Apple's modem may not surface in iPhones until 2025

Posted:
in iPhone
Qualcomm is likely to remain a supplier of modems to Apple for a few more years, analysts expect, with the prospect of an iPhone using an Apple-designed modem potentially pushed back to 2025 at the earliest.

Qualcomm modem chip
Qualcomm modem chip


Chip maker Qualcomm is, thanks to a patent lawsuit settlement in 2019, a chief supplier of modems to Apple, but the iPhone maker is still coming up with its own version. However, it is thought there could be quite a while to wait before Apple actually switches to using one of its own creation.

In a note to investors by Haitong International Securities analyst Jeff Pu, seen by MacRumors, it is anticipated that the Qualcomm Snapdragon X75 modem will be used in the 2024 iPhone. The unannounced modem, taking over from the X70, will be made by TSMC using a 4nm process to introduce power efficiencies.

The iPhone 15, due in 2023, is reckoned to use the X70, which could provide download speeds of up to 10Gbps, as well as reduced power requirements.

The investor note correlates with the view of analyst Ming-Chi Kuo in July, who offered the iPhone 15 could continue to use Qualcomm modems.

Apple's fight to make a modem is a potentially lucrative opportunity for the company, including reducing cost savings and fine-tuning a modem for specific intended purposes through deeper integration with other components. It would also offer Apple a way to work without relying on a third party's decisions limiting or forcing Apple into using components in specific ways.

It has already thrown at least $1 billion at the problem with its purchase of Intel's modem arm, but it remains to be seen as to how much more it has to spend to reach its modem goal.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    KBuffettKBuffett Posts: 102member
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,078member
    JP234 said:
    People wonder where new Apple revenue streams will emerge. Being a chipmaker? Not a bad idea right now. Certainly helped them out recently during the chip shortages.
    Definitely not, unless they are willing to sell to competitors. 98% of all chips produced are not on bleeding edge nodes and there is a lot of available capacity coming on line. At the cutting edge there is a lot of risk involved, especially as we will see a move away from silicon at some point. Apple isn't into that kind of risk. Not to mention the investment needed (and the politics!). 

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 3 of 18
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,323member
    Apple should come out with a 6G modem or something similar without using (proprietary) standards based 5G technology. We already have to deal with different cellular companies using different frequencies so why not shut Qualcomm down but coming up with a totally different cellular product that Apple puts into an open standard, open domain, whatever it would be called with open use patents to make everything free to cellular providers and mobile device makers. No more paying a single company for the "right" to use a cellular standard.  
    jas99olsPatchyThePirateV.3watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 18
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,515moderator
    KBuffett said:
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    It looks like it has similar manufacturing challenges as a CPU and battery efficiency, signal quality and compatibility. Only multi-billion dollar tech companies would be able to attempt making them:

    https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/blogs/components/rf-wireless/rf-and-wireless/2021/02/11/cmos-at-4-nm-enables-qualcomm-s-fastest-5g-modem-rf-solution

    Intel managed to make a cellular modem but found it wasn't viable to make it profitable.

    Cost to manufacture, time to market and probably a patent minefield outweigh not buying from existing manufacturers for now.

    Apple doesn't even have to make the best modem, as long as the connection is stable with competitive bandwidth, that's all they need. They'd probably be able to improve battery efficiency vs Qualcomm, which would be good for the Watch on cellular.
    jas99muthuk_vanalingamPatchyThePirateV.3watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 18
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,481member
    Apple will eventually succeed here. 
    edited October 2022 jas99danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,078member
    rob53 said:
    Apple should come out with a 6G modem or something similar without using (proprietary) standards based 5G technology. We already have to deal with different cellular companies using different frequencies so why not shut Qualcomm down but coming up with a totally different cellular product that Apple puts into an open standard, open domain, whatever it would be called with open use patents to make everything free to cellular providers and mobile device makers. No more paying a single company for the "right" to use a cellular standard.  
    That is virtually impossible. 6G will springboard off of 5G just like 5G did off of 4G.

    If not, roll outs would be too expensive and spectrum needs to be sold too. 

    No one company will tow the 6G carriage. It will go through standards approval and a whole lot more and eventually the pieces will come together. 

    Apple purchased a fair amount of patents through the Intel deal but it has nowhere near the knowhow or capability to bring cutting edge communications infrastructure to market and maintain it. Apple is a CE company first and foremost. A modem is doable even if it takes some time but any modem will be subject to core patent licencing. Communications means commitment. Apple does not work that way.

    If you want in on ICT infrastructure you need massive amounts of equipment to design and maintain. 

    As for 'buying' into that realm, I can't see any European companies getting approval from regulators. The biggest fish (Huawei) was actually a good bet for a US company like Apple. They offered to licence their entire 5G product portfolio (patent access and source code included) so that the US could get back into the game. That offer was rejected.

    Obviously, Samsung is off limits for the same reasons as the top European companies.

    OpenRAN wouldn't be of interest to Apple because the standards will still be bound by patents.

    In short, it cannot go it alone on 6G (development of which has been underway for a couple of years now and won't arrive before 2030).

    5.5G will come next.

    It can squabble over patent licencing costs but little more. 
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 7 of 18
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,479member
    KBuffett said:
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    Why did it take 13 years to replace Intel?
  • Reply 8 of 18
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,479member
    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple should come out with a 6G modem or something similar without using (proprietary) standards based 5G technology. We already have to deal with different cellular companies using different frequencies so why not shut Qualcomm down but coming up with a totally different cellular product that Apple puts into an open standard, open domain, whatever it would be called with open use patents to make everything free to cellular providers and mobile device makers. No more paying a single company for the "right" to use a cellular standard.  
    That is virtually impossible. 6G will springboard off of 5G just like 5G did off of 4G.

    If not, roll outs would be too expensive and spectrum needs to be sold too. 

    No one company will tow the 6G carriage. It will go through standards approval and a whole lot more and eventually the pieces will come together. 

    Apple purchased a fair amount of patents through the Intel deal but it has nowhere near the knowhow or capability to bring cutting edge communications infrastructure to market and maintain it. Apple is a CE company first and foremost. A modem is doable even if it takes some time but any modem will be subject to core patent licencing. Communications means commitment. Apple does not work that way.

    If you want in on ICT infrastructure you need massive amounts of equipment to design and maintain. 

    As for 'buying' into that realm, I can't see any European companies getting approval from regulators. The biggest fish (Huawei) was actually a good bet for a US company like Apple. They offered to licence their entire 5G product portfolio (patent access and source code included) so that the US could get back into the game. That offer was rejected.

    Obviously, Samsung is off limits for the same reasons as the top European companies.

    OpenRAN wouldn't be of interest to Apple because the standards will still be bound by patents.

    In short, it cannot go it alone on 6G (development of which has been underway for a couple of years now and won't arrive before 2030).

    5.5G will come next.

    It can squabble over patent licencing costs but little more. 
    Intel was replaced by Apple in 13 years, and Qualcomm will be replace it’s just a question of when, obviously Apple has something in mind and it doesn’t include the status quo….Garmin crying recently about the latest Apple Watch is but another similar example the Apple disruption that is coming their way and same will also apply to Go Pro device.
    edited October 2022 PatchyThePirateV.3watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 18
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,479member
    KBuffett said:
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    The original gang of five were granted a monopoly by the government.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 18
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,519member
    KBuffett said:
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    I think it's more of the fact that Apple cannot include it in SoC which Apple wanted for increased power efficiency due to patents. Companies have the right to prohibit any other companies from using their IPs in competing products. 
       
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 18
    This is not stated correctly in the article “opportunity for the company, including reducing cost savings and fine-tuning”. We wouldn’t want to reduce those. .  
    iOSDevSWEwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 18
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    KBuffett said:
    I’m don’t know much about this type of thing. 
    Why is it so difficult to make these 5G modems with so few players?
    One word... PATENTS

    Apple chafes at being tied to third party hardware, especially when Apple thinks that hardware is holding them back. That’s why Power PC->Intel->Apple Silicon. It’s also why they fight so hard against what they think are restrictive and burdensome patents, often the last to give in and settle. Let’s face it, patents are a double edged sword, protecting the inventor but slowing innovation. Why work to improve something if you’ll have to pay the base patent holder royalties?
    edited October 2022 muthuk_vanalingamdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,078member
    danox said:
    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    Apple should come out with a 6G modem or something similar without using (proprietary) standards based 5G technology. We already have to deal with different cellular companies using different frequencies so why not shut Qualcomm down but coming up with a totally different cellular product that Apple puts into an open standard, open domain, whatever it would be called with open use patents to make everything free to cellular providers and mobile device makers. No more paying a single company for the "right" to use a cellular standard.  
    That is virtually impossible. 6G will springboard off of 5G just like 5G did off of 4G.

    If not, roll outs would be too expensive and spectrum needs to be sold too. 

    No one company will tow the 6G carriage. It will go through standards approval and a whole lot more and eventually the pieces will come together. 

    Apple purchased a fair amount of patents through the Intel deal but it has nowhere near the knowhow or capability to bring cutting edge communications infrastructure to market and maintain it. Apple is a CE company first and foremost. A modem is doable even if it takes some time but any modem will be subject to core patent licencing. Communications means commitment. Apple does not work that way.

    If you want in on ICT infrastructure you need massive amounts of equipment to design and maintain. 

    As for 'buying' into that realm, I can't see any European companies getting approval from regulators. The biggest fish (Huawei) was actually a good bet for a US company like Apple. They offered to licence their entire 5G product portfolio (patent access and source code included) so that the US could get back into the game. That offer was rejected.

    Obviously, Samsung is off limits for the same reasons as the top European companies.

    OpenRAN wouldn't be of interest to Apple because the standards will still be bound by patents.

    In short, it cannot go it alone on 6G (development of which has been underway for a couple of years now and won't arrive before 2030).

    5.5G will come next.

    It can squabble over patent licencing costs but little more. 
    Intel was replaced by Apple in 13 years, and Qualcomm will be replace it’s just a question of when, obviously Apple has something in mind and it doesn’t include the status quo….Garmin crying recently about the latest Apple Watch is but another similar example the Apple disruption that is coming their way and same will also apply to Go Pro device.
    Apple cannot replace any of the big ICT players. There is too much involved. Not least patents and current infrastructure obligations. 

    At most, it can dip a toe into the water. 

    Huawei alone has almost 200,000 employees and a huge patent pool. Half of those employees are engineers and scientists involved in R&D. 

    It is still maintaining very old equipment to keep networks going. It deals with around 1,000,000 attempts to breach its systems per day. 

    That is not where Apple wants to be. 



    muthuk_vanalingamPatchyThePirateV.3
  • Reply 14 of 18
    rob53 said:
    Apple should come out with a 6G modem or something similar without using (proprietary) standards based 5G technology. We already have to deal with different cellular companies using different frequencies so why not shut Qualcomm down but coming up with a totally different cellular product that Apple puts into an open standard, open domain, whatever it would be called with open use patents to make everything free to cellular providers and mobile device makers. No more paying a single company for the "right" to use a cellular standard.  
    Maybe it will start to rain donuts too.
    JP234FileMakerFellerstompy
  • Reply 15 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,078member
    JP234 said:
    avon b7 said:
    JP234 said:
    People wonder where new Apple revenue streams will emerge. Being a chipmaker? Not a bad idea right now. Certainly helped them out recently during the chip shortages.
    Definitely not, unless they are willing to sell to competitors. 98% of all chips produced are not on bleeding edge nodes and there is a lot of available capacity coming on line. At the cutting edge there is a lot of risk involved, especially as we will see a move away from silicon at some point. Apple isn't into that kind of risk. Not to mention the investment needed (and the politics!). 

    Selling to competitors (and others, such as automakers) is exactly what I had in mind. Most of Apple's competitors are also Apple's vendors, so why not turn it around in the other direction?
    There is merit to the idea, at least on paper. As Apple slowly becomes a services/hardware company as opposed to a hardware/services company, a case can be made for selling SoCs and other proprietary hardware to third parties in order to expand its services platform. Especially in IoT.

    In reality, it looks as if the relevant ships have sailed. 

    Apple's SoCs have been good on raw performance but historically not as good in other areas (WiFi, ISP, 5G, GPS etc). They've been catching up over the last couple of generations. 

    AI capable IoT and industrial IoT are already coming to market. RISC-V is finding its feet and automobile SoCs are already shipping in numbers along with the necessary mobile data centre's, operating systems etc.

    Automobile based AI sensing capabilities and associated computer hardware has also hit the market. 
    JP234
  • Reply 16 of 18
    JP234 said:
    avon b7 said:
    JP234 said:
    People wonder where new Apple revenue streams will emerge. Being a chipmaker? Not a bad idea right now. Certainly helped them out recently during the chip shortages.
    Definitely not, unless they are willing to sell to competitors. 98% of all chips produced are not on bleeding edge nodes and there is a lot of available capacity coming on line. At the cutting edge there is a lot of risk involved, especially as we will see a move away from silicon at some point. Apple isn't into that kind of risk. Not to mention the investment needed (and the politics!). 

    Selling to competitors (and others, such as automakers) is exactly what I had in mind. Most of Apple's competitors are also Apple's vendors, so why not turn it around in the other direction?
    Because that's not how Apple rolls. Apple wants to be seen as the sole progenitor and provider of the best solution. We saw it with the Mac, we saw it with the iPhone... selling something that contributes to their "magic sauce" might let someone else figure out how they bring everything together, which they see as a competitive advantage.

    From a theoretical perspective, it's a worthy idea. But Apple is not going to follow that path until the culture undergoes a massive change.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 18
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,524member
    I would have thought Apple would launch modem in a smaller market product?
    Start with M series iPads, extend to MacBooks both tackling high volume products like the iPhone. 
Sign In or Register to comment.