"M. Order Qualcomm to disgorge non-FRAND royalties and royalties for exhausted patents that Qualcomm previously extracted from Apple, including royalties paid through Apple's CMs, and pay such unjust gain to Apple;"
"T. Award restitution of all excessive license fees that Apple paid;"
This adds up to a few tens of billions to the previous stake of this litigation.
Apple likely pays about 15$ per device to Qualcomm for patents and Qualcomm doesn't even deserve 5$ of that. 15$ is more than the cost of the modem and they pay for that too.
Let's assume that the BOM for an iPhone is 200 to 250$, saving 15$ elsewhere would be a rather big deal, don't you think? They could more than double the NAND content for example. Or you can look at it another way, should they just pay 30-50 billion to Qualcomm for the sake of it over the next 10 years? Even if my estimate is wrong and they pay 10-12$ per device, that's still a lot of money.
Sorry not true. Real world speeds scale roughly equally with the peak speeds. Watch this for more: https://youtu.be/EyLL8BO-HRg?t=1m36s
Additionally, Gigabit LTE devices have 4 antennas instead of 2. In good signal conditions that give blazing fast speeds as you mentioned. But they really shine in weak signal conditions. The additional antennas pickup more energy from tower, which translates into a cleaner signal and faster speeds (up to 70% in fact).
These law suits are a diversion of management time from the real business that both Apple and Qualcomm should be focusing on. Tech companies that have been subjects of law suits going back over many years, have been hurt. It is a fact of life for many of these companies. But it is difficult to see any benefit from pursuing such a strategy. In fact on Apple's conference call such questions have been targeted at Apple management.
Smart phone users are holding on to their cell phones for longer periods. Will they buy one capable of lesser LTE speeds (whether real or imagined) when they know that they might have the phone for several years? If I were Samsung, I would capitalize on this feature.
It is also ironic to me that Apple is suing one of their top suppliers. It appears to me as a foolish strategy, penny-wise and pound foolish. Apple is already gaining much, since reports have stated that Apple already gets 95% of the smartphone market profit.
I don't see a win for Apple with their strategy. But once instituted, egos take over, and common sense fails.
True enough. Who choose their phone based on the theoretical max LTE speed it can attain? If the iPhone 8 is limited to "only" 400 Mbps instead of 1 Gbps, who is going to decide "that's not the phone for me, I can't handle downloads at only 50 megabytes per second!"
These speeds are theoretical and only attainable very close to the tower, so even if you have gigabit LTE where you live you have to be in the right spot to get it. Go very far away, and there's no difference in the actual speeds. Sort of like with DSL, how you can get 1 Gbps with G.fast now, but if you are a mile away or further you get the same speed whether you are using G.fast, VDSL2, or ADSL2.
Do we really each need 1 Gbps? 5G could bring even higher dowload rates but so what? On my work phone (iPhone 6) I keep LTE turned off. Battery life is more important. I can watch videos just fine with 4G, not even LTE.
My personal phone is an iPhone 4S. It as 4G and that's enough.
It is nothing new that Apple is not willing to pay for the highest end modem, this is a well established practice for Apple and reports ignoring that fact are trying to mislead - the blame goes to the journalist and/or the source (wonder about the source, who would be interested in spreading FUD?). Go back in time and compare the iPhone with the Galaxy Note series since both are released at similar times. 2014 Cat 4 vs 6 (Cat 9 limited availability), 2015 Cat 6 vs 9, 2016 Cat 10 vs 12. Apple's customers buy on brand, even those that should know better. I can take the top 100 metrics that define a phone, show you that Apple is behind in 95% of them, show you that other products offer far greater value and yet you'll still find a reason to believe that Apple has great products. Marketing at its best, or worse.
As for what Apple wins, Apple pays a lot more than what Qualcomm deserves and that adds up to many billions every year. If Apple wins we all win, as each phone (from any manufacturer) becomes a few % cheaper. Qualcomm wins in the long term too as they can finally focus on making chips not patent trolling.