Apple jumpstarting 6G development with new hires
Apple is looking to hire a slew of engineers to develop the nascent 6G wireless networking technology for future iPhones.
Apple beginning development of 6G
According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple is seeking engineers for jobs in Silicon Valley and San Diego for developing 6G. Apple has shown previous interest in the technology by joining a 6G industry group called the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS).
"You will have the unique and rewarding opportunity to craft next generation wireless technology that will have deep impact on future Apple products," according to the job announcement. "In this role you will be at the center of a cutting-edge research group responsible for creating next generation disruptive radio access technologies over the next decade."
Apple is developing its own 5G modems in-house to further reduce its reliance on Qualcomm, so starting 6G development is a natural next step.
Apple rolled out 5G with the iPhone 12 lineup with support for sub-6GHz bands around the world and mmWave only in the US. Despite this limitation, 5G has caused a super-cycle of demand around the world, especially in China where 5G infrastructure is strong.
It is unknown exactly when Apple's internal modems will be ready, but the next iPhone is a prime target. Apple will likely continue to expand 5G support for more bands around the world as the technology matures.
Likewise, while the core of 6G technologies have been announced, deployment is many years away, perhaps up to a decade.
Apple beginning development of 6G
According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple is seeking engineers for jobs in Silicon Valley and San Diego for developing 6G. Apple has shown previous interest in the technology by joining a 6G industry group called the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS).
"You will have the unique and rewarding opportunity to craft next generation wireless technology that will have deep impact on future Apple products," according to the job announcement. "In this role you will be at the center of a cutting-edge research group responsible for creating next generation disruptive radio access technologies over the next decade."
Apple is developing its own 5G modems in-house to further reduce its reliance on Qualcomm, so starting 6G development is a natural next step.
Apple rolled out 5G with the iPhone 12 lineup with support for sub-6GHz bands around the world and mmWave only in the US. Despite this limitation, 5G has caused a super-cycle of demand around the world, especially in China where 5G infrastructure is strong.
It is unknown exactly when Apple's internal modems will be ready, but the next iPhone is a prime target. Apple will likely continue to expand 5G support for more bands around the world as the technology matures.
Likewise, while the core of 6G technologies have been announced, deployment is many years away, perhaps up to a decade.
Comments
I know technologies are developed well before they become useful, but I feel like this charade is getting old. LTE never lived up to the potential in the US but they pushed into 5G. And 5G isn’t generally reaching LTE+ potential speeds (except for mmWave). Maybe 6G will live up to the promises of LTE+
And again, today, right now, what advantage is 5G to cellphone users? Not tomorrow, not next year, today. Why should I pay extra for 5G service at this point?
As a result people are stuck with crowded cells with sub-par performance.
Other jurisdictions set not only coverage but also service quality standards, as part of the frequency auctions; if telcos don’t meet both, they forfeit spectrum for which they paid a lot of money. That properly incentivizes them to actually live up much better to the promise of a technology.
Similar issues with road construction: in many jurisdictions a company bidding for building a road has to warrantee it for a certain amount of time, e.g. a decade. If it doesn’t hold up and requires maintenance, the company must provide it free of charge (and likely has to be insured to prevent shell companies from conveniently going out of business after construction is done). At least in many US jurisdictions the company with the lowest bid gets the job, no warranties required. Correspondingly shoddy/cheap is the road construction, with a few years later already having cracks and potholes all over.
In short: Blame the political process, not technology…
Other countries report similar conditions tho. What he described in Finland is similar for Sweden. Somehow these nation-states are able to deliver better internet infrastructure value than US states. I for one don't think US carriers are operating under the "delight the customer" paradigm. Our service is poor and the cost high...making it a poor value. Not impressive for the land of big tech, right?!
Yes, we do need a national top-down strategy for mobile, broadband and - based on what is going on in Texas - electricity. However the Republicans simply repeat "free market" nonsense not caring that it was the interstate highway program plus Cold War era DOE/DOD/NASA spending that heavily contributed to our free market economy. Democrats for their part only care about social issues, so infrastructure is low on the list that they are willing to spend capital on, unless it uses infrastructure/economic plans as a ruse for social ones such as the Green New Deal: purports to be an infrastructure plan when its real goal is to reorganize our economic and regulatory state around social justice. Even nationalizing the industry wholesale wouldn't solve all the problems. It would make some things better: the cell towers that are right now shared between 3 companies could be merged with excess or incompatible equipment being repurposed for other things, and yes the service would be cheaper. But there would still be real problems to prevent achieving Finnish network speeds and costs.
https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-lays-out-its-plans-for-6g-yes-6g/
While Samsung does make networking equipment, is involved in networking infrastructure and badly wants more market share and influence in that sector, they aren't Huawei, Ericsson or Nokia.
Instead, Samsung and Apple probably have similar goals: to influence the design in a way that benefits them. Right now Qualcomm - for example - is in a good place because 3G, 4G and 5G is based on the 2G and earlier work that Qualcomm (and the companies that they acquired) put in. If Apple, Samsung and others are able to convince the standards boards to scrap those in favor of standards that can be achieved with IP that is or can be open sourced - for example - that would allow anyone and everyone to make their own 6G radios, edge transmitters and relay stations with their own tech without having to pay license fees or deal with industry gatekeepers. Would you buy an Apple-branded 6G edge relay station? Of course you would especially if Apple told you that it was a HomePod, Apple TV or something else!
All right for something that paints Apple in a slightly better light: suppose Apple decides to extend AR into full-blown holograms and the implementation requires a 6G edge device for bandwidth and processing purposes. Not having to license the tech to do so from Qualcomm, Nvidia and whoever else to build the "FaceTime with AppleGram" would be convenient, right?
Of course not. What a silly question. An edge relay station is not a consumer product so Apple is not interested to put its name on it and the telecom operator would definitely not want to pay for extra cost of the Apple marketing.
Strategically, it failed to comprehend both the timing and importance of 5G. In part, this is logical as Apple is a CE company and lacks the knowhow required to develop communications technology.
It is now attempting to hire in talent in an attempt to prevent itself from falling down the same hole with 6G. Lessons have been learned and that is good even though 6G is a decade away.
What is unlikely is that Apple can get up to speed as a ICT player and compete with the companies that already dominate the field. It would take an army of scientists and engineers to do that, not just a few hires.
That said, the US, and in desperation, has flayed around like a headless chicken ever since it realised how far behind it was in 5G. As part of that chaos, the Trump administration proposed 'going it alone' and producing its very own 5G flavour which would have been incompatible with 5G worldwide. It didn't take long for that plan to get scuppered but one thing became clear, the US had scant regard for anyone or anything when its own interests were at stake. Going it alone and then trying to force its home grown solution on the rest of the world may well be part of someone's plan at the White House and then Apple would become a more important part of that particular plan. Trump even thought Apple could save some US 5G bacon at one point before being reminded that it was literally impossible.
I definitely think Apple should be moving towards some kind of 6G development participation from a strategic viewpoint but I can't see them as being more than a peripheral player unless it snapped up entire companies instead of hires.