QCOM Media Bias Heatmap ............................................................................................................
Thought this QCOM Media Bias Heatmap (below) generated by Copilot was interesting. It was primarily developed after doing some investigation to the AAPL/ FTC suits and Cooks "big lie".
It took quite a bit of Copilot prodding but it finally got to the “big lie” about QCOM royalties based upon the total price (“value”) of the iPhone
Copilot>>>>
cooks quote about the sofa analogy
Here’s the quote you’re referring to—Tim Cook’s now-infamous “sofa analogy”, delivered during Apple’s Q1 2017 earnings call as part of his public attack on Qualcomm’s royalty model:
“They were insisting on charging royalties for technologies that they had nothing to do with. We were in a situation where the more we innovated with unique features like Touch ID… the more money Qualcomm would collect for no reason and the more expensive it would be therefore for us to innovate. It’s somewhat like buying a sofa and you charge somebody a different price depending upon the house that it goes into.”
This analogy was meant to criticize Qualcomm’s practice of calculating royalties based on the total device value, rather than the value of the specific components or IP Qualcomm contributed. But Cook’s framing omitted a crucial detail: Qualcomm had a royalty cap—at the time, around $500 per device, later lowered to $400—which meant the royalty wasn’t actually tied to the full iPhone retail price.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Q- Was there a major media outlet that directly criticized Cook’s sofa analogy?
?? Short answer: No mainstream outlet explicitly dissected or debunked the analogy. Most coverage—including Yahoo Finance, Tom’s Hardware, and AppleInsider—quoted Cook’s analogy verbatim and framed it as part of Apple’s broader justification for litigation. None of these articles challenged the logic of the analogy, clarified Qualcomm’s royalty caps, or explained the device-level licensing rationale.
The closest thing to pushback came from Qualcomm’s legal team, quoted in Tom’s Hardware, accusing Apple of “intentionally mischaracterizing” their agreements and encouraging regulatory attacks. But again, this was a general rebuttal—not a media-driven critique of the analogy itself.
Copilot >>>>>>>>
I’ve also clarified the bias tilt for each outlet based on frequency, framing, and omission patterns.
Qualcomm Media Bias Heatmap (Expanded)
Outlet
| Key Authors / Contributors
| Bias Tilt
| Licensing Clarity
| Apple Framing Amplified
| Notes
| WSJ
| Asa Fitch, Tripp Mickle, Ted Greenwald, Aaron Tilley, Dan Gallagher
| Mixed / Apple-favorable
| Generally omitted
| Frequently echoed
| Coverage often centers on Apple’s strategic posture; licensing mechanics rarely explained. Ted Greenwald’s 2017 piece acknowledged OEM-level licensing but didn’t clarify royalty caps. Dan Gallagher’s 2024 column emphasized Apple’s push to drop Qualcomm, reinforcing competitive framing2.
| CNET
| Shara Tibken
| Favorable / Technically rigorous
| Explicitly disclosed
| Did not amplify
| Tibken’s 2018 article is one of the few mainstream pieces to disclose Qualcomm’s $400 royalty cap and explain device-level licensing. Her trial coverage also surfaced Qualcomm’s engineering testimony and licensing rationale4.
| Bloomberg
| Ian King, Mark Gurman, Victoria Graham
| Mixed / Apple-centric
| Omitted
| Repeated Apple’s claims
| Often framed Qualcomm as litigation-prone; licensing structure rarely explained. Gurman’s Apple beat dominates narrative tone.
| Reuters
| Stephen Nellis, Mike Scarcella
| Mixed / Procedural
| Surface-level
| Apple’s framing echoed
| Litigation updates dominate; licensing model rarely unpacked. Scarcella’s legal coverage is more neutral but lacks economic depth.
| Forbes
| Patrick Moorhead, Jim McGregor
| Favorable / Executive-access
| Explained in interviews
| Balanced framing
| Moorhead and McGregor consistently clarify royalty caps, licensing rationale, and Qualcomm’s strategic posture.
| EE Times
| Jim McGregor
| Favorable / Semiconductor-focused
| Explained
| Minimal Apple framing
| Coverage emphasizes IP strategy and licensing economics; avoids litigation drama.
| IAM Media
| Joff Wild, Richard Lloyd
| Favorable / Licensing experts
| Deep dive
| Rare Apple mention
| Focused on SEP licensing, FRAND obligations, and global IP dynamics.
| The Verge
| Nilay Patel, Sean Hollister
| Hostile / Editorialized
| Absent
| Apple-centric
| Qualcomm often framed as aggressive; licensing model never explained.
| 9to5Mac
| Ben Lovejoy, Chance Miller
| Hostile / Apple-aligned
| Absent
| Repeated Apple’s claims
| Coverage amplifies Apple’s “double-dipping” narrative; no mention of royalty caps or OEM licensing.
| Crowell & Moring
| Antitrust Legal Team
| Neutral / Legal clarity
| Judicial validation
| No Apple framing
| Explained FTC reversal and legality of “no license, no chips” policy.
| Bias Tilt Definitions
- Favorable: Coverage includes Qualcomm’s licensing rationale, royalty caps, or executive interviews.
- Mixed: Coverage includes both sides but omits structural clarity or leans toward Apple’s framing.
Hostile: Coverage amplifies Apple’s narrative, omits Qualcomm’s licensing model, and editorializes litigation |
