Are any of the acquired Intel patents, or is any of the technology being developed for a 5G modem, useful for other chips, like the UWB U2 chip or its successors? Could Apple use expertise gained from 5G modem to create faster, more reliable connections between its proprietary devices, allowing for faster communication between (& better battery life for) iPhones, Vision, Watch, new devices, etc.?
Probably something useful could be applied somewhere. I wonder though, if IBM’s modem designs were a dead end, much like the PowerPC line.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
The fundamental question is why is building your own cell chips important to Apple? Cell chips are vastly different from the CPU and controller chips Apple has experience developing. Will having their own cell chip differentiate Apple from competitors? I think not unless Apple offers some superior level of performance, which I doubt. They are having trouble coming up with something that’s functionally equivalent to Qualcomm. Why did Intel sell their cell chip operations? Probably because they had trouble offering a product that could compete with Qualcomm, especially given the IP issues. In my opinion Apple has made a multi billion dollar mistake going down this path. They should just accept that they have to have Qualcomm as a partner. And focus their efforts on technologies that can differentiate their products and entice non-Apple consumers to switch to Apple products. This mistake will ultimately be a business school case study.
Because Apple wants to build a device or devices in the future that has modem capability that they can control anyway they want, and to do that you have to have in-house capability, very simple, and with Apples history with Motorola, IBM, Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and last, but not least Qualcomm, Apple wants control to build what they want in the way they want, nothing personal Apple is going, their own way with the GPU and several other components in their devices, the new R1 chip doesn’t exist just to look pretty. It has a function and that function probably can’t be what Apple wants tied to those other companies, imagine if Apple was still tied to Intel. They would be in a Royale Cluster F—- right now.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mobile-benchmarks ( The Google Pixel 7 (8 cores) is number 53 below the pacesetters the 15 Pro and the 15 Pro Max which are 1 and 2, and the Samsung S23 Ultra (8 cores) is at 25 behind the first 24 slots which are all Apple devices). Apple did the right thing.
You sound like all those tech analysts who argued that Apple should stay with Intel thru the end of time, if Apple wants to build a future device and they want to build it a certain way and they have to leave Qualcomm behind, and if it takes 13 years like it took to leave Intel so be it. (After all if Apple doesn’t innovate like many people keep saying what’s the harm if Apple spends a little money?
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
Why would Apple wanna have another run with Samsung? They already had a disastrous run with them in the chipmaking area, which is another reason why Apple wants done of Qualcomm, over the last 25 years. Apple’s biggest acquisition has been only $3 billion dollars because Apple doesn’t go for those big blockbuster acquisitions like some of their competition. Apple has plenty of time and money at least eight more years to equal the Intel replacement timetable.
The fundamental question is why is building your own cell chips important to Apple? Cell chips are vastly different from the CPU and controller chips Apple has experience developing. Will having their own cell chip differentiate Apple from competitors? I think not unless Apple offers some superior level of performance, which I doubt. They are having trouble coming up with something that’s functionally equivalent to Qualcomm. Why did Intel sell their cell chip operations? Probably because they had trouble offering a product that could compete with Qualcomm, especially given the IP issues. In my opinion Apple has made a multi billion dollar mistake going down this path. They should just accept that they have to have Qualcomm as a partner. And focus their efforts on technologies that can differentiate their products and entice non-Apple consumers to switch to Apple products. This mistake will ultimately be a business school case study.
1) If you don't already understand why it benefits a company like Apple to design their own components then there's nothing anyone can say that will elucidate this matter.
2) This sounds like every time Apple has ventured into a new area of business. From buying PA Semi to buying Beats to creating the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. it's the same "stick with your know, stay in your lane, and never try to evolve your expertise in any way" mentality. Nothing may ultimately come of this but it's a drop in the bucket for Apple to try compared to the longterm benefit so they are foolish for not doing their due diligence.
And it’s always followed up with Apple doesn’t innovate….. All through the 13 years it took to replace Intel stay in your lane don’t do it, and when it was finally announced at WWDC, something else came up. Oh Apple Silicon, it’s not any good because Windows doesn’t run on it, Apple should do themselves a solid, and help Microsoft out.
Some of the comments here are crazy. Treating Apple like a Dell or some bit player.
Apple is developing their own models for not only the most prestigious and popular smartphone in the world, but the best tablets, the best smart watches, and who knows what else. It’s an absolutely astoundingly HUGE market and they want to have the ability to fine tune to their hearts content as true craftsmen do. Heck, if INTEL PROCESSORS and AMD GRAPHICS CARDS WEREN’T ENOUGH, so thst Apple went ahead and made their own freaking CPUs and GPUs that go in products that combined don’t come close to iPhone numbers, you can bet with absolute certainty they want to get after that cellular modem that goes in more products than the Apple of 10 years ago could have ever dreamed of offering.
Apple doesn’t like to be held back by other companies and their roadmaps. They don’t like to be let down by tech that falls short, and they certainly don’t like to be jerked around by bully licensing agreements.
What’s crazy is that you have the USA, the EU, and others all trying to find a way to punish apple for being a successful company in the midst of cutthroat markets, and yet here you have stinking Qualcomm with pretty much a monopoly on cellular modems.
The sooner Apple finalizes their modem, the better for everyone - except Qualcomm. Apple customers benefit the most, but even competitors will also as Qualcomm will have to start acting competitively with pricing/licensing.
I lived in San Diego for years and have had quite a few friends on Qualcomm's engineering teams, and this is what I've heard:
Many of the nuts-and-bolts details of making cellular modems (especially everything from CDMA / 3G onward) are kept as trade secrets - they aren't in the patents or official specifications. The specifications cover the results you're supposed to achieve for successful compatibility, but how to actually meet those specs in the very messy real world of hideously-congested spectrum, signal blockage and reflections, MIMO, etc., has a difficulty level of "completely insane." Remember that Intel, one of the world's largest and most successful silicon engineering companies backed by a huge pile of operating cash and purchase agreements, fell flat on its face trying to do this. Their 4G modems were garbage and they could never get 5G to work at all. Apple also has loads of top-tier engineering talent and a mountain of cash, but they are going to have to hack
through a lot of difficult problems along this journey and it's not
surprising that they're behind schedule.
This sounds like an ideal problem for AI to work on. Feed the AI system the specifications and data and see what it comes up with for solutions. Hmmmm…
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
Why would Apple wanna have another run with Samsung? They already had a disastrous run with them in the chipmaking area, which is another reason why Apple wants done of Qualcomm, over the last 25 years. Apple’s biggest acquisition has been only $3 billion dollars because Apple doesn’t go for those big blockbuster acquisitions like some of their competition. Apple has plenty of time and money at least eight more years to equal the Intel replacement timetable.
Yet Samsung remains a key supplier for Apple and has delivered on its requests.
It has a decent 5G modem and 5G patents, too.
Perhaps more importantly, Apple wasn't about to trade first blows with them in court right around the time of the Intel failure.
In terms of strategic decisions, they can pay off or ruin you. You live by your results.
IMO, going solely with TSMC was a huge strategic risk. Not only in technology terms (failure to pull things off on time - or at all) but also in other ways (political, economical, natural disasters etc).
Saying Apple has 'plenty of time' basically ignores reality. The same could be said of the situation before they were able to release a 5G modem.
They didn't bide their time. In what seemed like an instant, they buried the hatchet with Qualcomm (almost at the doors of the courtroom) signed a years long deal with them (with an extension option) and actually shipped an old, bolted on modem.
That reads like panic stations and last minute decisions.
In spite of all that they talked up 5G at the keynote to the point of it almost taking over the entire event.
Apple’s game, aside from the great and incredible innovation they used to have, is twofold. Firstly, market hard and charge as much as possible; some call this “designer fashion approach”. On the other side, pay as little to others, especially they hate paying “the clever ones”, e.g. the patent /IP owners. Much better to “steal from the dead”, like the recent Windows7-like desktop widgets, or the webOS carousel menu, than to pay up royalties. Can’t wait for them to steal Sinofsky’s live app tiles from Windows8…that’d be some useful stuff because MS killed those. Qualcomm is in the other hand… hence “unreliable” moniker can only apply to “can’t reliably decrease our payments to, nor make them dead and ‘do great artistry from’ “ nuff said
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
I have to laugh at all the analysts saying modems are harder than processors to design, to take a dig at Apple engineers as being somehow inferior to everyone else.
if that’s true then why haven’t Qualcomm, Samsung or Huawei been able to design processors? They’re all using ARM cores while Apple is the only company doing fully custom cores.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
After all these years, why are people still responding to this troll? Just block/ignore and move on.
I have to laugh at all the analysts saying modems are harder than processors to design, to take a dig at Apple engineers as being somehow inferior to everyone else.
if that’s true then why haven’t Qualcomm, Samsung or Huawei been able to design processors? They’re all using ARM cores while Apple is the only company doing fully custom cores.
Modems aren’t harder, they’re different.
You make a salient point. If Apple had tackled the modem first there would've been "experts" claiming that a modem is one thing, but trying to design your own CPU and GPU are much harder.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
Surely you don't mean things like transistor density and count, GPS, Wi-Fi, ISPs, DSPs or the modem itself!
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
Surely you don't mean things like transistor density and count, GPS, Wi-Fi, ISPs, DSPs or the modem itself!
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
All easily measured metrics and an entire IFA keynote dedicated to the SoC, not only the CPU/GPU.
LOL!
You post a 2018 link that has no metrics; just comparative performance, and that is between the Kirin 980 and the Snapdragon 845, and based on charts that the writer "can't show".
The writer posits that the Kirin 980 in the Mate 20 is "roughly as fast" as Apple and Samsung flagships; that isn't a metric.
There is no denying that Apple has a world-class CPU design team that has consistently produced the best SoCs in the world over the last few years. Apple’s success isn’t magic. It is a result of excellent engineering, a good lead time over its competitors, and the luxury of making SoCs with lots of silicon for a small number of products.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
Surely you don't mean things like transistor density and count, GPS, Wi-Fi, ISPs, DSPs or the modem itself!
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
All easily measured metrics and an entire IFA keynote dedicated to the SoC, not only the CPU/GPU.
LOL!
You post a 2018 link that has no metrics; just comparative performance, and that is between the Kirin 980 and the Snapdragon 845, and based on charts that the writer "can't show".
The writer posits that the Kirin 980 in the Mate 20 is "roughly as fast" as Apple and Samsung flagships; that isn't a metric.
There is no denying that Apple has a world-class CPU design team that has consistently produced the best SoCs in the world over the last few years. Apple’s success isn’t magic. It is a result of excellent engineering, a good lead time over its competitors, and the luxury of making SoCs with lots of silicon for a small number of products.
Wow!
The metrics - what and how you measure, are there! The measured numbers in this case are actually secondary to the whole point!
The point is that SoC comparisons are our daily bread and when you take a look at that aspect (looking beyond purely CPU/GPU considerations) you see Apple actually hasn't been far out ahead.
When someone says we have the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset on our SoC, you are free to actually measure those numbers because it is a metric from which numbers can be obtained.
When someone says 'we have dual frequency GPS' but a competing SoC does not, you know one is likely to be more precise than the other. Measure it if you want but do you really think the result will be different when you just saw an example using an iPhone losing its GPS bearings while going through a tunnel and the dual frequency device keeping a lock on the device?
When we say one has its modem on SoC but the other does not, you can assume efficiency will be impacted.
Idem ISP and DSPs.
The whole point is that SoC comparison is actually possible by evaluating what can be measured.
It really is that simple. I'm flabbergasted that you cannot get that into your head.
I deliberately went back to 2018 to support what I was saying. For years now, SoC presentations have not been just CPU/GPU focused. The SoC itself has been the focus. The whole package!
Now, when Apple hasn't always had dual frequency GPS, dual ISP, the fastest Wi-Fi, an on SoC modem or whatever, you simply cannot say it has 'consistently produced the best SoCs'.
Why? Because the metrics are out there and from day one.
'Excellent engineering' can be found all over the place! Just ask those that actually had a 5G modem on their SoCs years ago!
And 'lead times'? Come on! Up until sanctions, Huawei was entering mass production at the same time as Apple at TSMC. Probably a little earlier!
Go back and sit through some SoC presentations and you'll actually see Apple phones pop up in them! And not in good light.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
Surely you don't mean things like transistor density and count, GPS, Wi-Fi, ISPs, DSPs or the modem itself!
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
All easily measured metrics and an entire IFA keynote dedicated to the SoC, not only the CPU/GPU.
LOL!
You post a 2018 link that has no metrics; just comparative performance, and that is between the Kirin 980 and the Snapdragon 845, and based on charts that the writer "can't show".
The writer posits that the Kirin 980 in the Mate 20 is "roughly as fast" as Apple and Samsung flagships; that isn't a metric.
There is no denying that Apple has a world-class CPU design team that has consistently produced the best SoCs in the world over the last few years. Apple’s success isn’t magic. It is a result of excellent engineering, a good lead time over its competitors, and the luxury of making SoCs with lots of silicon for a small number of products.
Wow!
The metrics - what and how you measure, are there! The measured numbers in this case are actually secondary to the whole point!
The point is that SoC comparisons are our daily bread and when you take a look at that aspect (looking beyond purely CPU/GPU considerations) you see Apple actually hasn't been far out ahead.
When someone says we have the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset on our SoC, you are free to actually measure those numbers because it is a metric from which numbers can be obtained.
When someone says 'we have dual frequency GPS' but a competing SoC does not, you know one is likely to be more precise than the other. Measure it if you want but do you really think the result will be different when you just saw an example using an iPhone losing its GPS bearings while going through a tunnel and the dual frequency device keeping a lock on the device?
When we say one has its modem on SoC but the other does not, you can assume efficiency will be impacted.
Idem ISP and DSPs.
The whole point is that SoC comparison is actually possible by evaluating what can be measured.
It really is that simple. I'm flabbergasted that you cannot get that into your head.
I deliberately went back to 2018 to support what I was saying. For years now, SoC presentations have not been just CPU/GPU focused. The SoC itself has been the focus. The whole package!
Now, when Apple hasn't always had dual frequency GPS, dual ISP, the fastest Wi-Fi, an on SoC modem or whatever, you simply cannot say it has 'consistently produced the best SoCs'.
Why? Because the metrics are out there and from day one.
'Excellent engineering' can be found all over the place! Just ask those that actually had a 5G modem on their SoCs years ago!
And 'lead times'? Come on! Up until sanctions, Huawei was entering mass production at the same time as Apple at TSMC. Probably a little earlier!
Go back and sit through some SoC presentations and you'll actually see Apple phones pop up in them! And not in good light.
You make a great argument that Huawei must be extremely excited that they have access to SMIC''s nominal 7nm process for their SOC's, given that GPU/CPU are as relevant at this time as they were in 2018, when the 980 was fabbed at 7nm.
Oh and for the record, Huawei loved to announce first, likely with some of the taped out SOC's, but Apple always delivered product in the millions before Huawei actually shipped anything at all to consumers. Kind of belies the whole "entering mass production" at the same time meme that you attempted to establish then, and now.
For the record, I give a higher weight to SOC performance metrics, than I do for all of the communication modes that Huawei might lead in, but horses for courses.
It would appear that consumers don't really care about communications either, other than that they have 5G, Wifi, and Bluetooth, the details being unimportant.
Apple's biggest problem here was strategic planning.
If it wanted to influence decision making, then a seat on committees was a must.
5G development started around 2019. Apple wasn't seeing or contemplating the use cases for it back then.
That's logical. It's a CE company. You would not expect a CE to see far beyond its core market needs.
Having a 5G modem to run with was nevertheless going to be a must and it took the decision to oust Qualcomm and switch to Intel even though Intel's modems underperformed on 4G. It hoped to continue with them for 5G while it battled Qualcomm in court.
When Intel didn't deliver, Apple was in a terrible position. It was basically up the creek without a paddle (or in need of making its own paddle.
The resulting 'deal' with Qualcomm was probably the only way out at the time. That in itself is probably a huge story waiting to be told.
Buying Intel's division probably wasn't even a consideration right up until they failed to deliver.
That means that even ten years after 5G began development and was now a reality (2019), the strategic angle just wasn't a part of Apple's forward planning. That's understandable in spite of those who repeatedly claimed Apple controlled the whole widget.
Actually designing, building and shipping a 5G modem was never going to be easy, as it isn't something that can be 'isolated' within your own ecosystem and devices. It is a monumental undertaking. It's probably the number one reason Apple didn't see the need to bake one itself.
It literally depends on standards, software, patents and hardware from around the world. All interacting together. That is biting off a lot.
Strategically though, there are some huge considerations in play.
If, with an entire division dedicated to the task, Intel failed to deliver, that was telling.
Now, with extra financial resources and years of further development, the rumours point to yet more delays at Apple. That is how difficult the task is, and in large part, not having upstream influence, made things much harder still.
Huawei and Qualcomm et al were pulling the strings (and are still pulling the strings) on development and that know-how obviously gives you a leg up when it comes to producing things like consumer modems and antennas.
If something you've been developing for years gets standardized, your knowledge as the creator of that technology will come into play (along with patent royalties).
Of course Apple will deliver when it delivers. There is no doubt about it. I don't think anyone would argue anything there.
Is there a chance it won't deliver anything and decide to do 'an Intel'? That can't be ruled out entirely even though it's unlikely.
When it acquired Intel's patents and development work, suddenly it was a major strategic decision. One that was very much placed on it by circumstances but at least a big part of that particular puzzle was now on the board. That is key going forward because things like cars (supposing the Apple car exists in a classic sense) will not be isolated affairs in the future. They will be communicating with other cars and road infrastructure etc and 5G (and onwards) are key to that. The same can be said of IoT. Having your own modem playing a major role makes a lot of sense.
Questions remain though. If Apple is still a year or more away from shipping a product, the question must be, just how far off schedule were Intel in the first place or was it that the finished product was not competitive? Where exactly is Apple facing problems? Across the board or in specific but key areas? There has been talk of leadership and management issues. Are there patent licencing issues etc?
What we know is that five generations into 5G modems, Apple still doesn't have one of its own and, given the importance of 5G, strategically speaking, that is a big issue, even if that stretches beyond modems themselves.
If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought.
If Apple plans on having its own in-house designed modems within products by 2026, they need to be in testing now.
"If they can't deliver for whatever the reason, what next? Would Qualcomm start squeezing them more? Now, there is a thought" => The other option is Samsung.
Samsung is a big player in 5G but if it were a viable option I can't help but think Apple would have run with them instead of doing the deal with Qualcomm. Especially seeing as Apple was literally about to try and get things dealt with in court when that deal was struck.
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
It was always unlikely that Apple would go to Samsung, because Qualcomm makes the best, most versatile, modems, and Samsung is a direct competitor in the consumer space.
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
The 'downside' in relation to Qualcomm was huge. Apple quite literally abandoned a years long multi billion dollar fight to get things finally resolved in the courts. They dropped everything.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
LOL!
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
Surely you don't mean things like transistor density and count, GPS, Wi-Fi, ISPs, DSPs or the modem itself!
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
All easily measured metrics and an entire IFA keynote dedicated to the SoC, not only the CPU/GPU.
LOL!
You post a 2018 link that has no metrics; just comparative performance, and that is between the Kirin 980 and the Snapdragon 845, and based on charts that the writer "can't show".
The writer posits that the Kirin 980 in the Mate 20 is "roughly as fast" as Apple and Samsung flagships; that isn't a metric.
There is no denying that Apple has a world-class CPU design team that has consistently produced the best SoCs in the world over the last few years. Apple’s success isn’t magic. It is a result of excellent engineering, a good lead time over its competitors, and the luxury of making SoCs with lots of silicon for a small number of products.
Wow!
The metrics - what and how you measure, are there! The measured numbers in this case are actually secondary to the whole point!
The point is that SoC comparisons are our daily bread and when you take a look at that aspect (looking beyond purely CPU/GPU considerations) you see Apple actually hasn't been far out ahead.
When someone says we have the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset on our SoC, you are free to actually measure those numbers because it is a metric from which numbers can be obtained.
When someone says 'we have dual frequency GPS' but a competing SoC does not, you know one is likely to be more precise than the other. Measure it if you want but do you really think the result will be different when you just saw an example using an iPhone losing its GPS bearings while going through a tunnel and the dual frequency device keeping a lock on the device?
When we say one has its modem on SoC but the other does not, you can assume efficiency will be impacted.
Idem ISP and DSPs.
The whole point is that SoC comparison is actually possible by evaluating what can be measured.
It really is that simple. I'm flabbergasted that you cannot get that into your head.
I deliberately went back to 2018 to support what I was saying. For years now, SoC presentations have not been just CPU/GPU focused. The SoC itself has been the focus. The whole package!
Now, when Apple hasn't always had dual frequency GPS, dual ISP, the fastest Wi-Fi, an on SoC modem or whatever, you simply cannot say it has 'consistently produced the best SoCs'.
Why? Because the metrics are out there and from day one.
'Excellent engineering' can be found all over the place! Just ask those that actually had a 5G modem on their SoCs years ago!
And 'lead times'? Come on! Up until sanctions, Huawei was entering mass production at the same time as Apple at TSMC. Probably a little earlier!
Go back and sit through some SoC presentations and you'll actually see Apple phones pop up in them! And not in good light.
You make a great argument that Huawei must be extremely excited that they have access to SMIC''s nominal 7nm process for their SOC's, given that GPU/CPU are as relevant at this time as they were in 2018, when the 980 was fabbed at 7nm.
Oh and for the record, Huawei loved to announce first, likely with some of the taped out SOC's, but Apple always delivered product in the millions before Huawei actually shipped anything at all to consumers. Kind of belies the whole "entering mass production" at the same time meme that you attempted to establish then, and now.
For the record, I give a higher weight to SOC performance metrics, than I do for all of the communication modes that Huawei might lead in, but horses for courses.
It would appear that consumers don't really care about communications either, other than that they have 5G, Wifi, and Bluetooth, the details being unimportant.
Consumers 'caring' about anything is irrelevant here.
Apple clearly thought they cared though, as it dedicated basically the entirety of the keynote to the 5G aspect and not only that, it wasn't even the latest 5G modem available at the time and not even on the SoC.
As for 'announcing first', your point, erm, has no point.
Are you implying that Huawei should step aside and let Apple announce first? Why should that be the case?
You clearly don't understand how things work.
Huawei would normally announce its newest chipsets at or around IFA Berlin (usually that happens at the end of August/start of September) and it was usually the SoC that was the star attraction - but not the only item on the roster. Note that I said 'SoC' not phone, because the base technologies presented would not only be used for phones.
The modems for example.
So 'announcing first' is irrelevant here. It is just a statement of fact. Presentations of new technologies. Huawei presents new technologies almost every month!
A recent major technology announcement was the '0 bit, 0 watt' series of products.
There is always an industry event somewhere in the world used as a platform. It could be new battery chemistry at the international battery symposium or smart inverters for solar panels. It does not matter. IFA was simply one show among many.
So if Huawei announced the 'world's first' CAT21 modem or the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset, announcing it 'first' doesn't mean much and I'm at a loss to see why you mention it.
The point would be if Apple’s 'excellent engineering' was keeping pace and producing equivalent products but it wasn't, was it? That was the whole point.
Apple's Wi-Fi was not self designed and neither was its modem. Two essential elements of a smartphone yet you take issue with a comment on SoCs?
And just for the record, no one is saying Apple doesn't have good engineering but the picture is most definitely NOT as you want to paint it.
Comments
Like I said, the day that inside story gets told, it's surely going to be a headturner.
Meditek has viable modem options too.
Samsung uses Qualcomm modems as well as its own and they have collaborated a lot on other 5G infrastructure too.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mobile-benchmarks ( The Google Pixel 7 (8 cores) is number 53 below the pacesetters the 15 Pro and the 15 Pro Max which are 1 and 2, and the Samsung S23 Ultra (8 cores) is at 25 behind the first 24 slots which are all Apple devices). Apple did the right thing.
You sound like all those tech analysts who argued that Apple should stay with Intel thru the end of time, if Apple wants to build a future device and they want to build it a certain way and they have to leave Qualcomm behind, and if it takes 13 years like it took to leave Intel so be it. (After all if Apple doesn’t innovate like many people keep saying what’s the harm if Apple spends a little money?
It has a decent 5G modem and 5G patents, too.
Perhaps more importantly, Apple wasn't about to trade first blows with them in court right around the time of the Intel failure.
In terms of strategic decisions, they can pay off or ruin you. You live by your results.
IMO, going solely with TSMC was a huge strategic risk. Not only in technology terms (failure to pull things off on time - or at all) but also in other ways (political, economical, natural disasters etc).
Saying Apple has 'plenty of time' basically ignores reality. The same could be said of the situation before they were able to release a 5G modem.
They didn't bide their time. In what seemed like an instant, they buried the hatchet with Qualcomm (almost at the doors of the courtroom) signed a years long deal with them (with an extension option) and actually shipped an old, bolted on modem.
That reads like panic stations and last minute decisions.
In spite of all that they talked up 5G at the keynote to the point of it almost taking over the entire event.
Firstly, market hard and charge as much as possible; some call this “designer fashion approach”.
On the other side, pay as little to others, especially they hate paying “the clever ones”, e.g. the patent /IP owners. Much better to “steal from the dead”, like the recent Windows7-like desktop widgets, or the webOS carousel menu, than to pay up royalties. Can’t wait for them to steal Sinofsky’s live app tiles from Windows8…that’d be some useful stuff because MS killed those.
Qualcomm is in the other hand… hence “unreliable” moniker can only apply to “can’t reliably decrease our payments to, nor make them dead and ‘do great artistry from’ “ nuff said
Apple got burned, just a little bit, by splitting A9 SOC production between TSMC and Samsung; lesson learned, and thereafter, Samsung was no longer making SOC's for Apple.
That Apple is playing catch up to Qualcomm's modems is to be expected, and at the same time, Apple can certainly afford to continue the effort for many more years, if necessary, though it sounds as though Apple will have a competitive modem by 2026, for the iPhone 18. There isn't much downside to continue using Qualcomm until that happens. What will be of interest after that modem appears, is where Apple goes with integration into its product line, allowing some innovations that we can only guess at today.
Your position is that it was a strategic failure for Apple to have started a modem effort late, as if modems at the time were a strategic significance to Apple. At the same time, Apple has been able to leverage its SOC development into its entire consumer product range, and that has had massive payoffs to date.
We can't just brush that situation off as if it doesn't have repercussions. Even today.
Apple and Qualcomm buried the hatchet out of court for a good reason. That reason (or reasons) will paint interesting pictures (in plural because eventually different opinions of people in the know will surface).
Given what we know officially, it looks like it was Qualcomm that was in the driving seat of those negotiations but we have to leave the door open for different options.
Making the best or most versatile modems is a moot point. They chose Intel after all and stayed with them for years. So much for the best or most versatile. They even planned a 5G modem with them and it was never going to match Qualcomm, Huawei or even Samsung. AFAIK, both Samsung and Mediatek have good 5G modems.
Samsung may be a direct competitor in the consumer space but that is irrelevant.
Apple still depends on Samsung for much of its display advances. Being competitors isn't an impediment. It's just business.
Qualcomm is in a slightly strange position.
Its CEO was asked a couple of years ago why they didn't go the Huawei route and make their own phones and other devices. He didn't really have a great answer to that except for saying, in strategic terms, they had chosen back in the day to act as industry suppliers. Once on that route they followed it. Fair enough but the reply was open ended enough to perhaps interpret it as not ruling out the possibility of getting into the end device market for phones.
SoC development hasn't had massive payoffs beyond control of the designs themselves.
You can 'bake your own' and cover the cost or go with generic options. Both are fine.
Over the last few years, SoCs have been great across the industry and many have been better than Apple's on many metrics. Where Apple has had the edge is with raw compute performance but there is more to a SoC than that.
In fact, performance on mobile has been pretty much a non-issue on flagship phones for over six years.
The focus switched from CPU/GPU performance to NPU, DSP/ISP, modems, camera, battery and screen metrics.
...many have been better that Apple's on many metrics...
And yet, there are so few metrics that actually can demonstrate that, so, this is your opportunity to post any of those.
if that’s true then why haven’t Qualcomm, Samsung or Huawei been able to design processors? They’re all using ARM cores while Apple is the only company doing fully custom cores.
Modems aren’t harder, they’re different.
Those elements have literally been the calling cards of basically every modern SoC for years now!
Let's go back in time to 2018:
https://mashable.com/article/huawei-kirin-980
All easily measured metrics and an entire IFA keynote dedicated to the SoC, not only the CPU/GPU.
You post a 2018 link that has no metrics; just comparative performance, and that is between the Kirin 980 and the Snapdragon 845, and based on charts that the writer "can't show".
The writer posits that the Kirin 980 in the Mate 20 is "roughly as fast" as Apple and Samsung flagships; that isn't a metric.
You waste people's time.
https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/hisilicon-kirin-980-vs-apple-a12-bionic#benchmarks
From May of this year...
https://www.androidauthority.com/why-are-apples-chips-faster-than-qualcomms-gary-explains-802738/#
The metrics - what and how you measure, are there! The measured numbers in this case are actually secondary to the whole point!
The point is that SoC comparisons are our daily bread and when you take a look at that aspect (looking beyond purely CPU/GPU considerations) you see Apple actually hasn't been far out ahead.
When someone says we have the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset on our SoC, you are free to actually measure those numbers because it is a metric from which numbers can be obtained.
When someone says 'we have dual frequency GPS' but a competing SoC does not, you know one is likely to be more precise than the other. Measure it if you want but do you really think the result will be different when you just saw an example using an iPhone losing its GPS bearings while going through a tunnel and the dual frequency device keeping a lock on the device?
When we say one has its modem on SoC but the other does not, you can assume efficiency will be impacted.
Idem ISP and DSPs.
The whole point is that SoC comparison is actually possible by evaluating what can be measured.
It really is that simple. I'm flabbergasted that you cannot get that into your head.
I deliberately went back to 2018 to support what I was saying. For years now, SoC presentations have not been just CPU/GPU focused. The SoC itself has been the focus. The whole package!
Now, when Apple hasn't always had dual frequency GPS, dual ISP, the fastest Wi-Fi, an on SoC modem or whatever, you simply cannot say it has 'consistently produced the best SoCs'.
Why? Because the metrics are out there and from day one.
'Excellent engineering' can be found all over the place! Just ask those that actually had a 5G modem on their SoCs years ago!
And 'lead times'? Come on! Up until sanctions, Huawei was entering mass production at the same time as Apple at TSMC. Probably a little earlier!
Go back and sit through some SoC presentations and you'll actually see Apple phones pop up in them! And not in good light.
Oh and for the record, Huawei loved to announce first, likely with some of the taped out SOC's, but Apple always delivered product in the millions before Huawei actually shipped anything at all to consumers. Kind of belies the whole "entering mass production" at the same time meme that you attempted to establish then, and now.
For the record, I give a higher weight to SOC performance metrics, than I do for all of the communication modes that Huawei might lead in, but horses for courses.
It would appear that consumers don't really care about communications either, other than that they have 5G, Wifi, and Bluetooth, the details being unimportant.
Apple clearly thought they cared though, as it dedicated basically the entirety of the keynote to the 5G aspect and not only that, it wasn't even the latest 5G modem available at the time and not even on the SoC.
As for 'announcing first', your point, erm, has no point.
Are you implying that Huawei should step aside and let Apple announce first? Why should that be the case?
You clearly don't understand how things work.
Huawei would normally announce its newest chipsets at or around IFA Berlin (usually that happens at the end of August/start of September) and it was usually the SoC that was the star attraction - but not the only item on the roster. Note that I said 'SoC' not phone, because the base technologies presented would not only be used for phones.
The modems for example.
So 'announcing first' is irrelevant here. It is just a statement of fact. Presentations of new technologies. Huawei presents new technologies almost every month!
A recent major technology announcement was the '0 bit, 0 watt' series of products.
There is always an industry event somewhere in the world used as a platform. It could be new battery chemistry at the international battery symposium or smart inverters for solar panels. It does not matter. IFA was simply one show among many.
So if Huawei announced the 'world's first' CAT21 modem or the world's fastest Wi-Fi chipset, announcing it 'first' doesn't mean much and I'm at a loss to see why you mention it.
The point would be if Apple’s 'excellent engineering' was keeping pace and producing equivalent products but it wasn't, was it?
That was the whole point.
Apple's Wi-Fi was not self designed and neither was its modem. Two essential elements of a smartphone yet you take issue with a comment on SoCs?
And just for the record, no one is saying Apple doesn't have good engineering but the picture is most definitely NOT as you want to paint it.