Apple wanted to use Qualcomm 4G chips in its newest iPhones, but Qualcomm wouldn’t sell Apple modems

“Apple wanted to use Qualcomm’s 4G LTE processors in its newest iPhones, but the chipmaker wouldn’t sell to it, Apple’s operating chief testified Monday,” Shara Tibken reports for CNET. “And that’s had a ripple effect on how quickly Apple can make the shift to 5G.”

“Qualcomm continues to provide Apple with chips for its older iPhones, including the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, Apple COO Jeff Williams testified Monday during the US Federal Trade Commission’s trial against Qualcomm,” Tibken reports. “But it won’t provide Apple with processors for the newest iPhones, designed since the two began fighting over patents, he said.”

“And Williams believes the royalty rate Apple paid for using Qualcomm patents — $7.50 per iPhone — is too high,” Tibken reports. “The FTC has accused Qualcomm of operating a monopoly in wireless chips, forcing customers like Apple to work with it exclusively and charging excessive licensing fees for its technology. The FTC has said that Qualcomm forced Apple to pay licensing fees for its technology in exchange for using its chips in iPhones.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: When all is said and done, Qualcomm’s gonna lose the extortion racket.

Qualcomm’s unreasonable, illogical, and irrational licensing scam, which charges a percentage of the total cost of all components in the phone, even non-Qualcomm components, must end.

Apple considered Samsung, MediaTek to supply 5G modems for next-gen iPhones – January 11, 2019
U.S. FTC v. Qualcomm set to begin; case could upend Qualcomm’s predatory business model – December 27, 2018


  1. If Apple just offered Qualcomm “X dollars” per chip and Qualcomm refused …

    … that could put a big old nail in Qualcomm being able to claim that that chip is eligible for FRAND licensing.

    1. You’re right, can’t have it both ways.

      But vague terms such as “Fair” and “Reasonable” are where lawyers make their money.

      This, more than anything else, makes FRAND be BS. When something is both a standards essential patent and the patent is owned by someone other than the standards body, it’s a problem.

  2. hi!,I really like your writing very a lot! percentage we keep
    up a correspondence extra about your article on AOL?
    I need a specialist in this space to unravel my
    problem. May be that is you! Taking a look forward to
    peer you.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.