Apple is Building Its Own Cellular Modem, Playing 'Long Game' to Drop Qualcomm (bloomberg.com) 92
Bloomberg's Mark Gruman remembers how Apple's hardware group "allowed Apple to dump Intel chips from its entire Mac lineup."
And they're now building an in-house cellular modem: For more than a decade, Apple has used modem chips designed by Qualcomm... But in 2018 — while facing a legal battle over royalties and patents — Apple started work on its own modem design.... It's devoting billions of dollars, thousands of engineers and millions of working hours to a project that won't really improve its devices — at least at the outset...
Over the past few years, Apple's modem project has suffered numerous setbacks. There have been problems with performance and overheating, and Apple has been forced to push back the modem's debut until next year at the earliest. The rollout will take place on a gradual basis — starting with niche models — and take a few years to complete. In a sign of this slow transition, Apple extended its supplier agreement with Qualcomm through March 2027... But Qualcomm has said that Apple will still have to pay it some royalties regardless (the chipmaker believes that Apple won't be able to avoid infringing its patents).
So it's hard to tell how big the benefits will be in the near term. Down the road, there are plans for Apple to fold its modem design into a new wireless chip that handles Wi-Fi and Bluetooth access. That would create a single connectivity component, potentially improving reliability and battery life. There's also the possibility that Apple could one day combine all of this into the device's main system on a chip, or SoC. That could further cut costs and save space inside the iPhone, allowing for more design choices. Furthermore, if Apple does ultimately save money by switching away from Qualcomm, it could redirect that spending toward new features and components.
And they're now building an in-house cellular modem: For more than a decade, Apple has used modem chips designed by Qualcomm... But in 2018 — while facing a legal battle over royalties and patents — Apple started work on its own modem design.... It's devoting billions of dollars, thousands of engineers and millions of working hours to a project that won't really improve its devices — at least at the outset...
Over the past few years, Apple's modem project has suffered numerous setbacks. There have been problems with performance and overheating, and Apple has been forced to push back the modem's debut until next year at the earliest. The rollout will take place on a gradual basis — starting with niche models — and take a few years to complete. In a sign of this slow transition, Apple extended its supplier agreement with Qualcomm through March 2027... But Qualcomm has said that Apple will still have to pay it some royalties regardless (the chipmaker believes that Apple won't be able to avoid infringing its patents).
So it's hard to tell how big the benefits will be in the near term. Down the road, there are plans for Apple to fold its modem design into a new wireless chip that handles Wi-Fi and Bluetooth access. That would create a single connectivity component, potentially improving reliability and battery life. There's also the possibility that Apple could one day combine all of this into the device's main system on a chip, or SoC. That could further cut costs and save space inside the iPhone, allowing for more design choices. Furthermore, if Apple does ultimately save money by switching away from Qualcomm, it could redirect that spending toward new features and components.
Is it 2019 again? (Score:5, Interesting)
They've been trying to do this since acquiring Intel's modem team several years ago. That team never produced a working 5G modem, however, and the project appears to have stalled multiple times. Will Apple eventually get a 5G modem working? Sure, but it won't be equivalent to the modems that Qualcomm makes - which lead the industry in both capability (5G Advanced / 3GPP release 17, SA and NSA services, etc.) and power efficiency. If anything, Apple makes one that's relatively cheap and "good enough" for the low-end iPhone SE. It will not compare to the performance of a Qualcomm 5G modem in any way, however.
On that last note, the iPhone X featured modems that were dual-sourced from Qualcomm (Verizon and Sprint models) and Intel (AT&T and T-Mobile models). The Qualcomm modem outperformed the Intel part so dramatically that Apple artificially limited the Qualcomm modem's LTE performance so that it was equivalent to the Intel part. They intentionally gimped a world-class part because they wanted to source from both modem providers. Who cares about your customers' experience when you can save a buck, right? Tim Cook's way of thinking, at least... Hasn't changed.
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:1)
Neither Tim Cook nor Apple in general have a history of compromising the user experience to save a buck - its part of the brand to gouge prices in the name of a better device experience.
But screwing over the customer for the sake of a vertical integration strategy? Yes, that is definitely on brand. They'll say its about ensuring the best quality and customer experience but its being in complete control of who squeezes the most from their customer base.
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Been involved in Bluetooth chips as a very small subcontractor. Radios are a lot harder and less predictable than doing a pure digital chip like a processor. Of course they fail at it a few times. That isn't incompetence, it is learning to do something extremely difficult. Keep trying Apple. Maybe do not think too different in this field.
Re: (Score:1)
My company makes wifi APs. We source chipsets from multiple manufacturers, mostly due to price for products in certain countries. Qualcomm is the most expensive, but usually has the first products to market, like we're using in our WiFI 7 boards. They are difficult to work with, getting fixes takes forever if they even do it, despite proving it's their radio at fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At one point in the iPhone's past, they already shipped different SKUs with different modems back in the day when there was "Verizon" phones and "GSM" phones. They were both iPhone 6 (or whatever) but had different model codes (such as A1911).
To think that they would trip over something so trivial is ridiculous.
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Tim Cook nor Apple in general have a history of compromising the user experience to save a buck
Yeah, about that. [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No idea?
Why did you not tell us?
I have to read your link and then look into a glass bowl to understand what your comment is about?
Sorry, if you can not give a three sentence argument ... no one reads your link.
Re: (Score:1)
They intentionally gimped a world-class part because they wanted to source from both modem providers
Pretty sure apple does this with all its parts.
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence? Apple have a lot of problems. But their build quality has always been pretty damn high. These things are reliably solidly built and well engineered, even if repairability/etc haven't exactly been a strong point since at least the 2011 models. They don't cheap out on parts.
Re: (Score:1)
their build quality has always been pretty damn high
Lol
Do yourself a favor and look up "Louis Rossman".
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
even if repairability/etc haven't exactly been a strong point since at least the 2011 models
Why the LOL? Cant read far enough in a sentence? Besides, he is right. Apple quality is bar-none for out of the box experience. Anyone who things different is biased, because data has proven over and over again that their devices are tougher given the performance they pack in terms of battery life, compute, storage, and signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Do what I said and look up "Louis Rossmann": besides his stance on the repairability of Apple stuff, he's not impressed with the quality of their design, and that's an understatement. And he has explained why in much detail in many of his videos.
Anyone who things different is biased
Anyone who doesn't hasn't watched the relevant Rosmann videos.
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:3)
To be fair, using videos as a citation and just providing a name of someone who has made many videos, makes it too onerous to verify the citation. A real video citation includes the specific video, where it is published, and a time stamp. No one has time to watch every video this guy made to understand your point.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using Apple products for a while (since 1987) along with a lot of other vendors products. Apple's build quality is, generally speaking, excellent (my opinion, of course). Apple has had some flops - well publicized - but overall they are very good.
I'm typing this on my mid-2015 MacBook Pro, which is running pretty well for a 9 year old machine with no repairs (it has an SSD so it has avoided the hard drive replacement it would likely have needed for a mechanical drive). The antiglare coating on
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't bring their Apple stuff to him when everything is working perfectly, or indeed if it is a minor problem that can be fixed by another local repair person, so he only sees the really bad examples.
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:2)
But their build quality has always been pretty damn high
No, it really hasn't. Sure, they give a high quality perception of it, but it's actually pretty bad, and always has been since Wozniak's designs were all gone. Part of the reason Wozniak left was because Steve Jobs was totally willing to sacrifice build quality in the name of appearances. That is the way apple has operated ever since.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iW... [youtube.com]
Note the "hold it up six inches" bit. Remind you of anything? Jobs never changed in that regard, and neither has apple. Like the other poster s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is it 2019 again? (Score:2)
The video mentions all of this...
Re: (Score:2)
From this video [youtu.be] I get the impression that Woz was angry, not at Jobs, but at John Sculley for treating the Apple II team dismissively in public.
Re:Is it 2019 again? (Score:5, Interesting)
They've been trying to do this since acquiring Intel's modem team several years ago. That team never produced a working 5G modem, however, and the project appears to have stalled multiple times. Will Apple eventually get a 5G modem working? Sure, but it won't be equivalent to the modems that Qualcomm makes - which lead the industry in both capability (5G Advanced / 3GPP release 17, SA and NSA services, etc.) and power efficiency.
The thing is, the power use when active isn't likely to be all that different from one modem to another. What Qualcomm excels at is keeping the idle power on the baseband processor down. Apple has just a little bit of experience making CPUs more power efficient.
So the idea that Apple won't be able to match what Qualcomm sounds like wishful thinking to me — the sort of thinking that led to Intel thinking they would never lose Apple as a CPU buyer.
Now whether they'll decide that it isn't worth dealing with the patent minefield, or are mainly using the threat of in-housing the cellular modems as leverage to get a better deal from Qualcomm, I couldn't say. But I think it is naïve to think that they *can't* beat Qualcomm. They're already absolutely crushing Qualcomm in terms of CPU and GPU performance (at least at mobile-realistic power consumption levels).
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out, Apple have been at this for years. They bought Intel's modem division but never managed to produce anything competitive. It's far from certain that they will succeed.
Also, Qualcomm are decent but Huawei already has 5.5G hardware out for a while, and starting now Apple will really need to be targeting the next generation. It's complicated by the fact that these aren't just modems, they handle WiFi in 3 bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz) and Bluetooth as well, which are also moving targets.
It's a very
Re: (Score:3)
As pointed out, Apple have been at this for years. They bought Intel's modem division but never managed to produce anything competitive. It's far from certain that they will succeed.
Intel's modem division reportedly didn't even have a *working* 5G design yet, forget competitive. And the fact that Apple is still not using their own chips is a pretty strong indication that Intel was lying about their capabilities. If the problems were just a matter of power consumption and tuning, they would likely have released something four years ago.
Also, Qualcomm are decent but Huawei already has 5.5G hardware out for a while, and starting now Apple will really need to be targeting the next generation. It's complicated by the fact that these aren't just modems, they handle WiFi in 3 bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz) and Bluetooth as well, which are also moving targets.
They don't *have* to do those things, though. Nothing prevents Apple from having their own 5G chip and continuing to use Broadcom chips for Wi-Fi and
Re: (Score:3)
I'll grant you, it would be a triumph if Apple were to achieve parity or better with Qualcomm: making world class cellular modems is even more rarified than making world class CPUs. However, when Apple Silicon was announced there were a lot of people that believed Apple's work wouldn't be as good as those from the incumbents. They were dead wrong.
Apple has three things: the means to fund this work in-house, a platform on which to make it profitable and enough pull with carriers to make them cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
Your theory is disproved.
They're over here [newegg.com]. 4.5 stars, for whatever that's worth.
Arc Battlemage silicon is about to appear. Intel is getting there. They can't forego the GPU market, and they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has been going under the CPU lid one thing at a time. Memory controller, north bridge, south bridge,
Re: (Score:2)
Intel has a hard time making a decent CPU any more. They've failed repeatedly at making a GPU that is any better than the absolute minimum acceptable feature set and performance, and they've been trying that game for 25 years.
You probably shouldn't hold Intel up as an example of why Apple will fail, since Intel failed to keep Apple's business by Apple doing Intel's work better than Intel is capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably Apple Silicon isn't as good as the incumbents. Obviously Apple has different requirements to other companies so they optimized their CPUs to play the on-up specmanship game, but compared to current gen Ryzen... Battery life is about the same, but performance is generations behind.
The other issue with modems is that they are a patent minefield. While anything that is part of 5G and the like has to be licenced under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms, Apple has had trouble with that in th
The modern m series blow my mind (Score:3)
And if you want to pick up an iMac and use it as a decent general purpose computer Good luck because they currently do not make a 16 GB 512 GB model. You going to need that extra ram t
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting they don't exactly have the A-team there. Apple acquired Intel's modem team after Intel miserably failed to produce any decent modem of their own and was completely rejected by the smartphone community.
Unlike their work on CPUs they really started on the back foot here.
Re: (Score:2)
So dual sources means nothing to you? It is precisely that kind of thinking that makes supply chains sclerotic, but does get MBAs all excited.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been trying to do this since acquiring Intel's modem team several years ago. That team never produced a working 5G modem, however, and the project appears to have stalled multiple times. Will Apple eventually get a 5G modem working? Sure, but it won't be equivalent to the modems that Qualcomm makes - which lead the industry in both capability (5G Advanced / 3GPP release 17, SA and NSA services, etc.) and power efficiency. If anything, Apple makes one that's relatively cheap and "good enough" for the low-end iPhone SE. It will not compare to the performance of a Qualcomm 5G modem in any way, however.
On that last note, the iPhone X featured modems that were dual-sourced from Qualcomm (Verizon and Sprint models) and Intel (AT&T and T-Mobile models). The Qualcomm modem outperformed the Intel part so dramatically that Apple artificially limited the Qualcomm modem's LTE performance so that it was equivalent to the Intel part. They intentionally gimped a world-class part because they wanted to source from both modem providers. Who cares about your customers' experience when you can save a buck, right? Tim Cook's way of thinking, at least... Hasn't changed.
It'll be a case of developing a 5G modem when 6G is the norm. Apple is usually behind the curve, not that the fanboys will admit it.
I'd also argue it's less about saving a buck (saving a buck would be buying the stuff off someone who's already done the work) and more about getting more control over everything, end user included and Apple has a very detailed history of trying to do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would welcome this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Switching from an Android Pixel to an IPhone SE 5G I noticed
What you noticed was not uniquely attributable to a modem chip. You fundamentally changed all hardware, case design, OS, drivers, antennas, and yes the modem chip too. There's a *lot* to factor in when talking about cell modems integrated into your hardware and software, a new chip may not move the dial at all if the problem is somewhere else.
And before you talk about experts, remember that all phone manufacturers have released various levels of dud software, firmware, and hardware too. Apple doesn't have s
Re: (Score:2)
Apple gimped their cellular performance on purpose. It's because they want to always have two suppliers of modems, so the better one has to be hampered to perform the same as the worse one. Otherwise buying an iPhone would be a lottery.
Google use only one modem supplier so get the maximum performance.
Since their forray into routers went so well? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
devoting billions of dollars,thousands of engineer (Score:2)
Yeah right.
If you need thousands of engineers to build a modem then you might just a well quite like it's 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
They would need to get some of their own FRAND IP into the next standard if it is truly a long game.
Smart (Score:3)
Being too dependent on suppliers comes with huge risks. And if you want to innovate, you have to do it yourself anyways. So if you have the skills and the money, you are far better off doing it yourself. Yes, this totally flies into the face of the short-term-profits-above-everything "strategy" business majors are taught these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't specialize in everything, and avoiding patent infringement is pretty much impossible. Most companies that try to do everything themselves get overwhelmed by the variety of off-the-shelf parts and fall behind in the market. Doing things yourself is extremely high risk.
Apple is doing this because they feel they can save money. That strategy works with core components like CPUs, but I'm not sure it'll pay off for the same jelly bean parts everyone else uses. That also largely explains why Intel h
Re: (Score:2)
Yamaha and Hitachi would like to have a word with you ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or operating a Hitachi excavator, that's one of my favorite "wait, they make a WHAT?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Mitsubishi.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel suffers in the GPU/NIC/modem market, because at heart Intel is still a memory company. Intel never learned to make good CPUs, but due to their memory business they had advanced semiconductor processes and that gave them the edge they needed. Contrast with AMD, that grew up with signal processors. And then ask yourself why the current architecture is called AMD64, who put the memory controller into the CPU and a few other innovations. Well, really, all of them in the x86 space in its later evolution.
An
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple having a modem team means they have patent leverage over Qualcomm. Qualcomm has screwed Apple over several times over patents, and a lot of the reason Apple has their own modem design is to ensure Qualcomm can't keep doing it to them.
Apple may or may not ever have a 5G modem that performs. But they would have significant experience to ensure that 6G and onwards they may hold some patents and force Qualcomm to behave.
Qualcomm isn't a saint by any means - they have the best modems, but they've also been going after their customers for patent violations as a business model. Most of their customers are generally too small to put up a fight and just pay. It's one of those things where Qualcomm is under scrutiny for their behavior.
Apple decided to fight back and pretty much the only way you can is to do the work yourself. To perhaps have patents that are a bit more powerful than nano-SIM (there was a huge fight over nano-SIM - because parties like Qualcomm didn't want to have Apple with a patent in the 5G standards as it lowers their licensing fees on a very profitable customer).
So even if Apple's modem is so lousy it barely works, it still has an enormous amount of leverage over Qualcomm. Most of the price of the chips aren't in the part itself, but all the licensing fees that you have to pay to use it. Qualcomm would have to be careful about trying to screw over Apple because it would mean Apple could screw over their customers
Re: (Score:2)
And when your former modem supplier drags you to court over patent infringement no matter what you do? What do you do then? Apple's response: pay the royalties. Qualcomm gets cash either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Cash is pretty secondary in this. There is a lot that cash cannot get you.
Re: (Score:2)
Qualcomm would be more than happy to ride royalties into the sunset, especially since they know they can use the patent and standards system in the US to poison future efforts by Apple or others to build their own modems.
Patent or manufacturing gap? (Score:3)
Are Qualcomm's 2 key patents really that great or non-intuitive, or is it "clever" wording to covers results instead of implementation?
Apple purchased com-chip tech from Intel that allegedly does the same thing. Is Apple's inability to keep up with Q due to patents, or Apple chip-making incompetence?
Re: (Score:2)
Are Qualcomm's 2 key patents really that great or non-intuitive, or is it "clever" wording to covers results instead of implementation?
Apple purchased com-chip tech from Intel that allegedly does the same thing. Is Apple's inability to keep up with Q due to patents, or Apple chip-making incompetence?
Some Qualcomm patents are considered SEPs (Standard Essential Patents). You generally can't implement a 5G modem without licensing Qualcomm's patents (along with a number of other SEPs from other companies). All SEPs are required to be offered with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminary) licenses. However, Qualcomm's interpretation of FRAND licensing is that they take a percentage of the value of the licensed product (the iPhone in the case of Apple). As the iPhone is an expensive product, the l
Re: (Score:1)
This sounds like standards-based forced lock-in. Antitrust laws should apply.
If Q is trying this again for 6G, better nip this practice in the bud.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple purchased com-chip tech from Intel that allegedly does the same thing.
What Apple purchased from Intel was a failure at Intel. They really started on the back foot there. It's like getting into professional racing by hiring the team that designed the Fiat 500. They have some competence building to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple purchased com-chip tech from Intel that allegedly does the same thing.
What Apple purchased from Intel was a failure at Intel. They really started on the back foot there. It's like getting into professional racing by hiring the team that designed the Fiat 500. They have some competence building to do.
You are aware that what "was a failure at Intel" wasn't a failure before Intel bought it? The same Intel famous for running things into the ground?
Re: Patent or manufacturing gap? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> You can create your own chips but you're still required to pay for using certain patents.
What's an example of a patent for these that allegedly so critical? Most algorithm-related patents are junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Walling up the walled garden (Score:3)
Custom, single vendor proprietary chipset and software all the way from the PCB to the GUI... Good luck knowing what the hell Apple does behind the scene with that stuff. Not to mention the less-than-ideal security through obscurity.
Also, does Apple look like a monopolist to you yet? Remember ATT that owned the phones, the line and the switches and didn't allow anybody to play in their sandbox?
ATT was broken up before Reagan neutered antitrust, rightfully so, in hindsight to the benefit of the entire economy, and so should Apple be.
Re: (Score:1)
This seems like a textbook case of monopoly, if you do not have proper reading skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is not allowing anybody else to design and produce Apple phones.
This seems like a textbook case of monopoly, if you do not have proper reading skills.
Precisely!
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck knowing what the hell Apple does behind the scene with that stuff. Not to mention the less-than-ideal security through obscurity.
You know the inner workings of a Qualcomm chip in an Android OS? Have you done a security audit of Qualcomm's source code? What makes you think anyone knows the behind the scenes working of *any* smartphone?
Also, does Apple look like a monopolist to you yet?
No. Taking manufacturing in house does not make you look like a monopolist. Owning the production of your own device has no market effects and does not effect market share. It literally has zero to do with it. It can't even be considered being an attempt to monopolize.
Your post is wildly off topic today.
Re: (Score:2)
Custom, single vendor proprietary chipset and software all the way from the PCB to the GUI... Good luck knowing what the hell Apple does behind the scene with that stuff. Not to mention the less-than-ideal security through obscurity.
Also, does Apple look like a monopolist to you yet? Remember ATT that owned the phones, the line and the switches and didn't allow anybody to play in their sandbox?
ATT was broken up before Reagan neutered antitrust, rightfully so, in hindsight to the benefit of the entire economy, and so should Apple be.
You are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
"does Apple look like a monopolist to you yet"
No, because they are trying to make a product that competes with the monopolist.
Re: (Score:2)
So when Ford / GM / etc. start making their own diesel truck engines instead of buying one from Cummins, etc. that makes them a monopolist all of a sudden?
Wrong. It makes them a vertical integrator.
You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to antitrust law.
so far so good (Score:3)
Apple has made a wide variety of products over the yearss. A (land-line) telephone, a PDA, monitors, speakers, modems, wireless routers, and several printers. And not just "we had someone else make it and we slapped our label on it" like Dell and HP like to do. These were all developed in-house and only sold under the Apple label.
And they've always been aware of the problems associated with being dependent on someone for a key part of they tech. Look at how they've kept switching CPUs? They finally said screw it we'll do it ourselves, and the M series CPUs seem to be doing VERY well. Plus it's a GPU as well as a CPU, so there's that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has made a wide variety of products over the yearss. A (land-line) telephone, a PDA, monitors, speakers, modems, wireless routers, and several printers. And not just "we had someone else make it and we slapped our label on it" like Dell and HP like to do. These were all developed in-house and only sold under the Apple label.
And they've always been aware of the problems associated with being dependent on someone for a key part of they tech. Look at how they've kept switching CPUs? They finally said screw it we'll do it ourselves, and the M series CPUs seem to be doing VERY well. Plus it's a GPU as well as a CPU, so there's that too.
This is an important point!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> not just "we had someone else make it and we slapped our label on it
Not " just" but over the years Apple has outsourced to Epson, Casio, Sony, Motorola, ARM, et. al.
They did plenty of near-bus work, ADB boards, Firewire stacks, etc. but it would be wrong to say Apple was vertically integrated.
And they should challenge the Qualcomm monoculture - that is great.
China is doing the same so maybe we'll have three options in a few years.
New TSMC process makes it possible? (Score:2)
I think what happened is that with the latest TSMC fab process (and likely Samsung too) with the 2 nanometer size, Apple has finally gotten control over the overheating problem that plagued the earlier prototypes based on the modem design inherited from Intel. With a few more tweaks, Apple could finally achieve a single integrated circuit radio modem that supports not only digital cellular, but also WiFi 7/8, Bluetooth 5.3 (and beyond), ultra wideband and even NFC together. That might allow a major reductio
Re: New TSMC process makes it possible? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: New TSMC process makes it possible? (Score:2)
Just like Rolex (Score:2)
Apple did the same in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I'm sure they bought a lot of their suppliers. Maybe they wanted to buy out Qualcomm but weren't allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Love competition (Score:2)
So this article is saying nothing has changed (Score:2)
Apple has been trying to avoid paying Qualcomm for the last six years. This article says that nothing has changed. Apple will continue to spend billions to avoid paying billions to Qualcomm.