Apple is moving to in-house 5G modem chips for its 2024 iPhones, as far
as the chief executive of Qualcomm — which currently produces them for
the tech giant — is aware.
“We’re making no plans for 2024, my planning assumption is we’re not providing [Apple] a modem in ’24, but it’s their decision to make,” Cristiano Amon told CNBC at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
Apple’s most recent iPhone 14 models use Qualcomm modems, but the
company has been looking to go solo in the wireless connectivity market
for some years.
It bought Intel’s modem business in 2019 and there had been speculation
it would begin using in-house parts this year.
In an interview with CNBC’s Karen Tso and Arjun Kharpal, Amon said
Qualcomm had told investors back in 2021 that it did not expect to
provide modems for the iPhone in 2023, but Apple then decided to
continue for another year.
Amon did not confirm whether Apple would pay Qualcomm QTL licenses if
it moves to its own modems, but said royalty was “independent from providing a chip.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/01/qualcomm-ceo-says-planning-for-apple-to-make-own-iphone-modems-from-2024-.html
badgolferman wrote:
Apple is moving to in-house 5G modem chips for its 2024 iPhones, as
far as the chief executive of Qualcomm — which currently produces
them for the tech giant — is aware.
“We’re making no plans for 2024, my planning assumption is we’re not >> providing [Apple] a modem in ’24, but it’s their decision to make,”
Cristiano Amon told CNBC at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
Apple’s most recent iPhone 14 models use Qualcomm modems, but the
company has been looking to go solo in the wireless connectivity
market for some years.
It bought Intel’s modem business in 2019 and there had been
speculation it would begin using in-house parts this year.
In an interview with CNBC’s Karen Tso and Arjun Kharpal, Amon said
Qualcomm had told investors back in 2021 that it did not expect to
provide modems for the iPhone in 2023, but Apple then decided to
continue for another year.
Amon did not confirm whether Apple would pay Qualcomm QTL licenses if
it moves to its own modems, but said royalty was “independent from
providing a chip.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/01/qualcomm-ceo-says-planning-for-apple-to-make-own-iphone-modems-from-2024-.html
What are the chances Apple's first generation 5G modems will have lots
of problems? It's not like they can actually simulate real-world
conditions and do the amount of comprehensive testing necessary to work
out the bugs.
nospam wrote:
In article <xn0nytutr9wfr5002@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
What are the chances Apple's first generation 5G modems will have
lots of problems?
nothing is perfect, but given their success with apple silicon, it's
low.
It's not like they can actually simulate real-world
conditions and do the amount of comprehensive testing necessary to
work out the bugs.
what makes you say that? they have enormous resources to do all sorts
of testing.
part of that includes employees using pre-release phones all over the
san francisco bay area and well beyond it.
put it in an iphone 14 body and nobody outside of the people carrying
it will know, possibly even them too.
Car manufacturers also have enormous resources, but most often a new
design has many bugs the first couple years. Something as sensitive to environmental conditions as a modem can't be tested in San Francisco
only. It needs a very wide and long test bed.
nospam wrote:
In article <xn0nytutr9wfr5002@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
What are the chances Apple's first generation 5G modems will have
lots of problems?
nothing is perfect, but given their success with apple silicon, it's
low.
It's not like they can actually simulate real-world
conditions and do the amount of comprehensive testing necessary to
work out the bugs.
what makes you say that? they have enormous resources to do all sorts
of testing.
part of that includes employees using pre-release phones all over the
san francisco bay area and well beyond it.
put it in an iphone 14 body and nobody outside of the people carrying
it will know, possibly even them too.
Car manufacturers also have enormous resources, but most often a new
design has many bugs the first couple years.
Something as sensitive to
environmental conditions as a modem can't be tested in San Francisco
only. It needs a very wide and long test bed.
What are the chances Apple's first generation 5G modems will have lots
of problems? It's not like they can actually simulate real-world
conditions and do the amount of comprehensive testing necessary to work
out the bugs.
nospam wrote:
Car manufacturers also have enormous resources, but most often a new
design has many bugs the first couple years.
not as much as apple, who has enough net cash to buy ford, general
motors or honda.
Thank God Apple has so much money. That must be why Apple's first
generation Maps app was so much better than the existing Google app.
nospam wrote:
In article <tto7jq$1jfgg$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
Thank God Apple has so much money. That must be why Apple's first
generation Maps app was so much better than the existing Google app.
that was a very different situation.
What? Apple didn't have so much money back then, nospam?
google refused to continue licensing their maps to apple, thereby
forcing apple to release their own maps when they did.
Didn't Apple fire the leader of the Maps group for incompetence just a very short time _after_ the highly touted well marketed typical Apple rollout?
apple did not
have the luxury of waiting until all of the issues were resolved.
What's different with the modem where Apple already slipped their
"predicted" schedules numerous times (according to Kuo anyway)?
*something* had to ship.
You forget all that highly touted marketing bullshit, exactly like the
"Apple Silicon" bullshit for the unpatchably permanently flawed M1, nospam.
Apple is moving to in-house 5G modem chips for its 2024 iPhones, as far
as the chief executive of Qualcomm — which currently produces them for
the tech giant — is aware.
“We’re making no plans for 2024, my planning assumption is we’re not providing [Apple] a modem in ’24, but it’s their decision to make,” Cristiano Amon told CNBC at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
Apple’s most recent iPhone 14 models use Qualcomm modems, but the
company has been looking to go solo in the wireless connectivity market
for some years.
It bought Intel’s modem business in 2019 and there had been speculation
it would begin using in-house parts this year.
In an interview with CNBC’s Karen Tso and Arjun Kharpal, Amon said
Qualcomm had told investors back in 2021 that it did not expect to
provide modems for the iPhone in 2023, but Apple then decided to
continue for another year.
Amon did not confirm whether Apple would pay Qualcomm QTL licenses if
it moves to its own modems, but said royalty was “independent from providing a chip.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/01/qualcomm-ceo-says-planning-for-apple-to-make-own-iphone-modems-from-2024-.html
nospam wrote:
do try to keep up rather than dig yourself an even deeper hole.
I will respond with the astute _adult_ point that I am making about your claim that money alone buys quality for a MARKETING outfit like Apple.
Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class app, nospam, let alone an IC.
Apple Maps is a classic case of where Apple took years to catch up.
Just like CocaCola/Pepsi are MARKETING powerhouses, Apple's ooodles of
money doesn't mean that Apple can design a competitive 5G modem, nospam.
In fact, you can't find a _single_ best-in-class SOC that Apple has ever
had fabricated under their name, nospam, and certainly no modem ICs.
What are the chances Apple's first generation 5G modems will have lots
of problems? It's not like they can actually simulate real-world
conditions and do the amount of comprehensive testing necessary to work
out the bugs.
The prediction that I saw was that the SE4 would use an Apple modem but
that the 15 would not. In that way they could work out any issues with
their modem using an entry level phone where any performance issues
would be less newsworthy. If all goes well then the 16 could use the
Apple modem, but it would be surprising if one year were sufficient to
do enough revisions of the silicon and the microcode to work out all the issues.
The other issue is that all the other phone manufacturers have already integrated the modem in with the processor. That will be Apple's next
goal once the standalone modem is working sufficiently well. Perhaps
doing an MCM (Multi-Chip-Module) prior to putting everything on one die.
lexibility for various products. for example, ipads
*without* cellular. if the modem was integrated, then people would be forced to pay for something they don't want.
If integrated within the Apple processor, it's cheaper to make them all
the same and simply deactivate the modem portion for models "without" cellular.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be
activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase
the resale value.
lexibility for various products. for example, ipads
*without* cellular. if the modem was integrated, then people would be
forced to pay for something they don't want.
In article <Nw1ML.900125$gGD7.77244@fx11.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
lexibility for various products. for example, ipads
*without* cellular. if the modem was integrated, then people would be
forced to pay for something they don't want.
If integrated within the Apple processor, it's cheaper to make them all
the same and simply deactivate the modem portion for models "without"
cellular.
it limits their flexibility. they're not going to include a modem into
every a* and m* processor. that's just silly. it's possible that they
could make an iphone-specific processor that includes a modem due to
space constraints (not power as has incorrectly been claimed) but will
still want a separate modem chip for other products. whether it's worth
it to do that is something nobody outside of apple can determine.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be
activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase
the resale value.
that would cause a huge negative reaction and not how apple works
either.
If integrated within the Apple processor, it's cheaper to make them all
the same and simply deactivate the modem portion for models "without"
cellular.
it limits their flexibility. they're not going to include a modem into every a* and m* processor. that's just silly. it's possible that they
Not at all. The modem as a chip "package" is mainly packaging. As chip
area it is pretty small. Thus cheaper to make all Ax (and possibly Mx)
chips with the modem in place and configuration controlled when the
device is made either fused in the chip or by device config.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be
activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase
the resale value.
that would cause a huge negative reaction and not how apple works
either.
It's a decision to make. They could also ship it thus and never mention
it.
In article <o22ML.1391189$9sn9.1080359@fx17.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
If integrated within the Apple processor, it's cheaper to make them all >>>> the same and simply deactivate the modem portion for models "without"
cellular.
it limits their flexibility. they're not going to include a modem into
every a* and m* processor. that's just silly. it's possible that they
Not at all. The modem as a chip "package" is mainly packaging. As chip
area it is pretty small. Thus cheaper to make all Ax (and possibly Mx)
chips with the modem in place and configuration controlled when the
device is made either fused in the chip or by device config.
taken to extreme, they'd put the entire logic board on one chip.
there are reasons to integrate it and reasons to not integrate it.
it's clear that keeping them separate offers flexibility that they
otherwise would not have, especially with a diverse product line.
keep in mind that qualcomm makes chips and apple makes products.
they're two very different goals, and what makes sense for one company
does not always make sense for the other.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be
activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase >>>> the resale value.
that would cause a huge negative reaction and not how apple works
either.
It's a decision to make. They could also ship it thus and never mention
it.
there are companies who x-ray chips (not just the ones apple produces).
something like that won't go undetected for very long, as in a week or
two at the most.
it would be a huge public relations disaster.
even the teardowns happen within hours of the product's release, with
people flying to new zealand to have something to show *before* they're released in north america.
it's clear that keeping them separate offers flexibility that they otherwise would not have, especially with a diverse product line.
Not at all - deselecting "parts" internally is a common practice.
keep in mind that qualcomm makes chips and apple makes products.
they're two very different goals, and what makes sense for one company
does not always make sense for the other.
Has nothing to do with this particular design choice.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be
activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase >>>> the resale value.
that would cause a huge negative reaction and not how apple works
either.
It's a decision to make. They could also ship it thus and never mention >> it.
there are companies who x-ray chips (not just the ones apple produces).
something like that won't go undetected for very long, as in a week or
two at the most.
it would be a huge public relations disaster.
Not really. It's just another thing chip makers do to reduce overall
cost while making a broader market offering. Decades of it.
In article <n13ML.1734842$GNG9.1421331@fx18.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
it's clear that keeping them separate offers flexibility that they
otherwise would not have, especially with a diverse product line.
Not at all - deselecting "parts" internally is a common practice.
for companies that sell chips, sure. apple isn't in the chip-making
business. what apple does is make chips for their own use in a variety
of products. two very different goals.
qualcomm, intel, amd, etc. are in the chip-making business and they're
not about to make custom chips for each device maker that wants to buy
their chips. what they do is add in every feature knowing someone might
end up using it. that's wasteful.
apple makes chips for their own needs and can include only what's
needed. also, the hardware team works with the software team to
implement certain features in hardware (which android devices cannot
possibly do). thus, it's cost-effective to separate the modem from the
main processor and only include the modem in products that use it.
if part of the apple-qualcomm settlement agreement requires apple to
continue paying the qualcomm ransom (because of the patents the apple
modem uses) for any device with a modem, then they *can't* integrate it
for products that don't need it.
keep in mind that qualcomm makes chips and apple makes products.
they're two very different goals, and what makes sense for one company
does not always make sense for the other.
Has nothing to do with this particular design choice.
has everything to do with it. see above.
Indeed, could be an "upgrade later" option - just pay for it to be >>>>>> activated. That could have additional sales appeal as well as increase >>>>>> the resale value.
that would cause a huge negative reaction and not how apple works
either.
It's a decision to make. They could also ship it thus and never mention >>>> it.
there are companies who x-ray chips (not just the ones apple produces).
something like that won't go undetected for very long, as in a week or
two at the most.
it would be a huge public relations disaster.
Not really. It's just another thing chip makers do to reduce overall
cost while making a broader market offering. Decades of it.
yes really. the usual suspects will have a field day with that.
it's clear that keeping them separate offers flexibility that they
otherwise would not have, especially with a diverse product line.
Not at all - deselecting "parts" internally is a common practice.
for companies that sell chips, sure. apple isn't in the chip-making business. what apple does is make chips for their own use in a variety
of products. two very different goals.
BS reply.
As you're all so quick to point out, Apple design their
silicon to their needs. They sub the fabrication.
implement certain features in hardware (which android devices cannot possibly do). thus, it's cost-effective to separate the modem from the
main processor and only include the modem in products that use it.
Yes, that is _one_ option. The other is to reduce to one part that
always has the modem, and disable it when not sold as a feature in a
given model.
if part of the apple-qualcomm settlement agreement requires apple to continue paying the qualcomm ransom (because of the patents the apple
modem uses) for any device with a modem, then they *can't* integrate it
for products that don't need it.
That's a negotiable item.
IAC, I take it they will use Apple's intel
based modem design, not Qualcomm's design.
In article <RU6ML.296046$5CY7.245651@fx46.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
it's clear that keeping them separate offers flexibility that they
otherwise would not have, especially with a diverse product line.
Not at all - deselecting "parts" internally is a common practice.
for companies that sell chips, sure. apple isn't in the chip-making
business. what apple does is make chips for their own use in a variety
of products. two very different goals.
BS reply.
nothing bs about it.
As you're all so quick to point out, Apple design their
silicon to their needs. They sub the fabrication.
yep, which is why apple can make processors without a modem for the
devices that don't have one, such as macbooks and ipads.
they might choose to integrate a modem at some point, but as i have
said before, the advantages in doing so don't help apple.
implement certain features in hardware (which android devices cannot
possibly do). thus, it's cost-effective to separate the modem from the
main processor and only include the modem in products that use it.
Yes, that is _one_ option. The other is to reduce to one part that
always has the modem, and disable it when not sold as a feature in a
given model.
that's another option. apple will decide which path to take.
the evidence does not support integrated modems at this time. maybe one
day, maybe not at all.
if part of the apple-qualcomm settlement agreement requires apple to
continue paying the qualcomm ransom (because of the patents the apple
modem uses) for any device with a modem, then they *can't* integrate it
for products that don't need it.
That's a negotiable item.
negotiable only works when both parties want to negotiate.
qualcomm did not, which is part of what led to a major lawsuit that was ultimately settled just as it went to trial.
IAC, I take it they will use Apple's intel
based modem design, not Qualcomm's design.
apple bought that from intel, so that's a given, however, it still uses qualcomm's patents.
qualcomm wants to be paid twice, once for the patent and again for
using the chip in a product based on the price of said product.
they might choose to integrate a modem at some point, but as i have
said before, the advantages in doing so don't help apple.
Minimizing part count is always an advantage esp. when it reduces
packaging overall.
if part of the apple-qualcomm settlement agreement requires apple to
continue paying the qualcomm ransom (because of the patents the apple
modem uses) for any device with a modem, then they *can't* integrate it >>> for products that don't need it.
That's a negotiable item.
negotiable only works when both parties want to negotiate.
Qualcomm is bound by FRAND because they are members of the TIA and ATIS.
The must negotiate, do so fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner.
qualcomm wants to be paid twice, once for the patent and again for
using the chip in a product based on the price of said product.
The price of the product it's used in goes against FRAND (above).
What
they "want" and what they are allowed are two different things. Apple
and Qualcomm settled at some "middle ground", but I'd see Apple going
for the final stroke in the courts.
Apple can make the case that deliberately unused h/w is not subject to
the patent as well.
one claim was to reduce power consumption, except that isn't an issue
because apple's chips are already more power efficient than qualcomm,
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:20:35 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,595 |