Thanks for the DED link, I had forgotten to check his twitter feed. I think he nailed it, and it was my take as well before I read it.
I don't think it's surprising that Apple stock didn't go up. I think it reflects that Apple was considered to hold most of the cards. Anyway, though both sides will claim the other caved, I agree that there's no chance Apple caved. Even for Apple, it was a titanic lift to get to the point where QCOM withheld their chips as they knew that would and survive. It took a strong institutional determination and wheeling and dealing to get to that point, and there was no imminent need to settle on unfavorable terms. They did what no one else could do, and they might not be able to do again if they needed to, so I can't imagine they caved. Here's what I think they got.
1) The "no license no chips" policy is done for Apple. Both statements sure seem to try to make clear the license deal and the supply deal are separate, and also have different time periods. DED is right that Android vendors would kill for this deal, but the FTC might yet give them relief. Problem is, even if that happens it could drag on for years and enforcing consent decrees can be difficult.
The "no license no chips" is dead to Apple. That means a clear path to their own SoC with no strings attached. Check. Ask Samsung and Huawei how begging for that from QCOM is going. Both can only sell their own SoCs in home markets.
2) Though Intel has now bowed out, since I'm sure Apple has given a volume commitment, the idea that Apple signed an exclusive QCOM contract would be insane. It would be beyond stupid even if QCOM was there sole supplier for new phones from 2020-2024 or whatever. Volume commitments and exclusive contracts are worlds apart, the latter a legal thing. I'd think both company's CEOs and legal teams probably wake up in a cold sweat repeating that word now. It got QCOM the most bitter enmity from Apple, and it almost broke QCOM and may yet since they're still fully liable for the consequences of all exclusive contracts they've signed in the past. No way Apple allows it, and no way QCOM would even wants it anyway unless they know they can settle with the FTC on their terms.
Apple's Williams testified under oath they wanted QCOM modems as an option for their new phones, but QCOM denied them. So Apple gets QCOM modems with no exclusive contract, which is what they always wanted. Check.
3) SEP and FRAND and patent exhaustion issues off the table for the next 6-8 years as far as Apple is concerned. It remains to be seen what the FTC and the rest of the world is going to do about these legal issues (Daimler just sued Ericsson over the same issue) but Apple wants out from under this legal morass and wants to get on with it's business without encumbrances upon uncertain and protracted legal wrangling. Apple sells around 215 million phones per year. Assuming both chipset and royalty is in the $2 EPS QCOM said, it comes to $11 per phone, where they’d been receiving $20 in royalty alone. Apple doesn't need to worry about SEP and FRAND issues now and likely got a significant discount.
www.patentprogress.orgThough the case was always about principle more than price, if the price is good enough the details like SEP and FRAND really don't matter to Apple. They owe their customers, not righting the world's wrongs. In fact it's better for them if they don't. So SEP and FRAND, well close enough. Check.
That was my take before I read DED. And I've always said the irony of the case was that Apple had far more ability to pay than any of its rivals, so if they won on principle the Android vendors would benefit more than Apple. But Apple shrewdly sees, and I take Cook at his word that he hates litigation, that you can only litigate on principle so far when you've got a business to run, and you've got little obligation to right the world's wrongs. Especially when there's no reason to think you can actually do that. They'll still testify as witnesses for FTC appeals if asked, and still cooperate with authorities no matter what. Oh, yeah there's one more item.
4) Gag orders. Judge Curiel made quick work of QCOM's assertions that Apple was in material breach of contract is his summary judgment a couple weeks ago. Not having any of it.
".. Curiel found that Apple was responding to requests for information from regulators, and that is allowed under safe harbor terms of the agreement."
"... Curiel ruled that Apple’s talks with the FTC occurred before the 2013 agreement, and the FTC’s investigation didn’t start until 2014. It would run counter to public policy for a contract agreement to discourage companies from responding to regulators, he said."
So no QCOM idiotic gag orders in the deal either. Check!
Edit: It should be mentioned that much of this is only because Apple has a direct licensing deal with QCOM, which they could never get before. Whatever it looks like, it surely must be the most transparent contract QCOM has ever written.