Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Apple and Q both benefited from their relationship

Articles like this one just give me proof that this dispute is pointless in an economic sense and that Apple and Qualcomm had a mutually beneficial relationship, and that behind this dispute lies ego, an urge to dominate, politics… basically everything other than the economic interest of both companies.

by
| 713 views | | 9 replies (last )
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8
Comment! It's anonymous! Reply to this post anonymously by submitting the form near the bottom of the page!

9 replies (most recent on top)

Apple demanded this payment in order to get Qcom chips on the iPhone. Every article has said this. Here's a short article: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-qualcomm-mollenkopf/apple-demanded-1-billion-from-qualcomm-for-chance-to-win-iphone-idUSKCN1P600V What's wrong about this deal? I don't know what else to say.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-2fgb

Lets be crystal clear. The FTC is suing Qualcomm for that billion dollar payment plus more business practice the FTC claims is illegal.

Qualcomm broke the law, no one forced Qualcomm to break the law, Qualcomm knew what they were doing was illegal, that is documented in email and testimony, so zero wiggle room.

Did Apple break a law? Maybe, but that would be a different lawsuit. Who knows, maybe Qualcomm will sue Apple for being forced to break the law, I doubt that would fly. Maybe for breaking an NDA not to disclose, which Apple sure as hell disclosed.

Big boys made business decisions. Some of those decisions have now become part of a lawsuit, and are backed by factual evidence and testimony.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1vgk

Let's be very clear here: it was Apple, not Qcom, who asked $1 bln in order to have their modems on the iPhone. This was the cost, they claimed, that was needed to swap out the Infineon chips. Qcom wanted exclusivity in exchange for this payment and threw in a cheaper modem price. 100% of of the articles that have mentioned this as a payment that Apple asked of Qcom. Apple said 'they had no choice' but go with Qcom because the modem was so much cheaper. But of course they had a choice. Apple was free to dual source, but they decided to go with Qcom because it was a cheaper component. No one had food taken out of their mouths. This was a normal business deal, and Intel lost.

Even if you believe Qcom paid a bribe, both parties would be at fault.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1lwl

-1xwq, The claim is, by way of a very large Qualcomm payment, persuaded Apple to not buy from others. That's the same thing as taking food out of Intel and others mouths. Seems problematic, doesn't it?

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1nsq

But Qualcomm paid a billion dollars to illegally lock a competitor out for a period of time. And after that Qualcomm continued with anti dual source business practices. The is the FTC vs Qualcomm (not Apple).

Apple is not party to the lawsuit, just a witness.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1uew

Yes, Qcom charged Apple a pittance for an essential component, a component that Apple wanted essentially for free. Apple was free to dual source from other companies, but decided to exclusively go with Apple because they got a discount. There are plenty of other companies with modems. Nobody had food taken out of their mouths.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1xwq

Apple wants to kill qualcomm using government it purchased. That's the whole story.

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-1mrh

Huh? Qualcomn broke laws, tried to destroy competition with prohibited business practices. So what if it was mutually beneficial with Apple? It's not about that, it is about Intel and others who wanted to also sell modems.

Qualcomn never tried to stop apple from making or selling a modem. Qualcomm did what they did to make money buy illegally making it hard for others to make and sell modems using illegal business practices.

Got it now?

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-ppo

QC is hungry for money and stubborn

by
|
Post ID: @Xbkd8R8-uic

Post a reply

: