Report: Qualcomm drops Samsung to work with TSMC at 7nm

[Belgarathian]

38 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Yea but that also means that more price competative products pay less for the tech, which gets it in to more consumers hands by being more affordable.  So, a royalty angle isn't bad in and of itself. 

To play devils advocate a bit more, there are a few other things to consider.

- Are we to believe that samsung and apple entered into this without being aware of it from the start.

 

- I find it unlikely that that apple and samsung are actually interested in anything more than increaseing their profit margins by reneging and trying to force more favorable costs.  We know damn wrll they won't pass on savings to consumers so lets not even pretend that thats a thing.  I am sure they'd like us to believe that its a reason and that "trickle down" economics isn't just a slogan.

 

- This sort of arrangement does make it easier for underdogs to innovate and compete.

That argument doesn't work because the sale price of the product would have to be equal to or less than the cost of the of the contribution for the royalty payment to Qualcomm to be reasonable. That and the royalty payment isn't made by the manufacturer of the chip, it's made by the manufacturer of the final product. For instance, Apple used Intel modems instead of Qualcomm in some of the iPhones. Apple then pays Qualcomm royalties on iPhones that used Intel chipsets, rather than Intel paying Qualcomm per unit fees based on sale price or their chipsets. 

 

Apple and Samsung definately knew what they were signing. 100%. But because they hold standard essentials patents for LTE, 3G, and 4G networks you literally can't manufacture a mobile phone that is usable without Qualcomm getting a royalty payment. This isn't about Qualcomm collecting royalties, it's about their agreements stifling market competition as there are no other feasible options and their licensing agreements don't allow Intel or Samsung (or anyone else for that matter) to be competitive with Qualcomm on chipsets. 

 

To take the example out of context... 

 

Building company A lobbies Government to get Hot Water Cylinder Type A specified as the only acceptable Hot Water Apparatus to use for Commercial and Residential developments. 

 

Building Company A then creates licensing agreements for the manufacturing of Hot Water Cylinder Type A that say that they can manufacture and sell Hot Water Cylinder Type A, but Building Company A will collect royalty payments of 1% of the market value of the development on completion. 

 

[Trixanity]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That was in response to someone asking if Samsung could become independent moving forwards, which they can.  I only suggested they would need to augment their IP with some from other companies in order for their chips to compete with the snapdragon.

They are already highly competitive and are the most independent company in the industry. They have custom CPU cores, custom GPU has recently been announced, they make their own modems (and that's just the SoC business). Their beef with Qualcomm stems from legacy modem patents that will soon be irrelevant. I can't think of a single area where Qualcomm actually has a significant advantage if we look at it from a purely technical aspect. Obviously Qualcomm has a pseudo-cartel business going meaning that it's not entirely on technical merit that they dominate the industry.

 

Exynos 8895 is evidence of Samsung surpassing Qualcomm in many aspects. You can expect Samsung to dump Qualcomm entirely the moment CDMA dies. They don't need Qualcomm for anything. They can do everything Qualcomm can in-house and more.

 

In fact I'd say Qualcomm is mimicking Intel by resting on their laurels while their competitors overtake them. They seem to have given up on leadership in core technology and instead invest in platform improvements such as modems and DSPs to try and stay ahead.

[LAwLz]

Samsung can sell Exynos chips to other OEMs, and they are already doing so.

Check out the Meizu Pro 6 Plus and you will see that it has the same Exynos 8890 you will find in the Galaxy S7. I don't know what licensing deal Meizu got with Qualcomm, but chances are Qualcomm are double-dipping on those sales. First Samsung needs to pay to use the IP in their modems, and then Meizu has to pay for the same licenses again because they are the ones "implementing" the modem in a phone. That's my guess at least and if that's true then I think it is fucking bullshit, just like I thought Nvidia going after Samsung for using Qualcomm GPUs were bullshit. You should only be able to get a licensing fee once for each product if you ask me.

 

 

19 hours ago, System Error Message said:

however it isnt well optimised for the dual ARM CPU thing

What do you mean? How is Exynos not optimized for big.LITTLE?

 

19 hours ago, System Error Message said:

its one of the reasons why i picked the qualcomm's chip with 2 sets of quad cores rather than their kraits because i get a much better total compute power, only thing is that their 64 bit kraits come with better GPUs.

Krait is old. There is no 64bit Krait (unless you are talking about Kryo) and at this point all Krait based chips got old GPUs which are not as good as their current gen stuff.

Are you trying to say that you deliberately chose to get a Snapdragon 810 chip over some other Snapdragon chip?

 

19 hours ago, System Error Message said:

From my experience, qualcomm's own developer hardware using 2 sets of quad cores for ARM is poorly optimised compared to their kraits but you can use both sets of CPUs at the same time. So it only matters for the android OS experience and the rest is dependent on your apps.

I really don't understand your post.

What do you mean by "Qualcomm's own developed hardware using 2 sets of quad cores for ARM". Do you mean 4+4 design using stock ARM cores, or 4+4 design using Qualcomm's custom cores?

How are they "poorly optimized compared to krait"?

 

 

18 hours ago, System Error Message said:

they've been making their own chipsets not ARM CPUs. Qualcomm makes kraits, apple makes cyclones, samsung slaps stock ARM chips with their chipsets with a GPU.

Samsung also makes their own CPU cores. It's called Mongoose.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

They are already highly competitive and are the most independent company in the industry. They have custom CPU cores, custom GPU has recently been announced, they make their own modems (and that's just the SoC business). Their beef with Qualcomm stems from legacy modem patents that will soon be irrelevant. I can't think of a single area where Qualcomm actually has a significant advantage if we look at it from a purely technical aspect. Obviously Qualcomm has a pseudo-cartel business going meaning that it's not entirely on technical merit that they dominate the industry.

 

Exynos 8895 is evidence of Samsung surpassing Qualcomm in many aspects. You can expect Samsung to dump Qualcomm entirely the moment CDMA dies. They don't need Qualcomm for anything. They can do everything Qualcomm can in-house and more.

 

In fact I'd say Qualcomm is mimicking Intel by resting on their laurels while their competitors overtake them. They seem to have given up on leadership in core technology and instead invest in platform improvements such as modems and DSPs to try and stay ahead.

I never said they weren't competitive or made any reference to specific products.  In fact I never really mentioned qualcomm in any way other than to point out Samsung doesn't need them. 

[Trixanity]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I never said they weren't competitive or made any reference to specific products.  In fact I never really mentioned qualcomm in any way other than to point out Samsung doesn't need them. 

So what did you mean when you said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Samsung can become independent by licensing IP"? They're already independent and don't lack any IP. You didn't mention Qualcomm but Qualcomm is the only company standing in Samsung's way, so it's quite frankly the only relevant competitor to talk about in the SoC business including discussions of IP or lack thereof.

 

Either I'm completely misreading your post or you're now contradicting it.

 

Edit: here it is:

Quote

(on whether Samsung would become independent)

they can if they want, they have designed their own ARM processors before, or they could strike an IP deal with one of the other big companies to build a competing processor to the qualcomm stuff.

And you did actually mention Qualcomm. In fact you implied Samsung would need to strike a deal to build a competing processor (competing versus Qualcomm). That's the source of my opposition. Feel free to elaborate if I misread your post.

[Trixanity]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Samsung can sell Exynos chips to other OEMs, and they are already doing so.

Check out the Meizu Pro 6 Plus and you will see that it has the same Exynos 8890 you will find in the Galaxy S7. I don't know what licensing deal Meizu got with Qualcomm, but chances are Qualcomm are double-dipping on those sales. First Samsung needs to pay to use the IP in their modems, and then Meizu has to pay for the same licenses again because they are the ones "implementing" the modem in a phone. That's my guess at least and if that's true then I think it is fucking bullshit, just like I thought Nvidia going after Samsung for using Qualcomm GPUs were bullshit. You should only be able to get a licensing fee once for each product if you ask me.

Meizu pretty much only sells in markets where Qualcomm would be hard-pressed to enforce their patents. China, for example, would be a very bad place to try to rock the boat. I don't think Meizu or Samsung pays a thing to Qualcomm for their business in China and/or any agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm regarding Exynos probably isn't binding in China (or otherwise the agreement is substantially different in China to the point where it makes financial sense). Don't have a source to prove it but I find that the most plausible.

 

There is no good reason that Samsung was the only one to use Exynos 7420 (except production capacity perhaps) at a time where Snapdragon 810 was a toaster oven if other OEMs could freely use it. Samsung cannot compete with Qualcomm in markets such as North America and Europe as per their agreement from 1993. By compete I mean sell chips to Qualcomm's customers. You could of course argue that Qualcomm's royalties would have been too high or their subsidies too good to pass on Qualcomm chips. The details of their business arrangements are obviously not public knowledge although the headlines have been leaked to the press hence we know Qualcomm has actively arranged for Samsung to not be able to sell Exynos in any meaningful way.

 

Samsung can perfectly well make a modem on their own (and they do) and make one that is equal to Qualcomm. Problem is patents as you know. So they either have to license the patents (which Qualcomm won't do - at least not in a fair manner) to implement it in their own modem or buy a modem from Qualcomm (which Qualcomm forces most to do including Apple). Of course you pay for each unit (which you put in your device) and then you pay royalties on each sale of the total value of the product you sell (and not on the value of each modem). This type of business arrangements is best utilized on flagship phones such as iPhone or Galaxy S where you get percentages on $800+ devices. Qualcomm wants to keep it that way for obvious reasons.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Meizu pretty much only sells in markets where Qualcomm would be hard-pressed to enforce their patents. China, for example, would be a very bad place to try to rock the boat. I don't think Meizu or Samsung pays a thing to Qualcomm for their business in China and/or any agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm regarding Exynos probably isn't binding in China (or otherwise the agreement is substantially different in China to the point where it makes financial sense). Don't have a source to prove it but I find that the most plausible.

 

There is no good reason that Samsung was the only one to use Exynos 7420 (except production capacity perhaps) at a time where Snapdragon 810 was a toaster oven if other OEMs could freely use it. Samsung cannot compete with Qualcomm in markets such as North America and Europe as per their agreement from 1993. By compete I mean sell chips to Qualcomm's customers. You could of course argue that Qualcomm's royalties would have been too high or their subsidies too good to pass on Qualcomm chips. The details of their business arrangements are obviously not public knowledge although the headlines have been leaked to the press hence we know Qualcomm has actively arranged for Samsung to not be able to sell Exynos in any meaningful way.

 

Samsung can perfectly well make a modem on their own (and they do) and make one that is equal to Qualcomm. Problem is patents as you know. So they either have to license the patents (which Qualcomm won't do - at least not in a fair manner) to implement it in their own modem or buy a modem from Qualcomm (which Qualcomm forces most to do including Apple). Of course you pay for each unit (which you put in your device) and then you pay royalties on each sale of the total value of the product you sell (and not on the value of each modem). This type of business arrangements is best utilized on flagship phones such as iPhone or Galaxy S where you get percentages on $800+ devices. Qualcomm wants to keep it that way for obvious reasons.

Do you have a link to this agreement from 1993 or at least some of these leaks?

I think it sounds very weird that Samsung would sign an agreement that would last 25 years, and that it would be so extremely specific that it says something along the lines of "not allowed to sell chips to other Qualcomm customers in North America or Europe".

 

 

Meizu is sold in a lot of places in Europe. Not in some obscure places either. Amazon has them, and Media Markt (second largest electronic retailer in the world, after BestBuy) has them.

Of course, they are mostly sold in China (as with any phone really) but I don't think Qualcomm would just sit by and watch as retailers like Amazon and Media Markt are casually selling phones that infringe on their patents. And if it's just because Meizu is based in China then surely other Chinese companies would be selling Exynos devices too.

There has to be some reason why Meizu uses Exynos chips but nobody else.

[Trixanity]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do you have a link to this agreement from 1993 or at least some of these leaks?

I think it sounds very weird that Samsung would sign an agreement that would last 25 years, and that it would be so extremely specific that it says something along the lines of "not allowed to sell chips to other Qualcomm customers in North America or Europe".

 

 

Meizu is sold in a lot of places in Europe. Not in some obscure places either. Amazon has them, and Media Markt (second largest electronic retailer in the world, after BestBuy) has them.

Of course, they are mostly sold in China (as with any phone really) but I don't think Qualcomm would just sit by and watch as retailers like Amazon and Media Markt are casually selling phones that infringe on their patents. And if it's just because Meizu is based in China then surely other Chinese companies would be selling Exynos devices too.

There has to be some reason why Meizu uses Exynos chips but nobody else.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/31/did-qualcomm-inc-kneecap-samsungs-exynos-socs.aspx

 

I said NA and EU specifically because it's two markets with strict patent laws and where Qualcomm has a lot of business (especially high margin business) - not because there is a specific clause I know of. 

 

Aren't those Meizu devices imported? That's a very different market. Although a big fish like Amazon (and not an Amazon marketplace seller) shouldn't be able to fly under the radar but it is sort of a legal grey area when a small reseller imports under such convoluted agreements between large corporations.

 

I think Mediatek has the best prices but Qualcomm are known for subsidies and underhanded dealings to secure customers. There is also the issue of Samsung overextending their SoC business with Qualcomm looming over them and ready to pounce if they get too bold. They need to increase Exynos production and secure customers which will surely tick Qualcomm off while Samsung is in a precarious position.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Trixanity said:

So what did you mean when you said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Samsung can become independent by licensing IP"? They're already independent and don't lack any IP. You didn't mention Qualcomm but Qualcomm is the only company standing in Samsung's way, so it's quite frankly the only relevant competitor to talk about in the SoC business including discussions of IP or lack thereof.

 

Either I'm completely misreading your post or you're now contradicting it.

 

Edit: here it is:

And you did actually mention Qualcomm. In fact you implied Samsung would need to strike a deal to build a competing processor (competing versus Qualcomm). That's the source of my opposition. Feel free to elaborate if I misread your post.

 

You seem to be reading my post out of context and taking issue with an interpreted meaning.   You've added all the stuff about qualcomm being arseholes and other agreements between them (neither of which apply to my comments), I merely said Samsung didn't need them to be independent moving forward (in context with the actual question I was answering).  

 

It wasn't that complicated, someone wanted to know if Samsung could become independent of qualcomm,  My answer is yes, but  Samsung could only do it by obtaining extra IP licenses (which all phone manufacturers have to do in this day and age). Not sure why that is a problem for you, maybe you disagree that Samsung can't stop using qualcomm products (including IP)?  

 

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Trixanity said:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/31/did-qualcomm-inc-kneecap-samsungs-exynos-socs.aspx

But that source says exactly the same thing I said before.

 

This is what I said:

16 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Samsung can sell Exynos chips to other OEMs, and they are already doing so.

Check out the Meizu Pro 6 Plus and you will see that it has the same Exynos 8890 you will find in the Galaxy S7. I don't know what licensing deal Meizu got with Qualcomm, but chances are Qualcomm are double-dipping on those sales. First Samsung needs to pay to use the IP in their modems, and then Meizu has to pay for the same licenses again because they are the ones "implementing" the modem in a phone.

And here is from the article you linked, as well as the ZDNet article it uses as a source:

Quote

If Samsung wanted to sell Exynos SoCs to a third-party OEM, either Samsung or the OEM had to pay Qualcomm additional licensing fees.

Quote

But Qualcomm said buyers of Samsung's chip-set must pay it licensing fees or the latter must take the burden of pay, to which Samsung agreed.

 

So the way I read it, anyone can buy Exynos chips if they want (assuming Samsung actually have enough chips to sell), even someone like HTC or Apple. It's just that they will have to pay an additional fee to Qualcomm, and chances are that fee is big enough that manufacturers just go with a Snapdragon chip.

[System Error Message]

20 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Samsung can sell Exynos chips to other OEMs, and they are already doing so.

Check out the Meizu Pro 6 Plus and you will see that it has the same Exynos 8890 you will find in the Galaxy S7. I don't know what licensing deal Meizu got with Qualcomm, but chances are Qualcomm are double-dipping on those sales. First Samsung needs to pay to use the IP in their modems, and then Meizu has to pay for the same licenses again because they are the ones "implementing" the modem in a phone. That's my guess at least and if that's true then I think it is fucking bullshit, just like I thought Nvidia going after Samsung for using Qualcomm GPUs were bullshit. You should only be able to get a licensing fee once for each product if you ask me.

 

 

What do you mean? How is Exynos not optimized for big.LITTLE?

 

Krait is old. There is no 64bit Krait (unless you are talking about Kryo) and at this point all Krait based chips got old GPUs which are not as good as their current gen stuff.

Are you trying to say that you deliberately chose to get a Snapdragon 810 chip over some other Snapdragon chip?

 

I really don't understand your post.

What do you mean by "Qualcomm's own developed hardware using 2 sets of quad cores for ARM". Do you mean 4+4 design using stock ARM cores, or 4+4 design using Qualcomm's custom cores?

How are they "poorly optimized compared to krait"?

 

 

Samsung also makes their own CPU cores. It's called Mongoose.

yup, i mean the 4+4 core config, there is a company that makes reference designs for developers that are making software for the platform or even their own hardware (like if you wanted to build your own phone or tablet). Most companies have developer hardware.

[Trixanity]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But that source says exactly the same thing I said before.

 

This is what I said:

And here is from the article you linked, as well as the ZDNet article it uses as a source:

 

So the way I read it, anyone can buy Exynos chips if they want (assuming Samsung actually have enough chips to sell), even someone like HTC or Apple. It's just that they will have to pay an additional fee to Qualcomm, and chances are that fee is big enough that manufacturers just go with a Snapdragon chip.

The author, like me, is making assumptions. All we know is Qualcomm is in one way or another blocking Samsung. That's one reason South Korea is hell bent on nuking Qualcomm through their legal system; They are after all a significant portion of their economy.

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

You seem to be reading my post out of context and taking issue with an interpreted meaning.   You've added all the stuff about qualcomm being arseholes and other agreements between them (neither of which apply to my comments), I merely said Samsung didn't need them to be independent moving forward (in context with the actual question I was answering).  

 

It wasn't that complicated, someone wanted to know if Samsung could become independent of qualcomm,  My answer is yes, but  Samsung could only do it by obtaining extra IP licenses (which all phone manufacturers have to do in this day and age). Not sure why that is a problem for you, maybe you disagree that Samsung can't stop using qualcomm products (including IP)?  

 

 

The context is right there. Either you didn't provide enough context yourself or you've left it deliberately vague.

 

My own posts obviously provide a basis of argument of which to refute yours otherwise it'd just be me saying 'no'. That's why I've "added stuff".

 

Samsung probably has the most broad IP spectrum in the business. That's why that comment makes little sense. They're being held back by legacy modem patents which will become close to irrelevant within three years without Samsung having to do anything. From there, Samsung has everything they need, so the licensing thing once again might as well be crossed out.

The industry is moving towards a complete 4G/5G infrastructure (of which Samsung is completely covered as far as I know) while 2G and 3G networks are being shutdown over the coming (especially CDMA) where Qualcomm holds patents.

 

So we agree that Samsung doesn't need Qualcomm but we don't agree on Samsung being forced to license IP from other companies than Qualcomm because Qualcomm holds patents that no one in the industry have (which Samsung could use right now) and no one else in the industry holds patents that Samsung need. So either they need to license stuff from Qualcomm or they don't need to license from anyone at all. There is no middle ground.

 

But let's just agree to disagree. This is getting pointless.

[SCHISCHKA]

On 13/06/2017 at 6:32 PM, leadeater said:

Well if AMD Ryzen, TR and EYPC take off in a big way Samsung might have nothing to worry about.

ryzen phones? that is Epyc bro

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The author, like me, is making assumptions. All we know is Qualcomm is in one way or another blocking Samsung. That's one reason South Korea is hell bent on nuking Qualcomm through their legal system; They are after all a significant portion of their economy.

The context is right there. Either you didn't provide enough context yourself or you've left it deliberately vague.

 

My own posts obviously provide a basis of argument of which to refute yours otherwise it'd just be me saying 'no'. That's why I've "added stuff".

 

Samsung probably has the most broad IP spectrum in the business. That's why that comment makes little sense. They're being held back by legacy modem patents which will become close to irrelevant within three years without Samsung having to do anything. From there, Samsung has everything they need, so the licensing thing once again might as well be crossed out.

The industry is moving towards a complete 4G/5G infrastructure (of which Samsung is completely covered as far as I know) while 2G and 3G networks are being shutdown over the coming (especially CDMA) where Qualcomm holds patents.

 

So we agree that Samsung doesn't need Qualcomm but we don't agree on Samsung being forced to license IP from other companies than Qualcomm because Qualcomm holds patents that no one in the industry have (which Samsung could use right now) and no one else in the industry holds patents that Samsung need. So either they need to license stuff from Qualcomm or they don't need to license from anyone at all. There is no middle ground.

 

But let's just agree to disagree. This is getting pointless.

Feel free to dispute anything you want. Just make no mistake that you are taking issue with either at worst the most benign of opinions or at best something that is factually correct.