I have. I just don't see how it's a bribe. This in part, because if Apple essentially ended up being 80% of the market, I don't see how one business relationship can be seen as monopolising.

Part of the reason Apple agreed to such a deal is because having a longer term contract will give them a better per unit price.

If you follow that line of thinking and Qualcomm gets a fine because of that, the commission should also force Apple to purchase LTE chips from multiple suppliers, because they can force the price down so much due to the fact they're 80% of the market. It goes both ways.

"In 2011, Qualcomm signed an agreement with Apple, committing to make significant payments to Apple on condition that the company would exclusively use Qualcomm chipsets in its "iPhone" and "iPad" devices. In 2013, the term of the agreement was extended to the end of 2016."

Does it still sound okay to you?

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-421_en.htm

That's not the part of the release that's not okay, since paying money to Apple in exchange for use of its chips is indistinguishable from Qualcomm giving Apple a large discount. The part that is not okay is the clawback clause:

> The agreement made clear that Qualcomm would cease these payments, if Apple commercially launched a device with a chipset supplied by a rival. Furthermore, for most of the time the agreement was in place, Apple would have had to return to Qualcomm a large part of the payments it had received in the past, if it decided to switch suppliers. This meant that Qualcomm's rivals were denied the possibility to compete effectively for Apple's significant business, no matter how good their products were. They were also denied business opportunities with other customers that could have followed from securing Apple as a customer.