First, everybody pays patent fees to everyone else. It could even end up that Huawei and Qualcomm pay some to Apple. We really don’t know. Intel had a bunch of their own patents, Apple has some on its own, and had bought a slew of them previously. So we should get that out of the way, as these are all FRAND patents anyway.
but, making a modern modem is very difficult. It’s not “just” a radio. It’s a very complex transmitter in both directions. And yes, it does have to meet numerous compliance standards around the world. There are also numerous frequencies it has to operate over. Then there are the antennas, complicated by the new hi bands. Power draw is a problem. A modern modem can draw as much as a high end SoC.
Apple never integrated the modems into their SoC as many Android manufacturers did, because Qualcomm never allowed it. Only Qualcomm;s SoC and modem could be mated together that way. Now, possibly Apple might be interested in doing that, though the major advantage of less power draw has never been a problem for Apple before.
but one thing is true. The very first modem Apple comes out with had better be about as good as the Qualcomm model it will replace, or Apple will never hear the end of it, even if in the real world, the performance is about the same. If there are just a couple of edge cases where it falls slightly behind, it will get ripped.
That's hardly true.
The first modems that Apple fabs will go into Mac product lines, not iPhones, and given that there are no modems at all for Mac's, the complaints, if any, will fall on deaf ears. The reason for this is quite obvious; Apple can support a few millions of modems a month for Mac's, and they won't have to be as energy efficient for the first pass, as an iPhone would require.
As for competing with Qualcomm on modems, Apple has a number of years left in its agreement with Qualcomm, so given Apple's historic advances in just about all technologies, I'm not seeing the risk that you are. avon b7 said:
So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?
Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.
You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.
Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes.
Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).
Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.
Apple is always a day late and a dollar short for people like you. It’s amazing they are even in business to you, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The reality is what it is. There is no getting away from that. If you want to live in denial, that is fine.
Here you go again, bringing Huawei into the conversation.
Perhaps you should mention that Huawei doesn't actually have any current Kirin processors being fabbed. I'd speculate as well that Ukraine will be the example to all of the West of why you don't use an adversary for critical infrastructure, and Huawei's close ties to the PRC are abundantly clear. On top of that, Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO this month, and both of those countries are leaders in telecom.
Oddly, you have never, ever, agreed with me that Telecom is a National Security issue; here's your chance...
Telecom is definitely a national security issue. All critical infrastructure is a national security issue. I have never argued otherwise.
What are not national security issues are the vendors of telecom infrastructure.
All telecom infrastructure is standards based and cannot reach the market without certification. Security is part of that certification. In the case of Huawei, it has at least three 'transparency' centres around the world dedicated to security. On top of that its code is available for inspection. It even offered the US its entire 5G stack under licence.
Huawei has installed and manages some of the world's most important undersea communications cabling. Three such lines (from three continents) hit mainland Spain and that is one of the reasons why Huawei is creating more data centre hubs in Spain.
Anyone wishing to inflict significant harm on the world's internet traffic would only have to take out undersea cables. Something that most major states can do without too much effort.
In terms of actual network operations though, it is the carriers, not the vendors, which manage everything. Any attacks on networks are not dependent on infrastructure vendors and are equally 'vulnerable' to any party with an interest in breaching them.
Infrastructure vendors are not the problem and never ever have been. That has been demonstrated by decades of interoperability and, in the case of Huawei specifically, not a single major breach to its name nor evidence of any problems.
Of course, none of that has anything to do this thread. Neither does Kirin so you can let all that go.
I mentioned Huawei because it has key patents. It produces CE and industrial 5G products within a wide domain of activity. It is relevant in terms of competition and the bars that are raised.
Obviously Qualcomm too as it is discussed in the article even though it doesn't ship end user products.
In patent terms, it was rumored a few years ago that Apple licences almost 800 patents from Huawei and that Huawei licences around 80 from Apple.
With the purchase of Intel's modem division Apple suddenly has a chest of around 17,000 wireless patents to use.
It is already squaring up to Ericsson in court in a patent dispute (which it could lose) and no doubt will use that influence to try and bring down its patent licencing fees.
That won't change the difficulty surrounding Apple's efforts though as I detailed above.
FWIW, I've always said it was the right way to go even if they are very late to the party and have had to 'buy' almost everything in (and basically with no alternative because it landed itself in a strategic planning nightmare with the Qualcomm fiasco).
You just can't help but double down...
Yeah, of course, let's have a PRC company, Huawei, manage undersea communications; what could possibly go wrong?
It's called the internet for a reason. Huawei isn't managing ALL the cables out there. It doesn't matter where the company is based. International communications are based on agreed international standards in spite of Trump once floating the idea of a 'US' 5G. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?
Facebook/Microsoft have a joint 5,000KM cable down there too and there are plenty more so please don't worry.
Now, would it be asking too much to get back on topic?
I always laugh when you get in over your head, and then decide that I need to get back on topic.
Well, one of the topics you brought up is undersea communications, and I reiterate that having a PRC company, Huawei, as a gatekeeper is fraught with risk to the West. Yeah, it's about national security, the same as allowing Huawei into the telecom chain of the EU; fraught with risk, but more to the point, China's mercantilism in the early stages of 5G buildout war also reason enough to restrict Huawei telecom.
Thankfully, the high water market for Huawei in the West is in the distant past.
First, everybody pays patent fees to everyone else. It could even end up that Huawei and Qualcomm pay some to Apple. We really don’t know. Intel had a bunch of their own patents, Apple has some on its own, and had bought a slew of them previously. So we should get that out of the way, as these are all FRAND patents anyway.
but, making a modern modem is very difficult. It’s not “just” a radio. It’s a very complex transmitter in both directions. And yes, it does have to meet numerous compliance standards around the world. There are also numerous frequencies it has to operate over. Then there are the antennas, complicated by the new hi bands. Power draw is a problem. A modern modem can draw as much as a high end SoC.
Apple never integrated the modems into their SoC as many Android manufacturers did, because Qualcomm never allowed it. Only Qualcomm;s SoC and modem could be mated together that way. Now, possibly Apple might be interested in doing that, though the major advantage of less power draw has never been a problem for Apple before.
but one thing is true. The very first modem Apple comes out with had better be about as good as the Qualcomm model it will replace, or Apple will never hear the end of it, even if in the real world, the performance is about the same. If there are just a couple of edge cases where it falls slightly behind, it will get ripped.
That's hardly true.
The first modems that Apple fabs will go into Mac product lines, not iPhones, and given that there are no modems at all for Mac's, the complaints, if any, will fall on deaf ears. The reason for this is quite obvious; Apple can support a few millions of modems a month for Mac's, and they won't have to be as energy efficient for the first pass, as an iPhone would require.
As for competing with Qualcomm on modems, Apple has a number of years left in its agreement with Qualcomm, so given Apple's historic advances in just about all technologies, I'm not seeing the risk that you are. avon b7 said:
So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?
Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.
You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.
Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes.
Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).
Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.
Apple is always a day late and a dollar short for people like you. It’s amazing they are even in business to you, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The reality is what it is. There is no getting away from that. If you want to live in denial, that is fine.
Here you go again, bringing Huawei into the conversation.
Perhaps you should mention that Huawei doesn't actually have any current Kirin processors being fabbed. I'd speculate as well that Ukraine will be the example to all of the West of why you don't use an adversary for critical infrastructure, and Huawei's close ties to the PRC are abundantly clear. On top of that, Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO this month, and both of those countries are leaders in telecom.
Oddly, you have never, ever, agreed with me that Telecom is a National Security issue; here's your chance...
Telecom is definitely a national security issue. All critical infrastructure is a national security issue. I have never argued otherwise.
What are not national security issues are the vendors of telecom infrastructure.
All telecom infrastructure is standards based and cannot reach the market without certification. Security is part of that certification. In the case of Huawei, it has at least three 'transparency' centres around the world dedicated to security. On top of that its code is available for inspection. It even offered the US its entire 5G stack under licence.
Huawei has installed and manages some of the world's most important undersea communications cabling. Three such lines (from three continents) hit mainland Spain and that is one of the reasons why Huawei is creating more data centre hubs in Spain.
Anyone wishing to inflict significant harm on the world's internet traffic would only have to take out undersea cables. Something that most major states can do without too much effort.
In terms of actual network operations though, it is the carriers, not the vendors, which manage everything. Any attacks on networks are not dependent on infrastructure vendors and are equally 'vulnerable' to any party with an interest in breaching them.
Infrastructure vendors are not the problem and never ever have been. That has been demonstrated by decades of interoperability and, in the case of Huawei specifically, not a single major breach to its name nor evidence of any problems.
Of course, none of that has anything to do this thread. Neither does Kirin so you can let all that go.
I mentioned Huawei because it has key patents. It produces CE and industrial 5G products within a wide domain of activity. It is relevant in terms of competition and the bars that are raised.
Obviously Qualcomm too as it is discussed in the article even though it doesn't ship end user products.
In patent terms, it was rumored a few years ago that Apple licences almost 800 patents from Huawei and that Huawei licences around 80 from Apple.
With the purchase of Intel's modem division Apple suddenly has a chest of around 17,000 wireless patents to use.
It is already squaring up to Ericsson in court in a patent dispute (which it could lose) and no doubt will use that influence to try and bring down its patent licencing fees.
That won't change the difficulty surrounding Apple's efforts though as I detailed above.
FWIW, I've always said it was the right way to go even if they are very late to the party and have had to 'buy' almost everything in (and basically with no alternative because it landed itself in a strategic planning nightmare with the Qualcomm fiasco).
You just can't help but double down...
Yeah, of course, let's have a PRC company, Huawei, manage undersea communications; what could possibly go wrong?
It's called the internet for a reason. Huawei isn't managing ALL the cables out there. It doesn't matter where the company is based. International communications are based on agreed international standards in spite of Trump once floating the idea of a 'US' 5G. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?
Facebook/Microsoft have a joint 5,000KM cable down there too and there are plenty more so please don't worry.
Now, would it be asking too much to get back on topic?
I always laugh when you get in over your head, and then decide that I need to get back on topic.
Well, one of the topics you brought up is undersea communications, and I reiterate that having a PRC company, Huawei, as a gatekeeper is fraught with risk to the West. Yeah, it's about national security, the same as allowing Huawei into the telecom chain of the EU; fraught with risk, but more to the point, China's mercantilism in the early stages of 5G buildout war also reason enough to restrict Huawei telecom.
Thankfully, the high water market for Huawei in the West is in the distant past.
That's curious because it's something I try to avoid at all costs and it's not the case here.
On the other hand you continue to verge way off topic at every turn.
Oh ffs, the story is about Apple producing its first modem in 2023, for the next iPhone. That's a year off.
Your first instinct was to post about all of the advantages that Huawei and Qualcomm had over Apple, and all of the risks of failure, failing to mention that Huawei is getting hammered in the smartphone business, due to the lack of any leading edge fabs for their Kirin SOC.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm is running as fast as it can to catch up with Apple's M1, and it will almost certainly come up short due to the fact that it isn't vertically integrated in PC's, a broad advantage for Apple. I have no doubt that Apple will not best Qualcomm's modem next year, but I also have no doubt that it will be competitive. Most article's that I read today are about how 5G has so far been oversold to the public.
First, everybody pays patent fees to everyone else. It could even end up that Huawei and Qualcomm pay some to Apple. We really don’t know. Intel had a bunch of their own patents, Apple has some on its own, and had bought a slew of them previously. So we should get that out of the way, as these are all FRAND patents anyway.
but, making a modern modem is very difficult. It’s not “just” a radio. It’s a very complex transmitter in both directions. And yes, it does have to meet numerous compliance standards around the world. There are also numerous frequencies it has to operate over. Then there are the antennas, complicated by the new hi bands. Power draw is a problem. A modern modem can draw as much as a high end SoC.
Apple never integrated the modems into their SoC as many Android manufacturers did, because Qualcomm never allowed it. Only Qualcomm;s SoC and modem could be mated together that way. Now, possibly Apple might be interested in doing that, though the major advantage of less power draw has never been a problem for Apple before.
but one thing is true. The very first modem Apple comes out with had better be about as good as the Qualcomm model it will replace, or Apple will never hear the end of it, even if in the real world, the performance is about the same. If there are just a couple of edge cases where it falls slightly behind, it will get ripped.
That's hardly true.
The first modems that Apple fabs will go into Mac product lines, not iPhones, and given that there are no modems at all for Mac's, the complaints, if any, will fall on deaf ears. The reason for this is quite obvious; Apple can support a few millions of modems a month for Mac's, and they won't have to be as energy efficient for the first pass, as an iPhone would require.
As for competing with Qualcomm on modems, Apple has a number of years left in its agreement with Qualcomm, so given Apple's historic advances in just about all technologies, I'm not seeing the risk that you are. avon b7 said:
So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?
Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.
You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.
Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes.
Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).
Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.
Apple is always a day late and a dollar short for people like you. It’s amazing they are even in business to you, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The reality is what it is. There is no getting away from that. If you want to live in denial, that is fine.
Here you go again, bringing Huawei into the conversation.
Perhaps you should mention that Huawei doesn't actually have any current Kirin processors being fabbed. I'd speculate as well that Ukraine will be the example to all of the West of why you don't use an adversary for critical infrastructure, and Huawei's close ties to the PRC are abundantly clear. On top of that, Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO this month, and both of those countries are leaders in telecom.
Oddly, you have never, ever, agreed with me that Telecom is a National Security issue; here's your chance...
Telecom is definitely a national security issue. All critical infrastructure is a national security issue. I have never argued otherwise.
What are not national security issues are the vendors of telecom infrastructure.
All telecom infrastructure is standards based and cannot reach the market without certification. Security is part of that certification. In the case of Huawei, it has at least three 'transparency' centres around the world dedicated to security. On top of that its code is available for inspection. It even offered the US its entire 5G stack under licence.
Huawei has installed and manages some of the world's most important undersea communications cabling. Three such lines (from three continents) hit mainland Spain and that is one of the reasons why Huawei is creating more data centre hubs in Spain.
Anyone wishing to inflict significant harm on the world's internet traffic would only have to take out undersea cables. Something that most major states can do without too much effort.
In terms of actual network operations though, it is the carriers, not the vendors, which manage everything. Any attacks on networks are not dependent on infrastructure vendors and are equally 'vulnerable' to any party with an interest in breaching them.
Infrastructure vendors are not the problem and never ever have been. That has been demonstrated by decades of interoperability and, in the case of Huawei specifically, not a single major breach to its name nor evidence of any problems.
Of course, none of that has anything to do this thread. Neither does Kirin so you can let all that go.
I mentioned Huawei because it has key patents. It produces CE and industrial 5G products within a wide domain of activity. It is relevant in terms of competition and the bars that are raised.
Obviously Qualcomm too as it is discussed in the article even though it doesn't ship end user products.
In patent terms, it was rumored a few years ago that Apple licences almost 800 patents from Huawei and that Huawei licences around 80 from Apple.
With the purchase of Intel's modem division Apple suddenly has a chest of around 17,000 wireless patents to use.
It is already squaring up to Ericsson in court in a patent dispute (which it could lose) and no doubt will use that influence to try and bring down its patent licencing fees.
That won't change the difficulty surrounding Apple's efforts though as I detailed above.
FWIW, I've always said it was the right way to go even if they are very late to the party and have had to 'buy' almost everything in (and basically with no alternative because it landed itself in a strategic planning nightmare with the Qualcomm fiasco).
You just can't help but double down...
Yeah, of course, let's have a PRC company, Huawei, manage undersea communications; what could possibly go wrong?
It's called the internet for a reason. Huawei isn't managing ALL the cables out there. It doesn't matter where the company is based. International communications are based on agreed international standards in spite of Trump once floating the idea of a 'US' 5G. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?
Facebook/Microsoft have a joint 5,000KM cable down there too and there are plenty more so please don't worry.
Now, would it be asking too much to get back on topic?
I always laugh when you get in over your head, and then decide that I need to get back on topic.
Well, one of the topics you brought up is undersea communications, and I reiterate that having a PRC company, Huawei, as a gatekeeper is fraught with risk to the West. Yeah, it's about national security, the same as allowing Huawei into the telecom chain of the EU; fraught with risk, but more to the point, China's mercantilism in the early stages of 5G buildout war also reason enough to restrict Huawei telecom.
Thankfully, the high water market for Huawei in the West is in the distant past.
That's curious because it's something I try to avoid at all costs and it's not the case here.
On the other hand you continue to verge way off topic at every turn.
Oh ffs, the story is about Apple producing its first modem in 2023, for the next iPhone. That's a year off.
Your first instinct was to post about all of the advantages that Huawei and Qualcomm had over Apple, and all of the risks of failure, failing to mention that Huawei is getting hammered in the smartphone business, due to the lack of any leading edge fabs for their Kirin SOC.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm is running as fast as it can to catch up with Apple's M1, and it will almost certainly come up short due to the fact that it isn't vertically integrated in PC's, a broad advantage for Apple. I have no doubt that Apple will not best Qualcomm's modem next year, but I also have no doubt that it will be competitive. Most article's that I read today are about how 5G has so far been oversold to the public.
That's good enough for the first iteration.
So, at least you read the article!
Remind me what it was about and what I was replying to and in what context.
Can you now see that what you are complaining about makes no sense whatsoever?
The article, the poster I was agreeing with, and myself are pointing out the difficulties involved and providing examples.
FFS? Yes. I could say the same.
Get this into your head. Kirin is not 5G. Huawei's situation is political, not technical.
This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with technology.
Timeframes are irrelevant. They could bring out a modem tomorrow or in five years. The technical challenges remain the same!
First, everybody pays patent fees to everyone else. It could even end up that Huawei and Qualcomm pay some to Apple. We really don’t know. Intel had a bunch of their own patents, Apple has some on its own, and had bought a slew of them previously. So we should get that out of the way, as these are all FRAND patents anyway.
but, making a modern modem is very difficult. It’s not “just” a radio. It’s a very complex transmitter in both directions. And yes, it does have to meet numerous compliance standards around the world. There are also numerous frequencies it has to operate over. Then there are the antennas, complicated by the new hi bands. Power draw is a problem. A modern modem can draw as much as a high end SoC.
Apple never integrated the modems into their SoC as many Android manufacturers did, because Qualcomm never allowed it. Only Qualcomm;s SoC and modem could be mated together that way. Now, possibly Apple might be interested in doing that, though the major advantage of less power draw has never been a problem for Apple before.
but one thing is true. The very first modem Apple comes out with had better be about as good as the Qualcomm model it will replace, or Apple will never hear the end of it, even if in the real world, the performance is about the same. If there are just a couple of edge cases where it falls slightly behind, it will get ripped.
That's hardly true.
The first modems that Apple fabs will go into Mac product lines, not iPhones, and given that there are no modems at all for Mac's, the complaints, if any, will fall on deaf ears. The reason for this is quite obvious; Apple can support a few millions of modems a month for Mac's, and they won't have to be as energy efficient for the first pass, as an iPhone would require.
As for competing with Qualcomm on modems, Apple has a number of years left in its agreement with Qualcomm, so given Apple's historic advances in just about all technologies, I'm not seeing the risk that you are. avon b7 said:
So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?
Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.
You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.
Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes.
Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).
Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.
Apple is always a day late and a dollar short for people like you. It’s amazing they are even in business to you, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The reality is what it is. There is no getting away from that. If you want to live in denial, that is fine.
Here you go again, bringing Huawei into the conversation.
Perhaps you should mention that Huawei doesn't actually have any current Kirin processors being fabbed. I'd speculate as well that Ukraine will be the example to all of the West of why you don't use an adversary for critical infrastructure, and Huawei's close ties to the PRC are abundantly clear. On top of that, Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO this month, and both of those countries are leaders in telecom.
Oddly, you have never, ever, agreed with me that Telecom is a National Security issue; here's your chance...
Considering that you have no more knowledge about Apple’s upcoming modems than any of us do, don’t be so secure in your predictions. It’s possible that you’re correct about where they will go first, but even if you are, you’re wrong about the attention they will receive. You can be sure they will be looked through with the finest tooth comb available. Anandtech will definitely examine them. Everyone will talk about them. You should know by now that nothing Apple does is ignored.
There’s no question that Apple will be putting its modems in iPhones before that contract is over. Likely the length is due to the older phones Apple will be producing for several years after the first iPhone with their new modem comes out, and Apple therefore will continue to need Qualcomm’s older modems for a few years,
Current expectations has Apple moving to its own modems from 2023, with TSMC expected to be the producer of the chips for the iPhone maker.
Making its own modem offers Apple advantages in a number of areas, including cost-savings and a reduction in reliance from suppliers like Qualcomm, which Apple has a tension-filled relationship with, CCS Insight senior director of research Wayne Lam told the report.
The biggest advantage for Apple is that it would be able to either have the modem bits as part of Apple Silicon SoC where it will be on leading edge TSMC fabs, or build it as a separate chip on leading edge TSMC fabs. It will likely have less features than Qualcomm modems, but it's going to be more power efficient than Qualcomm modems because of TSMC fabs. We don't need moe bandwidth bandwidth, but power efficiency is always welcome.
A cellular modem is definitely one of the IP that should go into the SoC, but it's a licensing minefield. It has to chap Apple's ass to put all this effort to making a modem, yet still have to pay $30 to $50 per iPhone unit in licensing fees to patent owners. And, they will still have to deal with players demanding more fees outside of the standards pool fee. They will be sued. It's guaranteed to happen. They were sued even when they bought hardware directly from QCOM and Intel/Infineon. If they roll their own, there will be more drive to sue. So, you will definitely see lawsuits coming. The patent fees is probably the biggest impediment to companies rolling their own modem. It's just not worth it.
Truly do hope that modems will come to Macs, even the desktops.
First, everybody pays patent fees to everyone else. It could even end up that Huawei and Qualcomm pay some to Apple. We really don’t know. Intel had a bunch of their own patents, Apple has some on its own, and had bought a slew of them previously. So we should get that out of the way, as these are all FRAND patents anyway.
but, making a modern modem is very difficult. It’s not “just” a radio. It’s a very complex transmitter in both directions. And yes, it does have to meet numerous compliance standards around the world. There are also numerous frequencies it has to operate over. Then there are the antennas, complicated by the new hi bands. Power draw is a problem. A modern modem can draw as much as a high end SoC.
Apple never integrated the modems into their SoC as many Android manufacturers did, because Qualcomm never allowed it. Only Qualcomm;s SoC and modem could be mated together that way. Now, possibly Apple might be interested in doing that, though the major advantage of less power draw has never been a problem for Apple before.
but one thing is true. The very first modem Apple comes out with had better be about as good as the Qualcomm model it will replace, or Apple will never hear the end of it, even if in the real world, the performance is about the same. If there are just a couple of edge cases where it falls slightly behind, it will get ripped.
That's hardly true.
The first modems that Apple fabs will go into Mac product lines, not iPhones, and given that there are no modems at all for Mac's, the complaints, if any, will fall on deaf ears. The reason for this is quite obvious; Apple can support a few millions of modems a month for Mac's, and they won't have to be as energy efficient for the first pass, as an iPhone would require.
As for competing with Qualcomm on modems, Apple has a number of years left in its agreement with Qualcomm, so given Apple's historic advances in just about all technologies, I'm not seeing the risk that you are. avon b7 said:
So what's in a modem that is different / hard compared to the M1?
Seems an odd statement to just hang out there.
You are (also) dealing with analogue signal processing at incredibly high frequencies. Designing a microprocessor is stacking up Lego bricks, designing a G5 modem is wizardry and magic with thrown in quantum effects. So to speak.
Not to mention all the standards compliance, testing and certification processes.
Then the finished product has to actually play well with the deployed carrier infrastructure out there where Qualcomm and Huawei etc will have a major advantage, as both of them are actively involved in making that hardware as well as moving it forward (5.5G, 6G...).
Of course, financially, there is no getting away from paying patent fees to both of them in the process.
Apple is always a day late and a dollar short for people like you. It’s amazing they are even in business to you, right?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The reality is what it is. There is no getting away from that. If you want to live in denial, that is fine.
Here you go again, bringing Huawei into the conversation.
Perhaps you should mention that Huawei doesn't actually have any current Kirin processors being fabbed. I'd speculate as well that Ukraine will be the example to all of the West of why you don't use an adversary for critical infrastructure, and Huawei's close ties to the PRC are abundantly clear. On top of that, Finland and Sweden are likely to join NATO this month, and both of those countries are leaders in telecom.
Oddly, you have never, ever, agreed with me that Telecom is a National Security issue; here's your chance...
There are six evil entities today that are a thorn in Apples side China, Russia, Korea, Israel, and the EU, surprisingly bringing up the rear is the USA.
“It’s totally safe to buy telecom equipment from Huawei” is kind of like saying “it’s totally safe to buy a chicken sandwich from Los Pollos Hermanos.”
I can’t prove either statement false, and I can see how both MIGHT be true.
But still- not gonna do it! Wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.
Comments
That's curious because it's something I try to avoid at all costs and it's not the case here.
On the other hand you continue to verge way off topic at every turn.
Your first instinct was to post about all of the advantages that Huawei and Qualcomm had over Apple, and all of the risks of failure, failing to mention that Huawei is getting hammered in the smartphone business, due to the lack of any leading edge fabs for their Kirin SOC.
Meanwhile, Qualcomm is running as fast as it can to catch up with Apple's M1, and it will almost certainly come up short due to the fact that it isn't vertically integrated in PC's, a broad advantage for Apple. I have no doubt that Apple will not best Qualcomm's modem next year, but I also have no doubt that it will be competitive. Most article's that I read today are about how 5G has so far been oversold to the public.
That's good enough for the first iteration.
Remind me what it was about and what I was replying to and in what context.
Can you now see that what you are complaining about makes no sense whatsoever?
The article, the poster I was agreeing with, and myself are pointing out the difficulties involved and providing examples.
FFS? Yes. I could say the same.
Get this into your head. Kirin is not 5G. Huawei's situation is political, not technical.
This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with technology.
Timeframes are irrelevant. They could bring out a modem tomorrow or in five years. The technical challenges remain the same!
A cellular modem is definitely one of the IP that should go into the SoC, but it's a licensing minefield. It has to chap Apple's ass to put all this effort to making a modem, yet still have to pay $30 to $50 per iPhone unit in licensing fees to patent owners. And, they will still have to deal with players demanding more fees outside of the standards pool fee. They will be sued. It's guaranteed to happen. They were sued even when they bought hardware directly from QCOM and Intel/Infineon. If they roll their own, there will be more drive to sue. So, you will definitely see lawsuits coming. The patent fees is probably the biggest impediment to companies rolling their own modem. It's just not worth it.
Truly do hope that modems will come to Macs, even the desktops.
I can’t prove either statement false, and I can see how both MIGHT be true.