Apple Wanted to Use Qualcomm Chips for 2018 iPhones, But Qualcomm Wouldn't Sell Them

As the FTC's antitrust trial against Qualcomm continues, Apple's chief operating officer, Jeff Williams, has taken the stand to share details on the terms of Apple's contracts with Qualcomm.

There's no live feed of the trial, but reporters including CNET's Shara Tibken and Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents are attending and sharing details on what Williams has to say.

qualcomm iphone 7
Most interestingly, Williams says that Apple had wanted to use both Qualcomm and Intel chips in the iPhone XS, XS Max, and XR despite the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm, but Qualcomm ultimately would not sell it the modems because of the fight.

"The strategy was to dual source in 2018 as well," said Williams. " "We were working toward doing that with Qualcomm, but in the end they would not support us or sell us chips."

Williams went on to explain that after Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf refused to sell Apple the chips, Apple had to contact Intel CEO Brian Krzanich to supply LTE chips for all of the 2018 iPhones. "We would have loved to continue to have access to Qualcomm's tech," said Williams.

Williams also detailed many of Apple's past interactions with Qualcomm. In 2011, when Apple negotiated a contract to use Qualcomm as a supplier for modems instead of Infineon because of Apple's need for CDMA-compatible chips, Qualcomm demanded a percentage of the iPhone's cost.

The two companies ultimately negotiated a rebate that brought the total royalty fee down to $7.50 per iPhone, though Apple had wanted to pay $1.50 per phone, equivalent to 5 percent of the value of the baseband chip, which was $30. Under the terms of that deal, though, Apple had to agree to a "marketing incentives agreement" to speak out against the WiMax standard that was popular at that time.

With the "marketing incentives agreement," rebates Apple received from Qualcomm would need to be reimbursed should Apple ship a device with a baseband chip from a Qualcomm competitor.

When it came time to renegotiate contracts in 2013, Qualcomm wanted to increase the $7.50 fee by an additional $8–$10, which would have cost Apple upwards of a billion dollars in annual licensing costs. To lower that fee, Qualcomm wanted exclusivity, which Apple accepted because it needed Qualcomm's chips.

Apple accepted the deal, which also prevented the company from challenging the fairness of Qualcomm's royalty rates or inducing others to challenge Qualcomm's licensing terms, which is the position Apple has been stuck in for several years.

Apple was finally able to diversify with the launch of the iPhone 7, the first iPhone to use chips from both Qualcomm and Intel, and it challenged Qualcomm's licensing terms in January 2017 with the launch of the initial Apple v. Qualcomm lawsuit.

Apple and many other Qualcomm partners are involved in Qualcomm's legal battle with the FTC, with the FTC suggesting that Qualcomm has been using anticompetitive tactics to remain the main supplier for baseband processors for smartphones.

The FTC v. Qualcomm trial will be continuing through most of January, so we are likely to hear additional details about Qualcomm and Apple's business practices.

Popular Stories

Aston Martin CarPlay Ultra Screen

Apple's CarPlay Ultra to Expand to These Vehicle Brands Later This Year

Sunday February 1, 2026 10:08 am PST by
Last year, Apple launched CarPlay Ultra, the long-awaited next-generation version of its CarPlay software system for vehicles. Nearly nine months later, CarPlay Ultra is still limited to Aston Martin's latest luxury vehicles, but that should change fairly soon. In May 2025, Apple said many other vehicle brands planned to offer CarPlay Ultra, including Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis. In his Powe...
Apple Logo Black

Apple Just Made Its Second-Biggest Acquisition Ever After Beats

Thursday January 29, 2026 10:07 am PST by
Apple today confirmed to Reuters that it has acquired Q.ai, an Israeli startup that is working on artificial intelligence technology for audio. Apple paid close to $2 billion for Q.ai, according to sources cited by the Financial Times. That would make this Apple's second-biggest acquisition ever, after it paid $3 billion for the popular headphone and audio brand Beats in 2014. Q.ai has...
Apple Logo Black

Apple's Next Launch is 'Imminent'

Sunday February 1, 2026 12:31 pm PST by
The calendar has turned to February, and a new report indicates that Apple's next product launch is "imminent," in the form of new MacBook Pro models. "All signs point to an imminent launch of next-generation MacBook Pros that retain the current form factor but deliver faster chips," Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said on Sunday. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated...
14 inch MacBook Pro Keyboard

Apple Changes How You Order a Mac

Saturday January 31, 2026 10:51 am PST by
Apple recently updated its online store with a new ordering process for Macs, including the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. There used to be a handful of standard configurations available for each Mac, but now you must configure a Mac entirely from scratch on a feature-by-feature basis. In other words, ordering a new Mac now works much like ordering an...
Apple MacBook Pro M4 hero

New MacBook Pros Reportedly Launching Alongside macOS 26.3

Sunday February 1, 2026 5:42 am PST by
Apple is planning to launch new MacBook Pro models with M5 Pro and M5 Max chips alongside macOS 26.3, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. "Apple's faster MacBook Pros are planned for the macOS 26.3 release cycle," wrote Gurman, in his Power On newsletter today. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated for the macOS 26.3 software cycle, which runs from...

Top Rated Comments

Numbah One Avatar
92 months ago
Why would they be in trouble? They're under no obligation to sell to anyone that's the beauty of a free market.
If a company has a standard-essential patent, they have to grant licenses on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The FTC and other companies are arguing that Qualcomm would not do it. I expect the outcome of this trial would affect all of the other lawsuits swirling around.
Score: 36 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ftaok Avatar
92 months ago
Apple don't want to pay their asking prices. Why would they expect Qualcomm to sell them even more?
The issue is that QCOM's patents have been granted as SEP (standard-essential patent). Because the patent is included in an international standard that everyone has to follow, the patent holder must license the technology at a fair and reasonable rate (FRAND).

This was basically the same thing that Samsung tried to pull on Apple many years ago. QCOM is trying to charge users of the CDMA standard a royalty fee based on the entire cost of the device, as opposed to the cost of the component that actually uses the patent.

Some would argue that QCOM is abusing the fact that their patent is part of a standard and they are not making the patent available at FRAND rates. Some would argue the opposite.

I think Apple would be happy (as happy as a company would be paying a supplier Billions of dollars) if QCOM based the royalty on the cost of the chip $30 as opposed to the cost of the iPhone.
Score: 32 Votes (Like | Disagree)
keysofanxiety Avatar
92 months ago
Apple don't want to pay their asking prices. Why would they expect Qualcomm to sell them even more?
Do you know what an antitrust trial is for?
Score: 30 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KPandian1 Avatar
92 months ago
If this is true - Qualcomm refusing - then it is in a lot of trouble.
iPhone suffers because of Apple is litigious.
iPhone is suffering in its modem ability how? All specs are beyond available spectra.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Wanted797 Avatar
92 months ago
“Qualcomm wanted to up the $7.50 fee by another $8 to $10,“

What?

Edit: Its been pointed out this is some bad wording. MR might I suggest.

‘Qualcomm wanted to up the $7.50 fee by $8-$10’.
Score: 22 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kennyt72 Avatar
92 months ago
If this is true - Qualcomm refusing - then it is in a lot of trouble.
Why would they be in trouble? They're under no obligation to sell to anyone that's the beauty of a free market.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)