|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
"It seems like if Apple wants that to happen they should negotiate, however
with their premium prices, profit margins and profits, they are in a poor
position to say they can't afford to pay."
Exactly, they want their cake and eat it too - plus eat everybody else's cake as
well. Seems totally FRAND if you happen to be Apple.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
Okay FRAND 2.5% of the value of a device. Now take all the patents that are
involved and divide up that 2.5% between them. Total patent FRAND cost is
always 2.5%. That could actually stimulate the market since all would know the
cost of doing business in this area. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- How about this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
| In the first place, that 2.2% was only
intended as a starting point for
negotiations. Beyond that, I suspect few
companies pay even 1%
They all work
it out with cross licensing deals
or even other
considerations, like
partnerships in limited
areas. In the end after all the
wheeling and dealing
and horse trading
perhaps no money is even
exchanged. Undoubtedly Samsung is
willing to
deal with Apple, but
Apple is only interested in carrying out it's
founders wishes to destroy
Android, and Android OEM's along with it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
"Using the ASP of the end user product as the royalty base
[is] discriminating against companies like Apple who sell
high-value products."
Apple doesn't seem to have trouble taking 30% off the top of
all its App Store sales.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HenchmenResource on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
From what I have seen watching apple the last 10 years or so
it seems that this
is a running theme. I recall when they
made the switch from Power processors to
Intel a similar
matter surfaced. Leading up to the move Apple made a lot of
claims about IBM based on the speed of their processors,
IBM's ability to keep
up with demand, etc.
The claims about keeping up with demand seemed to
hold a
little water but reports from the time suggested that issue
had been
resolved prior to Apples announcement. Further
evidence that the supply
problems were resolved is by the
purchases made by the three big game console
builders all of
which by reports far exceeded the quantities Apple was
asking
for. The claims
about speed also on the surface appeared to be legitimate.
At
the time of
the announcement I worked for the photo and graphics
departments
of a daily newspaper, the photo department had a
single Pentium 4 Windows
machine and the graphics department
had top of the line dual G5 machines.
Running Adobe programs
on the Windows machine was a joy, they worked and
responded
quickly, on the G5 machines not nearly as smooth. To test it
further
I worked with the IT department and we ran some
benchmarks, again the G5 lagged
far behind the Pentium 4.
The problem came when we installed Linux on the G5
and ran
the benchmarks again, the G5 running linux blew the pentium
4 away.
This led the IT department and myself to believe
that Apple want quite telling
the whole truth. Then the
other shoe dropped, I remember reading a series of
leaked
emails between Apple and IBM and they showed that a more
likely reason
for apple moving to Intel was that Apple
wanted to pay IBM a lot less than for
the Power based G5's
than IBM was willing to sell them. The negotiation
appeared
to go something similar to the following ( I am just making
these
numbers up for demonstration purposes I honestly cant
remember if the actual
numbers were ever released):
Apple: we want 300,000 chips but
we want you to
sell them to
us at the price you list for 500,000-1,000,000
quantities.
IBM: That's a interesting thought, we would be
happy
to sell
them to you at that price, but in addition to the 300,000
you want you
will also need to purchase an another
200,000.
Apple: We think you
might change your tune if we
say we are
going to use Intel
instead.
IBM: That's your choice, there's the door if you
change
your
mind you know where we are. Oh and on your way out could you
let
Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony know we are ready to see
them.
Ok so I
may have taken a little creative licence on that
conversation, seeing as I was
not actually present,
but it seems to me that Apple has this mentality that
their
suppliers should be so overjoyed that their products are
being used by
Apple that they should just be willing to hand
them over. If they don't then
Apple will be happy to drag
their names through the mud in front of the public,
courts
or anyone else they can find. This is one of the main
reasons I long
ago decided Apple products are not for me
despite the fact that I think that
they really do make
beautiful products.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
