I’m sure they would love to. The billions they’ve paid in licensing fees is more than it would cost to actually make themselves.

This is the problem with mandatory standards and patents that cover those standards.

If it cost apple less to build improvement into 5G that would have been licensed to everyone they would have done so.

Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate. If apple developed 5G IP they would have effectively received a rebate based on the relative impact of their contribution.

Qualcomm actually has great execution. You realize 5G is going to put a 1 gigabit network in the palm of your hand? I can’t even get that out of cable.

> Standards require all participants to license at a FRAND rate.

Clearly you didn’t read the article. There’s an entire section about Qualcomm not issuing FRAND licenses.

@aey used to work at Qualcomm according to their resume. So, take that for whatever you think it’s worth.

Meh, 1Gbps over cable is nothing, really. Switches with 10g uplink ports cost almost nothing now. Problem is that most software and hardware on user’s side can’t deal with that speed :) 5G smartphones probably won’t be able to give you 1Ggps either.

I just moved, and I have access to 1gbps fiber at my home for $50 a month vs a severely crippled 100mbps from comcast for $120 a month two blocks away. So land internet is not free, and 1gbps is rare.

Qcom charges Apple $14 bucks for the modem. That doesn't sound crippling or unfair or unreasonable. I think if consumers had the option to buy an ipod touch for 500, then add the modem like you do with a PC no one would be buying a fully integrated device from Apple for 1000.

I worked at Qualcomm, so take this with a grain of salt. But I find it laughable that Apple is complaining when they can sell the exact same thing at 2x the price by just adding a $14 dollar qualcomm modem.