You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!




Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Broadcom/Qualcomm a Chip not a QTL Company

  1. #1
    Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,136
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 316
    Given: 279

    Broadcom/Qualcomm a Chip not a QTL Company

    Broadcom if they take over Qualcomm would become more a chip company by to tossing much of Qualcomm's QTL (Qualcomm Technology Licensing) program aside and charge much lower rates to appease customers such as Apple and primarily become a chip company and derive most of their revenues from selling chips. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Broadcom/Qualcomm/NXP game. Broadcom tossing Qualcomm's QTL program and additional cost on chips would smooth things over with many on their customers. Others will be watching to see what business structure wins and how the results play out. The ramifications of this will play out across the entire world chip/licensing structure with even more changes to come.

    Qualcomm: Broadcom Would Throw Licensing to the Wolves, Says Bernstein - Barron's

    0 Not allowed!
     

  2. #2
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    112
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 76
    Given: 111
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Hanson View Post
    Broadcom if they take over Qualcomm would become more a chip company by to tossing much of Qualcomm's QTL (Qualcomm Technology Licensing) program aside and charge much lower rates to appease customers such as Apple and primarily become a chip company and derive most of their revenues from selling chips. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Broadcom/Qualcomm/NXP game. Broadcom tossing Qualcomm's QTL program and additional cost on chips would smooth things over with many on their customers. Others will be watching to see what business structure wins and how the results play out. The ramifications of this will play out across the entire world chip/licensing structure with even more changes to come.

    Qualcomm: Broadcom Would Throw Licensing to the Wolves, Says Bernstein - Barron's
    As much as this would please Apple, it would ironically cause great harm to consumers. Eviscerating Qualcomm's $5 billion R&D budget would disembowel innovation and experimentation, and substitute commoditization. Slowing down the technological trajectory, and hobbling new entrants from China and elsewhere, would be great for Apple, and bad for consumers and competition.

    Rasgon is ignorant of the fact that only 10% of QTL's SEP are practiced at the modem level, and 90% are practiced at the device and infrastructure levels. Charging more for modems will not obviate the need for device level licensing, as has been the industry custom and practice for 30 years, nor would it address the thousands of non-SEP commercially important patents, which carry no FRAND commitments and need not be offered for license at all.

    1 Not allowed!
     

  3. #3
    Expert hist78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    581
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 291
    Given: 287
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffreyHF View Post
    Rasgon is ignorant of the fact that only 10% of QTL's SEP are practiced at the modem level, and 90% are practiced at the device and infrastructure levels. Charging more for modems will not obviate the need for device level licensing, as has been the industry custom and practice for 30 years, nor would it address the thousands of non-SEP commercially important patents, which carry no FRAND commitments and need not be offered for license at all.
    If I understand it correctly, many IP license fee in PC industry are based on the component's value itself, not the whole PC or server value.

    Also it's debatable that why Qualcomm deserves to take a bite based on the whole device value. For example, a new iPhone X 64GB model costs about $370.25 to make. Among them, the AMOLED screen costs $110, case $61, Face ID: $16.7, memory: $33.45, camera: $35, App Processor: $27.5. Obviously there are a lot of IP and innovations provided by those components and most of them are other companies' IP and innovations, not Qualcomm's. What Qualcomm insists doesn't seem to be fair to me. Qualcomm is taking money from many other component makers who use their own ability to create their own value, nothing to do with Qualcomm's IP.

    iPhone X Costs Apple $370 in Materials, IHS Markit Teardown Reveals | IHS Online Newsroom

    2 Not allowed!
     

  4. #4
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    162
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 117
    Given: 14
    Quote Originally Posted by hist78 View Post
    If I understand it correctly, many IP license fee in PC industry are based on the component's value itself, not the whole PC or server value.

    Also it's debatable that why Qualcomm deserves to take a bite based on the whole device value. For example, a new iPhone X 64GB model costs about $370.25 to make. Among them, the AMOLED screen costs $110, case $61, Face ID: $16.7, memory: $33.45, camera: $35, App Processor: $27.5. Obviously there are a lot of IP and innovations provided by those components and most of them are other companies' IP and innovations, not Qualcomm's. What Qualcomm insists doesn't seem to be fair to me. Qualcomm is taking money from many other component makers who use their own ability to create their own value, nothing to do with Qualcomm's IP.

    iPhone X Costs Apple $370 in Materials, IHS Markit Teardown Reveals | IHS Online Newsroom
    There are historic reasons for it, namely before smart phones came along there were no LED screens or cameras or app processors and most of the content was stuff that Qualcom did invent. That model got rolled over to smart phones and, fairly or unfairly, it's what device makers contractually agreed to.


    Back to the subject of the OP, Hock Tan makes deals to make money. If he's wants to sell QTL there is a financial reason for that. There was a theory posted that the acquisition could be partially financed by selling QTL to a consortium of phone makers. That makes a lot of sense to me. Broadcomm could pay half the acquisition costs and cut a ton of R&D spending by spinning off QTL.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  5. #5
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    162
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 117
    Given: 14
    I should also add that Broadcom/Qualcomm does not need QTL to remain a monopoly. The resulting company would be a horizontal monopoly. No other company could bundle RF-modem-app processor-Wifi-Bluetooth-NFC-power management-ect. No-one else could compete.

    0 Not allowed!
     

  6. #6
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    112
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 76
    Given: 111
    $10/iPhone? What's that device worth without a competent hi-speed cellular data connection? That's an easy question to answer. It would be called an iPad Touch, and available for $189.99, retail. This has nothing to do with the $10, given Apple's bloated profit margins, and everything to do with choking off the R&D money that allows Chinese device makers to enter the market and compete against Apple, while charging far less for equivalent technology. It's anti-competitive conduct by Apple, intended to harm consumers.

    If you want to see excessive charging, how is it that Apple gets a 30% cut of all in-app transactions made by iPhone?

    1 Not allowed!
     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •