaining power. US imports and exports on that coast would be diverted to Oregon or Washington which would be a huge chunk out of their economy.
Re: (Score:2)
#CalExit and then immediately join Mexico - done.
Re: (Score:1)
Because we're not dicks, we wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away. We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money. We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're not dicks
Citation needed
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money.
Maybe, maybe not. The US maintains foreign military bases where its national interests lie. This does raise a couple of interesting questions, though: (1) would all the civilian employees at California military bases be fired and replaced by US citizens; and (2) would all the "California citizens"
Re: (Score:1)
Because we're not dicks
Citation needed
We're not panicky bitches that live in fear of the latest bogeyman: The Blacks, The Chinese, The Chicanos, The Germans, The Russians, Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, "Terrorists"... We're much more relaxed because our world is a reflection of our chillness, yours is a reflection of your anger and conquest mentality.
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
Well, since we have more working brain cells by not living in a continuous state of fear, we can work with the higher brain sections rather than just the amygdala, so can more logically analyz
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, we in The People's Republic of California, support many of the several shitty states that get back more money from the Federal Guvment than they put in. So, fuck all of y'all. Just kick us the fuck out and let us get the true value of our exports. See what happens, you broke-ass deadbeat states. We'll easily fix out situation. World's 6th largest economy, bitch!
Re: (Score:2)
Google is still using Qualcomm chips and not trying to move to Intel.
Re:Wait wot? What about the Nexus 4? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because despite the terrible summary, the claim isn't about Apple hindering the performance of its chips. It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones. The section about hindering performance is a couple of paragraphs of background in a multi-hundred page document, but for some reason the press has latched onto it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones
If they're hindering the performance of Qualcomm chips to match, wouldn't that premise also be true?
Re: (Score:3)
They're claiming that despite Apple not using all the features of the radio, Qualcomm iPhones still outperform Intel iPhones by 30-75%.
Re: (Score:2)
*theoretically, under specific conditions.
Re: (Score:1)
Under conditions Apple wasn't able to nerf the speed from, sure. The Qualcomm chips had to be dramatically underutilized in order for the Intel to look competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Because despite the terrible summary, the claim isn't about Apple hindering the performance of its chips. It's about Apple claiming there's no discernible difference between Intel & Qualcomm iPhones. The section about hindering performance is a couple of paragraphs of background in a multi-hundred page document, but for some reason the press has latched onto it.
The relative performance of Qualcomm vs Intel chips may be interesting to you and me. And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm. However, It's more interesting to the average person that Apple may be deliberately slowing their phone down.
Re: (Score:2)
And the lawyers are more interested in that, since Apple may be making false claims which harm Qualcomm
The problem is that Qualcomm must prove "harm". Apple merely selecting two vendors and claiming they performed equally when one beat the other does not "harm" either vendor. What damages did Qualcomm suffer? Apple was never going to use 100% Qualcomm chips anyways. Other manufacturers are going to run their own tests and not accept Apple's word because their phones would have different performance results.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there will be an effect.
The question is was there harm. Effect is not the legal standard.
If yellow pages lies and says that Jim's 10 minute locksmith and Bob's 30 minute locksmith are the same speed, then Jim's going to lose business, even though he's faster. If Apple lied and claimed that the phones are equivalent, when they're not, then the qualcom iphone sales will be artificially depressed (yes, there are people who care).
The problem with this analogy is manifold. 1) Yellow Pages is in the business of providing listings and do not evaluate the performance of the listings. 2) Consumers really choose (or know sometimes) either modem. They choose the phone, the choose the carrier; they don't choose the chipset. 3) The only parties that might be affected are manufacturers as they are the ones that have a real choice in the matter are other manufacturers. Normally t
Re: (Score:2)
because google isn't suing qualcomm for $1 BILLION like Apple is
Re: (Score:2)
Because just band 4 wasn't enough for a full implementation?
To have an LTE certified device, they needed different antennas and other stuff in the phone. They had most of it, but it was never certified. They tried and it failed, once it was out, there was no way to fix it. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the Nexus 4 didn't do LTE out of the box, it had to be enabled by a cracked radio ROM didn't it?
Apple will win (Score:2)
Based on my analysis of corporations filing lawsuits against their suppliers, it is usually when the buyer has sufficiently guaranteed win in the lawsuit or have an alternate supplier (internal or external) available. So either the Apple will win this suit or it will switch to some other supplier.
Disclaimer: I own Apple stock and have no direct position in Qualcomm.
It's the CPU-flavors thing all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember the article from a year or two ago, when it was discovered that Apple was sourcing CPUs for its phones from two different manufacturers, and the phones containing CPUs from one source performed marginally better than the phones contain CPUs from the other source?
There was a big to-do, with people trying to figure out which iPhones were "the good ones", and people who had received (or thought they had received) the slower version were complaining and debating whether they ought to return their "inferior" iPhone in order to get one of the "better" ones.
Of course it turned out the difference wasn't really noticeable unless you were specifically benchmarking for it, but the fact that it was detectable at all produced a big (well, medium-sized) scandal and a headache for Apple.
Given that, I'm not at all surprised that Apple now aims for uniform performance across all units of a given model, rather than for best-possible-performance on any given OEM chipset. Uniformity makes everyone happy, whereas an optimal performance will go unnoticed by the people who have it and the people who don't will be pissed off.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that every single iPhone 6S I've encountered with the dreaded 30% shutdown bug (>10 of them) has been a Samsung-based device, there's at least a difference in the device builds. It may or may not be the SoC.
Re: (Score:2)
i get this and my 6S is on the battery replacement list. It's probably something with the battery firmware combined with the samsung SoC
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone remember the article from a year or two ago, when it was discovered that Apple was sourcing CPUs for its phones from two different manufacturers, and the phones containing CPUs from one source performed marginally better than the phones contain CPUs from the other source?
There was a big to-do, with people trying to figure out which iPhones were "the good ones", and people who had received (or thought they had received) the slower version were complaining and debating whether they ought to return their "inferior" iPhone in order to get one of the "better" ones.
Of course it turned out the difference wasn't really noticeable unless you were specifically benchmarking for it, but the fact that it was detectable at all produced a big (well, medium-sized) scandal and a headache for Apple.
Given that, I'm not at all surprised that Apple now aims for uniform performance across all units of a given model, rather than for best-possible-performance on any given OEM chipset. Uniformity makes everyone happy, whereas an optimal performance will go unnoticed by the people who have it and the people who don't will be pissed off.
Exactly. You have hit the nail on the head!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem for Qualcomm is that it makes their chips look as bad as Intel ones, when they are actually quite a bit better. All that because Apple wants to second source everything to avoid part manufacturers doing what it does to it does to them.
They could do what Samsung does. Different models for different parts of the world. The Galaxy S line usually has different CPUs and modems in different markets.
Re: (Score:2)
This is to do with the modem chips in the phones. The intel chips don't have the functionality to work on Verizon's non lte networks, so Qualcomm chips were used in the Verizon model. This is why a phone purchased for att&t or tmoblie won't work on Verzions network if LTE is not available.
THe Qualcomm modem is theoretically faster than the Intel modem on LTE, but real world use is unlikely to ever see the difference.
Abusive monopoly mad, news at 11. (Score:1)
Qualcomm is mad Apple dares to explore 2nd source for modem chip sets.
Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform. It's easier to tell developers 'expect this many megabits out of iphoneX in LTE' rather than 'Depending on the modem chipset, which we don't tell you about, expect this many megabits'
My money is on Apple. They don't take shit from vendors. They'll design and fab their own S
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform.
That's the problem, under optimal conditions the performance IS consistent between the two modems. However, as the signal level starts to drop, the Intel modem's performance drops off a cliff. It's the real-world experience that suffers using Intel modems, not the lab tests.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the
Re: (Score:2)
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
It's hard to love either company. It's easy to hate on Apple, but most consumers know nothing about how Qualcomm is getting sued all over the world for anticompetitive practices -- including by regulators in the U.S., who don't like how Qualcomm licenses its patents. I don't blame Apple for wanting to open up the market. The problem appears to be that it underestimated the inferiority of Intel's modems. The question is ... is Intel 100 percent to blame for that underperformance, or does it once again have s
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone knows the qualcomm LTE modems are better under optimal conditions but I feel Apple is more interested in providing a constant experience across it's platform.
That's the problem, under optimal conditions the performance IS consistent between the two modems. However, as the signal level starts to drop, the Intel modem's performance drops off a cliff. It's the real-world experience that suffers using Intel modems, not the lab tests.
I understand Apple's desire to cheap out on the modems to squeeze a dime from a business perspective. However, they position the iPhone as a premium product and using sub-par chips that provide sub-par performance will give consumers the opposite idea. If Apple was concerned with having a consistent user experience, they wouldn't be using Intel modems at all.
Perhaps instead of "cheaping-out", Apple was just trying to hit a Production Target, and sourcing from mulitple suppliers was the only way to do that. I would imagine that both chipsets performed "to spec" in their "alternate source" testing (or else Intel wouldn't have "gotten the sockets" at all; but then, after a few million units started hitting the streets, the real-world performance differences started becoming apparent.
Bottom line: Apple didn't do this "on purpose", or as a "cost-saving-measure"; but
Re: (Score:2)
What's also terrible is that the Intel modems are not compatible with cdma networks. Meaning that if LTE is not available, you can't use verzions network with an iphone that has the Intel modem.
Be careful if you want to switch providers.
Re: (Score:1)
Designing and testing a single board at the scale we're talking about here costs about that, and they had to design two more, plus the various certifications that were needed, plus recertification for every firmware th
Re: (Score:2)
- All the CDMA networks, such as Verizon, NTT DoCoMo, et al, would be Qualcomm only. Intel wouldn't even be an option
If, as you say (and I'm quoting here), Apple loses an order from T-Mobile for some 3 million iPhones, of which, say, 2 million are based on Intel's, and Sprint gives them an order of 3 million... Well, it would seem that incorporating Intel's chip into their product introduced yet another negative I hadn't considered; Apple now has phones they can't sell to all carriers and might get stuck with inventory as a result.
Thank you for the insight.
Re: (Score:2)
To increase their bottom line it's in their best interest to push back against Qualcomm.
And when their pushback costs more than it saves? I think that's what you missed... which was... you know... my point and all...
Re: (Score:2)
The real story, here, is that the iPhone could have faster connectivity. That it doesn't isn't even a financial decision, as Apple has opted to use the better part in some production runs and the inferior part in others, and hinder the performance of the superior part to negate any possible advantage it may bring. If it were a financial decision, they'd have used only the cheaper Intel chips.
All of which is an assertion that may not have evidence. Are all parts equal from all vendors? No. But that does not automatically equate to Apple knowing about the difference in performance and making a conscious choice to screw over the customer or that Apple hindered the performance of one part.
If you remember chipgate [9to5mac.com], A9 chips made by TSMC ran cooler and laster longer than A9s made by Samsung. Apple said that both versions still met performance standards but one version just ran better than the other.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Apple didn't know about the performance difference between the two radio chips, they jsut restricted the performance of the Qualcomm part on a whim. I'll buy that for a dollar (before $1 instant rebate).
Again, your assertion is that Apple restricted the performance "on a whim". Unless you happen to work inside Apple you can't claim that. Also I already said that parts from different vendors are not always equal. The question is do they meet the specifications. The A9 is the best example. Apple designed the chip but because two different fabs made the same design, the performance was slightly different. In the real world would it make much difference? I would say no.
Re: (Score:2)
Call it an educated guess.
No it's your opinion.
The assertion being made by Qualcomm... you know... in the lawsuit TFS mentioned... is that they did exactly that. I guess we'll find out soon enough as the trial plays out. In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever.
And no party to a lawsuit has ever stretched the truth to the point where people call it a lie? I take it you believed SCO when they said that IBM stole their IP and put it in Linux?
By the way you have yet to back up anything you've said with facts. All you seem to have is insults.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't waste my time digging up facts for you anymore;
You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.
when I do, you break out the insults.
And in this thread, please point out a single insult that I levied.
Me? I simply referenced your username. You want facts? You picked the name and that's a fact.
This is what you said: "In the mean time, your username remains as apt as ever." Do you stand by your words?
Beyond that, an opinion can neither be lroven nor disproven and we will see what you call my "opinions" either proven or disproven during the trial.
Opinions can be wrong; if your opinion is that the Earth is flat; you're wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is a sphere, you're still wrong. If your opinion is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, you are still wrong but you are
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't bring up a single fact at all. It's your speculation; it's your guess. These are not facts.
The issue here is that you're conflating a guess with an opinion. Again, an opinion, by definition, cannot be correct or incorrect. The relevant definition of "opinion", for reference:
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
We're not discussing my view or judgment but, rather, my assessment based on simple economic reasoning and what I, through my own experience, happen to know certain things cost (those would be facts), which would be exceedingly difficult to relay to you in any meaningful manner.
This brings my position well out of the realm o
Why does Qualcomm care about Apple perf decisions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps Apple did hamstring the Qualcomm chip so that the performance differential to Intel's chipset would be lower, and thus prevent customers from self-selecting the Qualcomm-equipped models. Even so, that's between Apple and its customers. Qualcomm has no place interceding itself in that process.
No? Qualcomm's claims are all there in the filing [arstechnica.net]. Among them:
235. Apple’s Misstatements About the Relative Performance of the
Qualcomm Versus Intel Modems in iPhone 7 and Its Threat Have Harmed
Qualcomm and Consumers. Absent Apple’s conduct, Qualcomm’s chipsets would
be in higher demand, and Qualcomm would be able to sell more chips to Apple to
meet that demand. Apple’s decision not to use Qualcomm’s enhanced chipsets
denied consumers access to higher-performing devices, and Apple’s threats and
other efforts to hide the truth deprived consumers of meaningful choice. And, as
noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s
chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data
download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
236. By choosing not to use the best performing Qualcomm-based iPhones
(and risking that consumers would find out), Apple faced a potential backlash from
its customers. It avoided that backlash by concealing the truth, at the expense of
Qualcomm and consumers alike.
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
This isn't the main claim of the lawsuit, though. Qualcomm is alleging Apple
So.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And, as
noted above, by choosing not to utilize the higher data rates that Qualcomm’s
chipsets can reach for the Qualcomm-based iPhones, Apple reduces the data
download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network.
I don't understand how this, how does this reduce download resources available to other smartphones operating on the network? Is it that the phones become more chatty and thus load the network with a bunch of overhead? That might warrant a class-action against Apple by all mobile users, not sure what the claim would be since IANAL.
Yes, I did not RTFA, this is still slashdot, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, Qualcomm is saying that the fact that consumers could not self-select Qualcomm iPhones materially affected its business. It further alleges that consumers were not properly informed, not just because Apple withheld information, but because Apple deliberately misrepresented the facts by stating publicly that the performance of both models was identical.
I can't see any justifiable claim that Qualcomm could reasonably make in those statements. Even if Apple did everything Qualcomm said they did, Qualcomm has no standing to sue Apple as the consumers would be hurt not Qualcomm. Now if Apple ran ad after ad saying that Qualcomm chips were terrible, they could sue Apple for those statements.