Qualcomm snubs Apple while revealing a list of industry firsts it takes credit for with Android

Qualcomm snubs Apple while revealing a list of industry firsts it takes credit for with Android
Qualcomm took some time today to pat itself on the back, and at the same time take a shot at Apple. In a blog post, the chip maker made a list of smartphone firsts that took place on Android phones thanks to Qualcomm technology. The specific feature is listed followed by the Android model it was first seen on. For example, under Iris Authentication/Facial Recognition, the Samsung Galaxy S8 is listed. For Bezel-less display, the Xiaomi Mi MIX is credited, and the Sony Xperia Z4 is named for the first water resistant touch screen.

Some mistakes made by Qualcomm in an earlier version of the list have been changed. Originally, the HTC One M7 was listed as having the first dual camera system and it actually was the HTC One M8 that was the first with a dual camera setup.

Interestingly enough, Qualcomm made sure not to mention Apple, the iPhone, or iOS. Instead, in a sentence from its blog post Qualcomm wrote "Inventions from Qualcomm lay the foundation for so many technologies and experiences we value in our smartphones today — on Android and other platforms (emphasis ours). As you might know, Apple and manufacturers who build the iPhone and iPad are in the middle of a legal battle against Qualcomm. They are accusing  the chip maker of asking for royalties that are too high for Standard Essential Patents. These are patents that smartphone manufacturers are required to license in order to build their devices. Because of this, the company that owns the patent, in this case Qualcomm, is required to collect royalties that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Contract manufacturers that produce the iPhone and iPad, like Compal Electronics Inc., Foxconn Technology Group, Pegatron Corp. and Wistron Corp., are withholding royalty payments to Qualcomm, claiming that they are too high considering that they are Standard Essential Patents. While Qualcomm is suing for its royalties, a federal judge refused to toss a counter-suit filed by the four manufacturers against the San Diego based chip maker.


source: Qualcomm via TheVerge

FEATURED VIDEO

27 Comments

1. KingSam

Posts: 1448; Member since: Mar 13, 2016

What is this? And it still has errors. Some of those can be accredited to Qualcomm but others seem sketchy.

11. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Most of them had nothing to do with Qualcomm but the individual manufacturers, I don't see how Qualcomm can take credit for most of these

12. sgodsell

Posts: 7363; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

I remember facial recognition way back on the Galaxy Nexus. As far as Augmented Reality hardware I saw that on the Nvidia Tablet device from Google. The OLED screen part was on Samsung devices long before the flex 2. The first 4k display was the Sony Xperia Z5 premium. As far as NFC app developer accessible I first saw that back on the Nexus S in 2010. The Ultra HD premium playback, what about Quad HD premium playback which was out in 2013.

24. tangbunna

Posts: 480; Member since: Sep 29, 2016

they should pattern the Qualcomm Overheat Technology too.. like SD810

3. deewinc

Posts: 455; Member since: Feb 21, 2013

S8 has a dua camera? Which S8 is this? Probably the Chinese version?

4. L0n3n1nja

Posts: 1557; Member since: Jul 12, 2016

It technically does, the iris scanner is a camera.

7. theunspoken

Posts: 310; Member since: Jul 06, 2017

And Apple will post the same 10 years later...

8. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Refuse to pay because the royalty payments it's too high, such low balling excuse, then why signed the contractual pricing in the first place? Not only does Apple refuse to pay but they also cohere others into not paying. Next time Qualcomm will need a full payment before allowing scams like Apple and friends to use their technology.

10. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Not really much to do with Apple, it's their suppliers are not willing to pay.

13. sgodsell

Posts: 7363; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

Wrong, Apple refused to pay them first for Qualcomms parts and patents. So if Apple didn't pay them, then they don't pay Qualcomm. In the long run Apple is going to pay. It's just a matter of how much, and when.

14. Nopers unregistered

So how would you react if you made clay sculptures for a living and you went to your supplier and bought 1KG of clay for £1, after a while you start making a good amount of money from your sculptures so you go back for another 1KG, the clay supplier charges you £5+ 25% profits of any sculptures you sell even if it doesn’t use the clay they’ve sold you. That’s why Apples suppliers are unwilling to pay because Qualcomm are gouging prices and double dipping royalties. Apple can build a phone without Qualcomm if they use intel modems and I think it’s likely that the next batch will only have intel modems.

17. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

As you said, then Apple should just use Intel modem. They didn't because of either supply issue or pricing issue. Anyway, one thing remains very clear, Apple is very unethical to have signed a contract with clear intent to violent it. If they could get away with that, Apple wouldn't be rejoicing for long either as their own 'Made for iPhone' vendors could proclaim that Apple is charging an arm and a leg for a license to make something useful for another product. The design, the manufacturing, and marketing all are done by the OEM not apple. So Apple is getting pay for doing nothing. Pay back is a bitch, surprised Apple didn't learn that with their Samsung patent lawsuits.

19. Nopers unregistered

Apples complaint- Qualcomm are taking advantage of their monopoly to take part in illegal business practices. Qualcomm’s complaint- Apple are throttling Qualcomm modems in iphones to match the intel ones. We’ll see the outcome but the amount of bulls**t that Qualcomm is pulling not only with Apple needs to stop.

20. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Personally, I felt that Apple close ecosystem is the very definition of a monopoly. If they could convict Microsoft and Google they should be able to do so to Apple as well. Qualcomm nonsense case on throttling don't have legs. It's may be their specification but vendor don't have to implement the maximum throughput.

26. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

"Monopoly" is a very misused accusation. Technically, there's nothing wrong with being a monopoly. Natural monopolies occur. We all refer to Apple's ecosystem as a walled-garden... it was always going to be it's own enclosed monopoly. This is fine. Where legalities come into play is monopolizing - using one's position in a market to influence another market. So, while there's no Ministry/Department of Justice that will likely intercede on Apple's walled-garden ecosystem as it effects only Apple customers... things like their threat to stop using Western Digital parts if Western Digital buys Toshiba's chip business could be construed as monopolizing if one wanted to make the case, technically. Using your simplistic analogy of 1 lb of clay for 1$ (paraphrased, your units are not my own)... that deal would have been forged when that going rate the market would bear. As joey_sfb alluded to, it does not take into account rates adjusted for Supply v. Demand, nor inflation. After the contract is up, the rates are subject to re-negotiation. FRAND can and does come into play here, however... If the items are covered under FRAND, then Qualcomm has to offer Apple a similar deal as everyone else, regardless of circumstances. If they aren't, then yes, Qualcomm can get busted for that. The caveat there is, it appears Qualcomm is charging X%. IF, they're charging the same X% to all customers they may be protected as it could be considered fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. In the end, that could be up to a judge to decide.

27. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

Oops, forgot a part... Yeah, I can be long-winded. I know. My own anecdotal analogy should go in the 3rd section after the first paragraph: After the contract ends it's perfectly normal for costs to increase. I leased an apartment for years at a rate just under 1K$/m... Property Management made the decision that all leases going forward would be around 1.3K$/m. Instead of signing the contract paying more money... I chose to move instead.

9. Nathan_ingx

Posts: 4769; Member since: Mar 07, 2012

Well, I'd be arguing...but they're not wrong. What has Apple done that was not already done?

15. toukale

Posts: 631; Member since: Jun 10, 2015

Lol, things are getting though for Qualcomm so they have taken the pr route. I would too since this lawsuit has the potential to wreck their business model.

16. SailfishOS

Posts: 108; Member since: Nov 06, 2016

Nokia 41MP camera

18. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

So petty. Maybe try working on your s**tty CPUs that are three years behind (still using A53 cores... in 2017) instead of running PR campaigns? Nah... keep it up QC!

21. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

So ignorant! A53 is ARM design nothing to do with QC. Besides, it's the pricing that influence which SOC goes into the phone. These are facts that Apple user are not aware of.

22. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Did I say that A53s WEREN'T designed by ARM? No. I said QC still USES A53s... in 2017. Learn to read. "These are facts that Apple user are not aware of." Because our cores are custom, and just better in general.

23. Omran2000

Posts: 101; Member since: Aug 18, 2016

The Cortex A55 won't be available until q1 2018 So it's the mistake of ARM , not Qualcomm ...

25. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1354; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

If I am not mistaken is this not a re-occurring theme with Apple? Didn't the do this with Ericsson and Nokia where they complain that the FRAND patent cost were to high and wanted to pay something in the order of 2 cent as they felt that was the fair pricing? But in both cases they lost and had to pay not millions but billions. I may be mistaken on all the details and facts but one thing I do notice is a pattern that Apple seem to frequently do is not wanting to pay for patents it signed contracts to use and then citing that they are FRAND and should cost less. And if I remember correctly it's supliers were told directly by Apple not to pay QC even though they had independent contracts with QC. I don't know fully what's going on but I do know that if I sign a contract or lease I am free to try and break it or challenge it and I may go around telling my neighbors to break their contracts or lease because I am. But the law would hold them liable and not me for their contracts as well as holding me liable for my contract and not them. The questions the judge would ask me would be 1. Did I read and clearly understood the contract? 2. Was I was under any duress or cohesion when I signed ? 3.Is there any clauses/options clearly stated in the contract I was exercising allowing me to break it? If I answered yes to 1 and no to the rest of the questions he, the judge, would side and render judgement for the other party. And if I said "what about my neighbors?" he would ask have I been retained as their legal representative if not their consular will speak for them. ( individual cases).

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.