I read elsewhere
That Qualcomm is only offering to license their CDMA patents based on a percentage of the cost of the entire phone. If true, they're doing something that's been held by multiple courts to be a violation of FRAND. If that's not true, then what's the explanation for why NO ONE offers a CDMA capable chipset other than Qualcomm?
Those who sometimes wonder why Samsung ships phones in the US that don't have Samsung's own SoC can see why - likely they don't feel it is worth paying licensing fees to Qualcomm to do a CDMA version for the US and other markets that use it. Now maybe that's because they don't feel the volume is there, but they sell a LOT of phones in the US so that's hard to swallow. The problem is, in the US a larger percentage of them are high end (Galaxy S or Note) than probably anywhere else, which means if they would be required to pay royalties based on the price of the entire phone it would be far more expensive - much cheaper to use Qualcomm's chipset in those phones.
Obviously it is convenient for OEMs to build phones that cover the entire world market, but that's only possible if you use Qualcomm's chipset. Apple had a true world phone and took a step back with the 7, where the models (sold for AT&T & T-Mobile in the US) that had the Intel chipset could not be used on Verizon/Sprint's 3G CDMA network - they would only work on those networks in LTE. Supposedly they are a bit slower on LTE but who cares, the real issue is reduced resale value since it isn't of use to half the cellular subscribers in the US!
I think where Apple is going with using Intel's chipset is that they eventually intend to use it for all their phones, once the CDMA networks are almost completely replaced. Instead of installing Intel chips they'll simply license the IP and include the baseband on their SoC. Cheaper to make, lower power, and they'll control the baseband software instead of using Qualcomm's which may well have backdoor access for the NSA (either intentionally or unintentionally)