A report from Bloomberg details how Apple’s director of cellular systems architecture, Matthias Sauer, testified that the company sought 4G cellular modems from an array of different companies besides Qualcomm, however, none were able to provide market-ready 4G modems in time.

The news is a big boost to the chipmaker’s case, who is fighting claims that its near market monopoly has forced phone manufactures to pay fixed, inflated prices on chip licensing royalties.

Recently, the heat between Apple and Qualcomm has ramped up. It was discovered that Apple’s COO Jeff Williams pushed for Apple to utilize Qualcomm chips in iPhone XS, XS Max and XR, however, the chipmaker refused to do any business with Apple.

Just days later, Qualcomm stated that the iPhone “wouldn’t be possible” without them.

The smartphones we have today wouldn’t be possible without Qualcomm. Or at least that’s what the chip giant sought to show Tuesday during its trial against the US Federal Trade Commission […]

Tuesday marked Qualcomm’s first chance to present its own case. The company says the FTC’s lawsuit is based on “flawed legal theory.” Qualcomm has said customers choose its chips because they’re the best and that it has never stopped providing processors to customers, even when they’re battling over licenses.

As for Sauer’s testimony, he further explained how Apple sought the services of Ericsson, Broadcom and Intel as early as 2012, however, none could “deliver to Apple’s desired specifications”.

From Bloomberg,

Sauer testified that Apple considered the likes of Ericsson, Broadcom and Intel Corp. as component suppliers for devices as early as the 2012 planning phase for new products, but none could deliver to Apple’s desired specifications. It wasn’t until Apple launched the iPhone 7 in September 2016 that anyone other than Qualcomm supplied chips for an LTE-ready Apple device.

He told the FTC in cross-examination that Apple’s decision to skip Intel as a chip supplier for the 2014 iPad was a business decision, not a technical one, and that the specifications Apple had sought, including carrier aggregation, were ultimately unnecessary for that model.

What do you think about this recent revelation? Discuss in the comments section below!

Related stories:


Subscribe to 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news: