I was hoping to see the first Apple Silicon Macs to have Apple modems. but these things take time.
But iKnockoff morons tell me Apple products take months to develop so it’s strange it’s taking this long to develop a chip!!! /s
This isn’t a minor chip. Apple’s SoCs are planned out two years in advance. Modems these days are very complex. Qualcomm’s first x50 5/g modem, which also contained a 4G and lower spec modem was the same size as the SoC it was paired with. That should give some idea. It took Intel several years to get where they were from scratch. The idea that it could take months is ridiculous. If you think about it what has to be done, you’d understand that.
It was a very necessary move, seeing as networking on a cellular level is becoming ever more important as more (and more varied) devices become available.
The current situation will go down as a huge misstep in strategic planning. Personally, I'm convinced the QC deal was something they had to do just to stay viable in the 5G cellular space in the short ter. It meant not only ceasing legal hostilities with QC but falling behind competitors and now needing a new 'homegrown' solution which will take a lot of time to get up and running. All that on top of having to kiss the toad (QC).
Plus, getting the necessary expertise may prove difficult but they are going to have to hire most of that in. They been hiring talent (mainly from QC) for a couple of years now.
Then their patent portfolio, while bigger than early last year due to the intel deal, is still not very big.
But, just like everyone else, you have to start somewhere and they have started. That's important.
Everyone with aspirations to have a 5G modem has to kiss the toad. Others have patents, but it’s acknowledged that Qualcomm has the most important ones.
Waiting for 2nd Gen Apple Silicon Macbook Air with 5G...
And when arrives, you’ll post again, saying that you’re waiting for the 3rd Gen ASi MacBook Air with 6G …
Reminds me of back in the 80's when I used to sell TVs at an electronics store. There was this older guy, probably in his 70s, who was a good customer of the store for many years. He needed a new TV but didn't want to get anything good, even though he could afford it, because "they were working on TVs that could hang on the wall". Every time he would come in to BS or buy something, he kept saying that. Needless to say, he was probably long gone by the time flat-panel TVs hit the market.It's one thing to wait a month or two because we know the new iPhone or TV or cars are on a yearly cycle, but there is no reason to deprive yourself of enjoyment waiting for some hypothetical future improvement.
But a couple of years ago Intel made a proposal that instead of using process node, which these others aren’t totally honest about, they should use transistor density. That’s a much more useful way of measurement, as it actually accounts for all the manufacturing points. But the others said no. Why, because it takes the marketing advantage of using smaller numbers, which they can do, and using bigger numbers instead, which they can’t.
I agree completely. Revolutionary chip design doesn't lend itself to linear comparisons. So for example, Apple has been very quiet about processor speeds in the M1. They've described the unified memory architecture, the video cores, the processor cores (performance and power-saving), but unless I've missed it (entirely too many things I miss in this world), they're not talking about these processors in terms of typical clock or bus speeds. I wonder if the reason for that is the idiot tech media and marketing twerps out there who are only bright enough to say "this megahertzthingy has more megahertz than that other megahertzthingy." They would pooh-pooh the processor because it's "only" clocked at 1.2GHz, or because it uses "slow" memory, or what have you.
I think the unified memory architecture alone has improved performance to the point where they can run everything slower, save power and heat, and still rock the benchmarks. Not to mention that these chips give Apple an architecture they can use to super-charge their cloud computing data centers.
I think the M-series chips are very impressive. I'll never buy an Intel CPU again.
The transition to ASi Macs has demonstrated Apple’s prowess in hardware design. An ASi modem is inevitable and if the M1 is any indication the modem will be a barn burner of performance.
It was a very necessary move, seeing as networking on a cellular level is becoming ever more important as more (and more varied) devices become available.
The current situation will go down as a huge misstep in strategic planning. Personally, I'm convinced the QC deal was something they had to do just to stay viable in the 5G cellular space in the short ter. It meant not only ceasing legal hostilities with QC but falling behind competitors and now needing a new 'homegrown' solution which will take a lot of time to get up and running. All that on top of having to kiss the toad (QC).
Plus, getting the necessary expertise may prove difficult but they are going to have to hire most of that in. They been hiring talent (mainly from QC) for a couple of years now.
Then their patent portfolio, while bigger than early last year due to the intel deal, is still not very big.
But, just like everyone else, you have to start somewhere and they have started. That's important.
Apple didn't "kiss the toad". They merely agreed to fulfill the terms of the contract that they willingly signed with Qualcomm that they tried to unilaterally break during the life of the contract. I can't believe that so many Apple fans are furious at Qualcomm for demanding that Apple live up to their contract. Is it OK too, then, for everyone else to break their contracts with Apple? Or should only Apple have that privilege?
Also, Apple's hands were tied here. Qualcomm has the best 4G/LTE and 5G tech because it is a product that they created based on standards that they innovated with some of the best wireless/RF design engineers in the world. While Intel, Samsung, MediaTek and others make cellular radios, they are decidedly inferior. As Apple uses a premium pricing strategy that is based on (the idea that) their products having the best components, they had no choice. Just as they have no choice going with Samsung for components.
As far as this "homegrown solution", in addition to hiring talent from Qualcomm, they are getting design assistance as part of the deal too. Qualcomm gets Apple's billions today and get to be free of dealing with Apple's supply chain pressure tactics tomorrow. That is a win-win. As far as their being "behind" ... without paying for their help, Apple would have done no better in catching up to Qualcomm than Samsung and Intel did, especially since they would have had to avoid violating Qualcomm's IP. Also, how far behind are they anyway? Apple probably will sell more 5G phones this quarter than in the two years previous. Ironically, this is Qualcomm's fault because they took as long as they possibly could before releasing SOCs with integrated 5G radios. They still haven't released an 800 or 400 chip with integrated 5G, and won't until 2021. Meanwhile MediaTek released SOCs with integrated 5G radios in 2019 with Samsung following suit not long after. As far as laptops go, Lenovo, HP, Dell and the rest never made mobile connectivity a priority in their Windows laptops, even though it could have been done easily and cheaply, but most of them are using the same basic motherboard designs from 20 years ago. Google could have actually been a leader here had they pushed ARM-based Chromebooks from Qualcomm and especially MediaTek, but instead they are a major Intel partner and don't even bring up the topic of LTE or 5G Chromebooks even though they have an incentive to with Google Fi! Instead they came up with this useless "instant tethering to your smartphone" feature. Samsung would love to market Chromebooks with their own integrated 5G SOCs as a differentiator, but Google screwed them by arbitrarily refusing to permit Linux Beta - an absolute requirement for any Chromebook that costs over $300 - on anything but x86 and MediaTek CPUs. (MediaTek will offer SOCs with integrated 5G directly targeting Chromebooks starting next year, but so far only a couple of companies have committed to using them. They really should just manufacture their own.)
My guess is that when 2022 or 2023 rolls around this won't change much, and Apple will be the clear, crushing leader in 5G laptops overnight thanks to the combined stupidity of Google, HP, Dell and Lenovo.
What we don't know is what is going on behind the scenes between Apple and Qualcomm.
It sounds strange that Apple would have swallowed their pride and kissed and made up with Qualcomm so they could use Qualcomm modems for only a single year.
So, that leaves two possibilities:
1) The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September
2) This is, as has always been thought, a long term project much like Apple Silicon replacing the Intel CPU's.
The iPhone 12 reportedly does not have the latest and greatest of Qualcomm modems -- that may have influenced this and its timing. That is: Did Qualcomm stick it to Apple and pawn off an inferior modem on them?
Apple has Qualcomm’s latest and greatest modem, the x55. The x60 won’t be in new devices until mid 2021, a few months before apple comes out with their new phones. It’s the timing of product cycles, nothing more.
It’s a 6 year deal that Apple signed. Apple saw, according to reports, that Intel couldn’t have a 5G modem this year. Apparently, Apple felt that for competitive purposes, they needed to have 5G this year, and couldn’t wait, and that the newer x55 modem from Qualcomm was good enough.
even if Apple has their own modem for late 2021, which is something I’m not so sure about, they will continue selling products from previous years for some years afterwards, and those will contain the Qualcomm modem. So they need a license for those. They don’t have to buy modems from Qualcomm for the entire 6 years, but this gives them the option, in case their own designs are late.
these modems are a big deal. The x50 wasn’t very good. It was huge, power hungry, lacked features and frequency bands, etc. there was never a chance Apple would use it. The x55 they are using is much better as a second gen product. Next years x60 is better yet. So Apple has to produce a modem that will be at least as good as Qualcomm’s third generation part, with a first generation part. How likely is that? Apple has to hedge their bets. There’s no point in rushing one of these things out, only to get criticized as they did over Intel’s competent, but not leading edge, modems.
What we don't know is what is going on behind the scenes between Apple and Qualcomm.
It sounds strange that Apple would have swallowed their pride and kissed and made up with Qualcomm so they could use Qualcomm modems for only a single year.
So, that leaves two possibilities:
1) The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September
2) This is, as has always been thought, a long term project much like Apple Silicon replacing the Intel CPU's.
The iPhone 12 reportedly does not have the latest and greatest of Qualcomm modems -- that may have influenced this and its timing. That is: Did Qualcomm stick it to Apple and pawn off an inferior modem on them?
Apple has Qualcomm’s latest and greatest modem, the x55. The x60 won’t be in new devices until mid 2021, a few months before apple comes out with their new phones. It’s the timing of product cycles, nothing more.
I don't think that is a correct statement to make. SD 888 powered Android phones with x60 modem (Samsung Galaxy S21 series, MI 11 pro etc) will be out in Jan-2021 itself and available for customers. So, majority of the Android flagship phones in 2021 will have a better 5G modem than iPhone 12 series phones for at least 6 months (even the ones which launch in Mar-2021).
As a bit of a novice on this topic, what would be the benefits to the end consumer? What do you all get excited thinking about what Apple could do with this one day? Futurists...go
As a bit of a novice on this topic, what would be the benefits to the end consumer? What do you all get excited thinking about what Apple could do with this one day? Futurists...go
Well, it depends on what Apple eventually comes up with.
The thing is, I don't think this is an area that Apple would be getting into at all, unless their hand was forced. They only do stuff if they can differentiate themselves from other tech on the market, which is why they've gone with their own processors. Comms chips? This is the company that stopped shipping its own wifi kit because there was nothing they could do that would differentiate it from other Mesh kits already in existence. People will buy Macs for the faster processor. No one is going to buy an iPhone because it has an Apple 5G chipset.
Will it be faster than the Qualcomm chipset? No one outside the tech forums will actually care.
The other thing is that Apple doesn't like to involve itself in potentially short-term technology; they prefer to buy that in so they can switch up quickly. Now they have the headache of rolling out 6G (or whatever) in a few years time.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND
Because they own the whole stack, there could be something they could do that other generic setups can't manage so easily. Could the Apple 5G chip be the foundation of their own mobile network?
As a bit of a novice on this topic, what would be the benefits to the end consumer? What do you all get excited thinking about what Apple could do with this one day? Futurists...go
Advantages of 5G or advantages of an Apple Modem?
for 5G there are really no current advantages. Everyone is making promises about how great the 5G world is going to be but no one has any concrete uses for 5G in a smartphone currently. We'll see when/if that changes.
As far as apple developing their own modem, they can integrate it into their Ax processors saving both space and power and lower manufacturing costs. The ability to tailor it to their needs will also allow better functionality.
Waiting for 2nd Gen Apple Silicon Macbook Air with 5G...
And when arrives, you’ll post again, saying that you’re waiting for the 3rd Gen ASi MacBook Air with 6G …
Reminds me of back in the 80's when I used to sell TVs at an electronics store. There was this older guy, probably in his 70s, who was a good customer of the store for many years. He needed a new TV but didn't want to get anything good, even though he could afford it, because "they were working on TVs that could hang on the wall". Every time he would come in to BS or buy something, he kept saying that. Needless to say, he was probably long gone by the time flat-panel TVs hit the market.It's one thing to wait a month or two because we know the new iPhone or TV or cars are on a yearly cycle, but there is no reason to deprive yourself of enjoyment waiting for some hypothetical future improvement.
Are trying to tell me it's time for me to trade in my 1985 GE television? Come on! It's barely been broken in! It has lot's of life left in it!
What we don't know is what is going on behind the scenes between Apple and Qualcomm.
It sounds strange that Apple would have swallowed their pride and kissed and made up with Qualcomm so they could use Qualcomm modems for only a single year.
So, that leaves two possibilities:
1) The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September
2) This is, as has always been thought, a long term project much like Apple Silicon replacing the Intel CPU's.
The iPhone 12 reportedly does not have the latest and greatest of Qualcomm modems -- that may have influenced this and its timing. That is: Did Qualcomm stick it to Apple and pawn off an inferior modem on them?
Apple has Qualcomm’s latest and greatest modem, the x55. The x60 won’t be in new devices until mid 2021, a few months before apple comes out with their new phones. It’s the timing of product cycles, nothing more.
It’s a 6 year deal that Apple signed. Apple saw, according to reports, that Intel couldn’t have a 5G modem this year. Apparently, Apple felt that for competitive purposes, they needed to have 5G this year, and couldn’t wait, and that the newer x55 modem from Qualcomm was good enough.
even if Apple has their own modem for late 2021, which is something I’m not so sure about, they will continue selling products from previous years for some years afterwards, and those will contain the Qualcomm modem. So they need a license for those. They don’t have to buy modems from Qualcomm for the entire 6 years, but this gives them the option, in case their own designs are late.
these modems are a big deal. The x50 wasn’t very good. It was huge, power hungry, lacked features and frequency bands, etc. there was never a chance Apple would use it. The x55 they are using is much better as a second gen product. Next years x60 is better yet. So Apple has to produce a modem that will be at least as good as Qualcomm’s third generation part, with a first generation part. How likely is that? Apple has to hedge their bets. There’s no point in rushing one of these things out, only to get criticized as they did over Intel’s competent, but not leading edge, modems.
What we don't know is what is going on behind the scenes between Apple and Qualcomm.
It sounds strange that Apple would have swallowed their pride and kissed and made up with Qualcomm so they could use Qualcomm modems for only a single year.
So, that leaves two possibilities:
1) The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September
2) This is, as has always been thought, a long term project much like Apple Silicon replacing the Intel CPU's.
The iPhone 12 reportedly does not have the latest and greatest of Qualcomm modems -- that may have influenced this and its timing. That is: Did Qualcomm stick it to Apple and pawn off an inferior modem on them?
"The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September"
Apple was always going to go their own way. Their goal is to design their own modems that will be integrated onto the SoC. They can't do that with Qualcomm modems. Using Qualcomm modems is just a stop-gap. According to Bloomberg, Apple started development on their modem this year so there's no way it's going to be ready one year from now. It takes time to design, test, source materials, etc.. I say 2 to 3 years earliest.
It was a very necessary move, seeing as networking on a cellular level is becoming ever more important as more (and more varied) devices become available.
The current situation will go down as a huge misstep in strategic planning. Personally, I'm convinced the QC deal was something they had to do just to stay viable in the 5G cellular space in the short ter. It meant not only ceasing legal hostilities with QC but falling behind competitors and now needing a new 'homegrown' solution which will take a lot of time to get up and running. All that on top of having to kiss the toad (QC).
Plus, getting the necessary expertise may prove difficult but they are going to have to hire most of that in. They been hiring talent (mainly from QC) for a couple of years now.
Then their patent portfolio, while bigger than early last year due to the intel deal, is still not very big.
But, just like everyone else, you have to start somewhere and they have started. That's important.
Apple didn't "kiss the toad". They merely agreed to fulfill the terms of the contract that they willingly signed with Qualcomm that they tried to unilaterally break during the life of the contract. I can't believe that so many Apple fans are furious at Qualcomm for demanding that Apple live up to their contract. Is it OK too, then, for everyone else to break their contracts with Apple? Or should only Apple have that privilege?
Also, Apple's hands were tied here. Qualcomm has the best 4G/LTE and 5G tech because it is a product that they created based on standards that they innovated with some of the best wireless/RF design engineers in the world. While Intel, Samsung, MediaTek and others make cellular radios, they are decidedly inferior. As Apple uses a premium pricing strategy that is based on (the idea that) their products having the best components, they had no choice. Just as they have no choice going with Samsung for components.
As far as this "homegrown solution", in addition to hiring talent from Qualcomm, they are getting design assistance as part of the deal too. Qualcomm gets Apple's billions today and get to be free of dealing with Apple's supply chain pressure tactics tomorrow. That is a win-win. As far as their being "behind" ... without paying for their help, Apple would have done no better in catching up to Qualcomm than Samsung and Intel did, especially since they would have had to avoid violating Qualcomm's IP. Also, how far behind are they anyway? Apple probably will sell more 5G phones this quarter than in the two years previous. Ironically, this is Qualcomm's fault because they took as long as they possibly could before releasing SOCs with integrated 5G radios. They still haven't released an 800 or 400 chip with integrated 5G, and won't until 2021. Meanwhile MediaTek released SOCs with integrated 5G radios in 2019 with Samsung following suit not long after. As far as laptops go, Lenovo, HP, Dell and the rest never made mobile connectivity a priority in their Windows laptops, even though it could have been done easily and cheaply, but most of them are using the same basic motherboard designs from 20 years ago. Google could have actually been a leader here had they pushed ARM-based Chromebooks from Qualcomm and especially MediaTek, but instead they are a major Intel partner and don't even bring up the topic of LTE or 5G Chromebooks even though they have an incentive to with Google Fi! Instead they came up with this useless "instant tethering to your smartphone" feature. Samsung would love to market Chromebooks with their own integrated 5G SOCs as a differentiator, but Google screwed them by arbitrarily refusing to permit Linux Beta - an absolute requirement for any Chromebook that costs over $300 - on anything but x86 and MediaTek CPUs. (MediaTek will offer SOCs with integrated 5G directly targeting Chromebooks starting next year, but so far only a couple of companies have committed to using them. They really should just manufacture their own.)
My guess is that when 2022 or 2023 rolls around this won't change much, and Apple will be the clear, crushing leader in 5G laptops overnight thanks to the combined stupidity of Google, HP, Dell and Lenovo.
The term 'to kiss the toad' isn't disrespectful to QC. It's a Spanish saying translated into English. QC isn't 'the toad'.
It basically means 'to swallow a bitter pill' .
In this case, it was having to 'kiss and make up' with QC after filing multiple billion dollar suits worldwide.
Apple was also impacting other QC customers by asking them to withold payments while the court battles played out.
IMO, Apple didn't foresee this outcome at any point when they initiated the legal challenges. It was a reactionary move to a moment in time when intel failed to deliver the goods and they were literally left with no other viable alternatives.
As for being behind I think that is more than clear. Apple is shipping a now 'old' QC modem with newer, competing phones about to hit the market, not only with a newer 5nm part, but also on-SoC.
Apple obviously didn't 'plan' this situation. It is a victim of circumstance. It's doing what it can, how it can and the end result is what we are seeing.
Competitors are on their third generation models and Apple is still in the stalls.
To take things a bit further, but with an even higher level of speculation, most people were surprised to see no improvement in screen refresh rates on the new iPhones. Many suggest the feature was pulled because battery life would have been impacted too much. However, I believe that situation with the battery was a case of the lesser evil, the older 5G modem and its power consumption or the higher refresh rate - but not both.
What we don't know is what is going on behind the scenes between Apple and Qualcomm.
It sounds strange that Apple would have swallowed their pride and kissed and made up with Qualcomm so they could use Qualcomm modems for only a single year.
So, that leaves two possibilities:
1) The Apple-Qualcomm reunion didn't work and Apple is going its own way on their own as quickly as possible -- like next September
2) This is, as has always been thought, a long term project much like Apple Silicon replacing the Intel CPU's.
The iPhone 12 reportedly does not have the latest and greatest of Qualcomm modems -- that may have influenced this and its timing. That is: Did Qualcomm stick it to Apple and pawn off an inferior modem on them?
Apple has Qualcomm’s latest and greatest modem, the x55. The x60 won’t be in new devices until mid 2021, a few months before apple comes out with their new phones. It’s the timing of product cycles, nothing more.
I don't think that is a correct statement to make. SD 888 powered Android phones with x60 modem (Samsung Galaxy S21 series, MI 11 pro etc) will be out in Jan-2021 itself and available for customers. So, majority of the Android flagship phones in 2021 will have a better 5G modem than iPhone 12 series phones for at least 6 months (even the ones which launch in Mar-2021).
I will add some supporting data to your observations. The next Galaxy flagship has already passed through FCC certification and we know some models will include the 888.
Samsung is rumoured to have slated 14 January as a possible date for the announcement.
Feels like they should have started 4 years ago, but good to hear they are committed. They could have switched Macs to Apple Silicon in 2018. And their own cellular modems could have been started in 2016 or 2017. They basically wasted billions and 4 years to groom Intel to be a secondary or primary modem provider, but Intel has poorly performed in virtually everything they have touched the past 3 to 4 years.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Apple knew that Intel was starting years behind in R&D and patents. I think that Intel did a pretty good job considering that starting position. In fact, if 5G had come in one year later, it’s possible that Intel would have made Apple’s 5G modem.
it’s only because Qualcomm now seems to have been forced to license its essential patents as FRAND, as they should have been made to do years before, that Apple can even do this.
Yes, it's always not clear cut. Not producing a 5G modem for Apple on time was likely the reason the division was put up for sale. I think Intel's dabbling with cell modems ended up being longer than their effort with ARM processors, for maybe an interesting bit of trivia (don't recall when Intel's first StrongARM shipped though).
Apple likely felt it less risky to have Intel develop modems than themselves way back when. Intel's starting position wasn't that bad, and they had manufacturing advantages which by 2018, ended up never being used for their phone related chips. Intel bought Infineon's cellular division in 2011 if you recall, so they weren't starting from zero. Infineon modems were shipping in iPhones all the way up to the pre-Verizon iPhone 4. So, the skills were there, but Intel never ended up shipping any of their Atom and modem chips on their state of the art fabs, thus negating the real advantage they had.
Given this, Apple buying Infineon's cell division would perhaps be the proper course of action if we could rewind the clock. It wouldn't have stopped a Qualcomm vs Apple licensing war, but it would have meant Apple being responsible for the other very important piece of silicon in iPhones. In the grand scheme of things, the product ecosystem is not ready to have modems in every product just yet, but it's coming. Like having an LTE modem in an AirPods Max or iPod could support an Apple services subscription (music, assistant). Obviously, Mac laptops could have them. So, having a wholly own, specifically develop cellular chips for Apple's products is going to be really important. Having the development machine for modems working well in the past few years would be better than rushing it over the next 3 to 4 years.
Feels like they should have started 4 years ago, but good to hear they are committed. They could have switched Macs to Apple Silicon in 2018. And their own cellular modems could have been started pin 2016 or 2017. They basically wasted billions and 4 years to groom Intel to be a secondary or primary modem provider, but Intel has poorly performed in virtually everything they have touched the past 3 to 4 years.
Lol, right. I mean really they should have started 8 years ago so they could switch Macs to Apple silicon in 2014. And their own cellular modems could have been started in 2012 or 2013. Making a technological roadmap after the fact is a breeze. I wonder if there are any paying jobs in that field.
2018 is when TSMC caught up to Intel in fab. That would have been the perfect time to make the switch as Apple could have rode a six year tick tock cycle of TSMC going from 10nm, 7nm, 5nm. And if they are on cadence with 3nm, 8 years. It would have been relentless march. Before that, Intel had the best fabs, and the best decision was to stay with Intel.
Apple’s chips weren’t ready in 2018. You think you know more about it than Apple? And the question about fabs isn’t so direct either. TSMC, Samsung and others have been using very relaxed, as they call it, manufacturing rules for this. Intel’s problem wasn’t so much that their fans were behind, as it was that they refused to do the same, struggling with something others gave up on. I’m not saying that Intel was doing the right thing.
But a couple of years ago Intel made a proposal that instead of using process node, which these others aren’t totally honest about, they should use transistor density. That’s a much more useful way of measurement, as it actually accounts for all the manufacturing points. But the others said no. Why, because it takes the marketing advantage of using smaller numbers, which they can do, and using bigger numbers instead, which they can’t.
‘’admittedly, Intel has screwed itself because of their stubbornness. But it’s not really so much a matter of technical superiority, as it was then trying to make 10nm transistors in a 10nm space, which was something the others had given up on before.
Apple was ready with the A12X. An A12X in the same set of Macs that have the M1 today would have made very very good Macs in 2018. It wouldn't have been the 1.5x, 2x, 3x advantages that M1 has over the Intel chips that it replaced, but it would have been 1.2x to 2x. The 2018 and 2019 MBA shipped with a dual core i5-8210 chip. The A12X crushes it in CPU and GPU, and it would have been fanless.
What wasn't ready was probably the software. But, if they wanted to switch to Apple Silicon in 2018, they would have started dropping 32 bit software sooner, started trying to get everyone to used Xcode toolchains more, ie, getting the ecosystem prepared earlier. Apple's biggest weakness on the PC side is 3rd party software. This is where they really have to push.
For what to call fab nodes, what does that matter? Intel has to ship. Even they don't care about transistor density anymore, and they are seemingly obfuscating their 10nm transistor density numbers. Pretty darn hard to find transistor density values for Ice Lake and Tiger Lake chips. If you know them, let me know. And yes, we should be mindful of the density numbers of each foundry's node. You already know TSMC has lapped Intel and Samsung will basically catchup if not surpass Intel a little in a few months.
My point was 2018 was the best time for the switch because Apple would have added a couple more years to the cadence. When you can progressively improve the hardware across 6 to 8 years, it creates a branding advantage all on its own. It takes time to convince people of things. A continuing progression of year over year improvements does that.
This is probably a bigger deal than most people realize. The full communication stack for any given protocol includes much more than the modem. The modem is just one (or a couple) of the layers in the comm stack. Using someone else’s modem, one that’s designed for broad market applications by multiple vendors means having to conform to interfaces, timings, and state machines the modem vendor provides - the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Apple will still have to conform to the “wire” protocol for all of the communication standards their modem must support. That is non-negotiable. But by building more of the comm stack layers themselves Apple will be able to provide optimizations and tailor their allocation of functionality between hardware, firmware, and software to improve the efficiency and performance of their modems to eke out the very best performance possible for their host systems.
This is yet another implementation of a strategy that Apple exploited with the M1. Optimizing for Apple’s specific needs and strategies is always going to be better for Apple than conforming to a generic interface intended to serve a wide range of customers.
This is probably a bigger deal than most people realize. The full communication stack for any given protocol includes much more than the modem. The modem is just one (or a couple) of the layers in the comm stack. Using someone else’s modem, one that’s designed for broad market applications by multiple vendors means having to conform to interfaces, timings, and state machines the modem vendor provides - the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Apple will still have to conform to the “wire” protocol for all of the communication standards their modem must support. That is non-negotiable. But by building more of the comm stack layers themselves Apple will be able to provide optimizations and tailor their allocation of functionality between hardware, firmware, and software to improve the efficiency and performance of their modems to eke out the very best performance possible for their host systems.
This is yet another implementation of a strategy that Apple exploited with the M1. Optimizing for Apple’s specific needs and strategies is always going to be better for Apple than conforming to a generic interface intended to serve a wide range of customers.
This is exactly what Huawei has been doing for almost a year with WiFi 6 (which for Huawei devices is called WiFi 6+ because it takes 5G technology and rolls it into its WiFi 6 products.
It does exactly the same with Bluetooth in areas like audio to offer better quality to its own devices, not with 5G technology though.
It also converges WiFi and Bluetooth for certain system features.
All the while keeping its products certified for regular 5G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.
Once it has the capability, I agree it would make sense for Apple to enhance it to fit its own products.
In a more limited way, it is not dissimilar to Wi-Fi and AirPort years ago although it was using technology from other companies.
Comments
Everyone with aspirations to have a 5G modem has to kiss the toad. Others have patents, but it’s acknowledged that Qualcomm has the most important ones.
I agree completely. Revolutionary chip design doesn't lend itself to linear comparisons. So for example, Apple has been very quiet about processor speeds in the M1. They've described the unified memory architecture, the video cores, the processor cores (performance and power-saving), but unless I've missed it (entirely too many things I miss in this world), they're not talking about these processors in terms of typical clock or bus speeds. I wonder if the reason for that is the idiot tech media and marketing twerps out there who are only bright enough to say "this megahertzthingy has more megahertz than that other megahertzthingy." They would pooh-pooh the processor because it's "only" clocked at 1.2GHz, or because it uses "slow" memory, or what have you.
I think the unified memory architecture alone has improved performance to the point where they can run everything slower, save power and heat, and still rock the benchmarks. Not to mention that these chips give Apple an architecture they can use to super-charge their cloud computing data centers.
I think the M-series chips are very impressive. I'll never buy an Intel CPU again.
Also, Apple's hands were tied here. Qualcomm has the best 4G/LTE and 5G tech because it is a product that they created based on standards that they innovated with some of the best wireless/RF design engineers in the world. While Intel, Samsung, MediaTek and others make cellular radios, they are decidedly inferior. As Apple uses a premium pricing strategy that is based on (the idea that) their products having the best components, they had no choice. Just as they have no choice going with Samsung for components.
As far as this "homegrown solution", in addition to hiring talent from Qualcomm, they are getting design assistance as part of the deal too. Qualcomm gets Apple's billions today and get to be free of dealing with Apple's supply chain pressure tactics tomorrow. That is a win-win. As far as their being "behind" ... without paying for their help, Apple would have done no better in catching up to Qualcomm than Samsung and Intel did, especially since they would have had to avoid violating Qualcomm's IP. Also, how far behind are they anyway? Apple probably will sell more 5G phones this quarter than in the two years previous. Ironically, this is Qualcomm's fault because they took as long as they possibly could before releasing SOCs with integrated 5G radios. They still haven't released an 800 or 400 chip with integrated 5G, and won't until 2021. Meanwhile MediaTek released SOCs with integrated 5G radios in 2019 with Samsung following suit not long after. As far as laptops go, Lenovo, HP, Dell and the rest never made mobile connectivity a priority in their Windows laptops, even though it could have been done easily and cheaply, but most of them are using the same basic motherboard designs from 20 years ago. Google could have actually been a leader here had they pushed ARM-based Chromebooks from Qualcomm and especially MediaTek, but instead they are a major Intel partner and don't even bring up the topic of LTE or 5G Chromebooks even though they have an incentive to with Google Fi! Instead they came up with this useless "instant tethering to your smartphone" feature. Samsung would love to market Chromebooks with their own integrated 5G SOCs as a differentiator, but Google screwed them by arbitrarily refusing to permit Linux Beta - an absolute requirement for any Chromebook that costs over $300 - on anything but x86 and MediaTek CPUs. (MediaTek will offer SOCs with integrated 5G directly targeting Chromebooks starting next year, but so far only a couple of companies have committed to using them. They really should just manufacture their own.)
My guess is that when 2022 or 2023 rolls around this won't change much, and Apple will be the clear, crushing leader in 5G laptops overnight thanks to the combined stupidity of Google, HP, Dell and Lenovo.
It’s a 6 year deal that Apple signed. Apple saw, according to reports, that Intel couldn’t have a 5G modem this year. Apparently, Apple felt that for competitive purposes, they needed to have 5G this year, and couldn’t wait, and that the newer x55 modem from Qualcomm was good enough.
even if Apple has their own modem for late 2021, which is something I’m not so sure about, they will continue selling products from previous years for some years afterwards, and those will contain the Qualcomm modem. So they need a license for those. They don’t have to buy modems from Qualcomm for the entire 6 years, but this gives them the option, in case their own designs are late.
these modems are a big deal. The x50 wasn’t very good. It was huge, power hungry, lacked features and frequency bands, etc. there was never a chance Apple would use it. The x55 they are using is much better as a second gen product. Next years x60 is better yet. So Apple has to produce a modem that will be at least as good as Qualcomm’s third generation part, with a first generation part. How likely is that? Apple has to hedge their bets. There’s no point in rushing one of these things out, only to get criticized as they did over Intel’s competent, but not leading edge, modems.
The thing is, I don't think this is an area that Apple would be getting into at all, unless their hand was forced. They only do stuff if they can differentiate themselves from other tech on the market, which is why they've gone with their own processors. Comms chips? This is the company that stopped shipping its own wifi kit because there was nothing they could do that would differentiate it from other Mesh kits already in existence. People will buy Macs for the faster processor. No one is going to buy an iPhone because it has an Apple 5G chipset.
Will it be faster than the Qualcomm chipset? No one outside the tech forums will actually care.
The other thing is that Apple doesn't like to involve itself in potentially short-term technology; they prefer to buy that in so they can switch up quickly. Now they have the headache of rolling out 6G (or whatever) in a few years time.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND
Because they own the whole stack, there could be something they could do that other generic setups can't manage so easily. Could the Apple 5G chip be the foundation of their own mobile network?
for 5G there are really no current advantages. Everyone is making promises about how great the 5G world is going to be but no one has any concrete uses for 5G in a smartphone currently. We'll see when/if that changes.
As far as apple developing their own modem, they can integrate it into their Ax processors saving both space and power and lower manufacturing costs. The ability to tailor it to their needs will also allow better functionality.
Are trying to tell me it's time for me to trade in my 1985 GE television? Come on! It's barely been broken in! It has lot's of life left in it!
Good analysis.... As usual
It basically means 'to swallow a bitter pill' .
In this case, it was having to 'kiss and make up' with QC after filing multiple billion dollar suits worldwide.
Apple was also impacting other QC customers by asking them to withold payments while the court battles played out.
IMO, Apple didn't foresee this outcome at any point when they initiated the legal challenges. It was a reactionary move to a moment in time when intel failed to deliver the goods and they were literally left with no other viable alternatives.
As for being behind I think that is more than clear. Apple is shipping a now 'old' QC modem with newer, competing phones about to hit the market, not only with a newer 5nm part, but also on-SoC.
Apple obviously didn't 'plan' this situation. It is a victim of circumstance. It's doing what it can, how it can and the end result is what we are seeing.
Competitors are on their third generation models and Apple is still in the stalls.
To take things a bit further, but with an even higher level of speculation, most people were surprised to see no improvement in screen refresh rates on the new iPhones. Many suggest the feature was pulled because battery life would have been impacted too much. However, I believe that situation with the battery was a case of the lesser evil, the older 5G modem and its power consumption or the higher refresh rate - but not both.
5G won out.
Samsung is rumoured to have slated 14 January as a possible date for the announcement.
That's just over four weeks away.
Apple likely felt it less risky to have Intel develop modems than themselves way back when. Intel's starting position wasn't that bad, and they had manufacturing advantages which by 2018, ended up never being used for their phone related chips. Intel bought Infineon's cellular division in 2011 if you recall, so they weren't starting from zero. Infineon modems were shipping in iPhones all the way up to the pre-Verizon iPhone 4. So, the skills were there, but Intel never ended up shipping any of their Atom and modem chips on their state of the art fabs, thus negating the real advantage they had.
Given this, Apple buying Infineon's cell division would perhaps be the proper course of action if we could rewind the clock. It wouldn't have stopped a Qualcomm vs Apple licensing war, but it would have meant Apple being responsible for the other very important piece of silicon in iPhones. In the grand scheme of things, the product ecosystem is not ready to have modems in every product just yet, but it's coming. Like having an LTE modem in an AirPods Max or iPod could support an Apple services subscription (music, assistant). Obviously, Mac laptops could have them. So, having a wholly own, specifically develop cellular chips for Apple's products is going to be really important. Having the development machine for modems working well in the past few years would be better than rushing it over the next 3 to 4 years.
Apple was ready with the A12X. An A12X in the same set of Macs that have the M1 today would have made very very good Macs in 2018. It wouldn't have been the 1.5x, 2x, 3x advantages that M1 has over the Intel chips that it replaced, but it would have been 1.2x to 2x. The 2018 and 2019 MBA shipped with a dual core i5-8210 chip. The A12X crushes it in CPU and GPU, and it would have been fanless.
What wasn't ready was probably the software. But, if they wanted to switch to Apple Silicon in 2018, they would have started dropping 32 bit software sooner, started trying to get everyone to used Xcode toolchains more, ie, getting the ecosystem prepared earlier. Apple's biggest weakness on the PC side is 3rd party software. This is where they really have to push.
For what to call fab nodes, what does that matter? Intel has to ship. Even they don't care about transistor density anymore, and they are seemingly obfuscating their 10nm transistor density numbers. Pretty darn hard to find transistor density values for Ice Lake and Tiger Lake chips. If you know them, let me know. And yes, we should be mindful of the density numbers of each foundry's node. You already know TSMC has lapped Intel and Samsung will basically catchup if not surpass Intel a little in a few months.
My point was 2018 was the best time for the switch because Apple would have added a couple more years to the cadence. When you can progressively improve the hardware across 6 to 8 years, it creates a branding advantage all on its own. It takes time to convince people of things. A continuing progression of year over year improvements does that.
It does exactly the same with Bluetooth in areas like audio to offer better quality to its own devices, not with 5G technology though.
It also converges WiFi and Bluetooth for certain system features.
All the while keeping its products certified for regular 5G, WiFi, Bluetooth etc.
Once it has the capability, I agree it would make sense for Apple to enhance it to fit its own products.
In a more limited way, it is not dissimilar to Wi-Fi and AirPort years ago although it was using technology from other companies.
In its day AirPort was a revolution.