Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qurious who wrote (146684)	5/30/2018 5:49:09 PM
From: Wildbiftek	1 Recommendation Recommended By VinnieBagOfDonuts Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196546

They've openly declared that their rates are fixed for those scenarios where cellular connectivity isn't essential: qualcomm.com Their contribution to phones is far more essential and pervasive. If you add up the value added to a phone over each of the parts where Qualcomm's IP is implemented, you would get in the end a capped percentage of the BOM which scales with the intensity of IP usage just as they actually charge. Of course no one bats an eye when Apple marks up a price of a $30 piece of NAND to $100 at the consumer sale (as they own that NAND prior to the sale) for whatever value their innovations and branding add to consumers on that extra storage, all other things being equal. Likewise Qualcomm owns the IP prior to licensing it to the handset manufacturers, and they should be allowed some control of what they charge for even FRAND encumbered IP as they own the IP. (Price discrimination isn't unfair to the ecosystem as it amounts to a discount to many buyers.)

To: Qurious who wrote (146684)	5/30/2018 5:51:13 PM
From: BoonDoggler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196546

And what about when it's a watch that costs $100, and causes people to realize they don't need cellular on the phone because the use some wireless protocol from the phone to their handheld? Maybe not practical now, but if it evolved to that point, would QCOM still be arguing for a device costs based royalty structure?

To: Qurious who wrote (146684)	5/30/2018 5:59:18 PM
From: abcs	2 Recommendations Recommended By recycled_electron VinnieBagOfDonuts Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196546

qualcomm.com The rates for Automobile and IOT is different and are capped. The way I see it their prices are not exorbitant and reasonably fair.

To: Qurious who wrote (146684)	5/30/2018 8:37:34 PM
From: engineer	4 Recommendations Recommended By Fiero JeffreyHF Lance Bredvold VinnieBagOfDonuts Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196546

they have been doing this for IOT and boards for a long time. The basestation boards were like $3500 to build and they capped the board royalty at $500 value. I think that they would cap the cars at some similar point which would make sense for the CAR, but remember that the car manufacturers would possibly buy subassemblies which had a much lower cap on them. Sierra wireless makes an IOT board which people put into all kinds of things of high value, but the royalty is only on the sierra wireless IOT board itself. the boards are like $100 or less. I see a car falling into the same situation. Your scenario has been dealt with for years (since 1994) and works perfectly fine.