Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
Although, if I were you, I'd pay attention to the unit sales as absolute data. Apple was simply a natural part of it (as stated by Counterpoint).
Yes, there was a steepish climb but that was Apple and pent up demand because a lot of people obviously were interested in 5G. The kickstart was alreadywellunderway... via that other 75% for which I've already given you an idea of the actual numbers!
5G modem? Of course it was a strategic goof! A gigantic strategic goof!
They basically had to settle at the doors of the court. A legal battle that had spread across the globe for years at massive cost.
Their Intel plans had completely fallen through. They ended up having to spend over a billion dollars to take on the floundering 5G modem project.
They had no plan B, no alternative and didn't just sit back and say 'hey! Let's go another year without 5G'. That was unthinkable. Can you imagine that scenario?
But what if they lost the Qualcomm battle in court?
They signed a deal with Qualcomm that clearly wasn't in their plans. If it had been in their plans they would have shipped the latest generation QC modem.
What they shipped, and yes, I think it was a major Yikes! moment for them, was the older generation modem and not even on-SoC!
Yet they still dedicated almost the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
An absolutely massive, strategic error.
Sometimes the risks pay off. Sometimes they don't. That's life.
On 5G, things backfired in spectacular fashion and you may try to spin things a different way but you won't find many takers.
Apple Goofed!
And today, in 2024, we are still waiting for an in-house solution.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Actually, no.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Actually, no.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
It was strategic planning to not include a marketing buzzword into their phones that wouldn't be of much use to all but a few users and be a power hungry detriment to all. The first 5G chips weren't good, but that can be said about all the early gen cellular chips. This is to be expected which is why it didn't make sense for any reasonable company to jump on the early chipsets.
I’ve occasionally seen 5G UW on my Verizon phone when I’m away from the village I live in. Since Verizon doesn’t differentiate between mid band and mmWave I didn’t notice much of a difference and since I was just passing through it wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway.
I’m nearly totally dependent on WiFi calling at home because none of the carriers provide good service where I live. The majority of the population has either no phone or a flip phone and get around in one horsepower vehicles with chunky exhaust, or in big, usually white 14 passenger vans with gray bearded and grizzled elderly drivers.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Actually, no.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
It was strategic planning to not include a marketing buzzword into their phones that wouldn't be of much use to all but a few users and be a power hungry detriment to all. The first 5G chips weren't good, but that can be said about all the early gen cellular chips. This is to be expected which is why it didn't make sense for any reasonable company to jump on the early chipsets.
It was about far more than power usage!
Why did they include an off-SoC, older (and more power hungry) modem instead of waiting? Assuming that power consumption was so important to them?
The first Qualcomm 5G modem was announced in 2016 (X50l
The X55 was announced in February 2019 and was only its second generation effort.
So much for waiting.
Did they make a big deal about that during the presentation? No! The focus was on speed and that buzzword: 5G.
At the same time as Apple released the iPhone 12, Huawei had on-SoC 5G modems yet no one was complaining about them being power hungry. They were NSA/SA capable too.
And as for buzzwords, they are what drive everything. It's why Applebhad 'Bionic' chips and a 'Dynamic Island' and every presentation is chock full of buzzwords.
No prizes for guessing what will be the star of WWDC this year and you can bet buzzwords will be the order of the day.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Actually, no.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
It was strategic planning to not include a marketing buzzword into their phones that wouldn't be of much use to all but a few users and be a power hungry detriment to all. The first 5G chips weren't good, but that can be said about all the early gen cellular chips. This is to be expected which is why it didn't make sense for any reasonable company to jump on the early chipsets.
It was about far more than power usage!
Why did they include an off-SoC, older (and more power hungry) modem instead of waiting? Assuming that power consumption was so important to them?
The first Qualcomm 5G modem was announced in 2016 (X50l
The X55 was announced in February 2019 and was only its second generation effort.
So much for waiting.
Did they make a big deal about that during the presentation? No! The focus was on speed and that buzzword: 5G.
At the same time as Apple released the iPhone 12, Huawei had on-SoC 5G modems yet no one was complaining about them being power hungry. They were NSA/SA capable too.
And as for buzzwords, they are what drive everything. It's why Applebhad 'Bionic' chips and a 'Dynamic Island' and every presentation is chock full of buzzwords.
No prizes for guessing what will be the star of WWDC this year and you can bet buzzwords will be the order of the day.
1) Do you get paid every time you mention Huawei in a post?
2) Power usage and was an issue, which has been posted already,.
3) Calling their SoC an A11 Bionic is branding, not a buzzword. You ask 10 out of 10 people what Bionic offers Apple's SoC over Fusion, or even which came first and you'll get a blank stare. These may as well be internal chip names. Not a single a person is buying an iPhone or iPad because it has the word Bionic on a spec sheet for the SoC. 5G will trick users, which is why AT&T was based for sing "5G" in a very sleazy way even though technically many things can be deemed the 5th generation of a thing and therefore it's practically arbitrary unless the parameters are set as to what is being discussed.
interesting to read the comments here - several years ago when Apple had yet to add 5G to their phones there was a substantial amount of angst here on AI. At the time I remember asking people "Why do I need 5G on my phone?" All I got was people repeating the rote answers about the benefits of 5G, none of which really applied to your typical smartphone user. Now, 5 years later I see everyone posting things like "yeah, I got it but I never use it."
Those are effectively the same thing. I wondered why I needed 5G and I don't care about now. It's a very scenario over the move from 2.5G to 3G to 4G.
In general, the benefits and uses for 5G are far greater outside of smartphones. The push for 5G was more from the carriers who needed consumer demand to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
Although, if I were you, I'd pay attention to the unit sales as absolute data. Apple was simply a natural part of it (as stated by Counterpoint).
Yes, there was a steepish climb but that was Apple and pent up demand because a lot of people obviously were interested in 5G. The kickstart was alreadywellunderway... via that other 75% for which I've already given you an idea of the actual numbers!
5G modem? Of course it was a strategic goof! A gigantic strategic goof!
They basically had to settle at the doors of the court. A legal battle that had spread across the globe for years at massive cost.
Their Intel plans had completely fallen through. They ended up having to spend over a billion dollars to take on the floundering 5G modem project.
They had no plan B, no alternative and didn't just sit back and say 'hey! Let's go another year without 5G'. That was unthinkable. Can you imagine that scenario?
But what if they lost the Qualcomm battle in court?
They signed a deal with Qualcomm that clearly wasn't in their plans. If it had been in their plans they would have shipped the latest generation QC modem.
What they shipped, and yes, I think it was a major Yikes! moment for them, was the older generation modem and not even on-SoC!
Yet they still dedicated almost the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
An absolutely massive, strategic error.
Sometimes the risks pay off. Sometimes they don't. That's life.
On 5G, things backfired in spectacular fashion and you may try to spin things a different way but you won't find many takers.
Apple Goofed!
And today, in 2024, we are still waiting for an in-house solution.
"Massive Cost"?
They ended up having to spend over a billion dollars to take on the floundering 5G modem project.
Apple's gross profit was $105 B in 2020; that $1B was a paper cut.
They basically had to settle at the doors of the court. A legal battle that had spread across the globe for years at massive cost.
You sure like to make assumptions in your arguments, none of which you have actually backed up with evidence.
Whatever incremental cost that Apple paid was a rounding error against its revenue, and likely in profits as well, but certainly, not "massive", given the value to Apple of both settling in court, something that would have happened anyway, and entering into place long term licensing and contracts, with extension options thru 2027.
Literally, there was no significant number of iPhone users that switched, and as you state, there was certainly pent up demand in Oct 2020, all of which result in Apple making a full transition to 5G in less than three years. Unlike most other manufacturers, Apple does not make any LTE models today.
Meanwhile, Apple blew past PC manufacturers with the M series, all due to what you consider "risky" decisions that Apple made in 2010 with TSMC.
So far, those decisions have been "massively" beneficial to Apple's growth.
Yeah man, the fact that your chinese knockoff brands didn’t move the needle whatsoever is not the sick burn you think it is. but ok, “first!”
For handsets, considering it's mainly Chinese, South Korean or US brands, looking at the numbers, the Chinese brands possibly moved the needle most!
For 5G modems as a component it was possibly Qualcomm but only because of sanctions against Huawei. Although Mediatek might have popped Qualcomm to that particular post.
For 5G ICT and patents it was probably Huawei.
Apple literally wasn't in the game, made a huge strategic goof and still seems to be trying to overcome the technical challenges.
"First"? And? What’s your point?
Oh, so now it's the Chinese brands against Apple.
Please note that when Apple entered the "game", they shipped in one single quarter, 25% of the 2020 yearly total, hence the steepest slope of the graph you linked, from 0ctober 2020 thru December 2020. That's the kickstart.
Apple made no "strategic goof", and there was never a downside to how Apple both transitioned to 5G and invested in its own 5G modem.
Exactly! 25% (no idea if that number is correct BTW) isn't kickstarting anything unless you completely ignore the other 75%!
[...]
Apple Goofed!
Just like "Apple Goofed" by not releasing a smartphone in 1999 when the Blackberry launched and no way kickstarted the push for smartphones into every user's hands in 2007. It's amazing that we even know the name Apple today... seeing as how they weren't first and all.
Actually, no.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
It was strategic planning to not include a marketing buzzword into their phones that wouldn't be of much use to all but a few users and be a power hungry detriment to all. The first 5G chips weren't good, but that can be said about all the early gen cellular chips. This is to be expected which is why it didn't make sense for any reasonable company to jump on the early chipsets.
It was about far more than power usage!
Why did they include an off-SoC, older (and more power hungry) modem instead of waiting? Assuming that power consumption was so important to them?
The first Qualcomm 5G modem was announced in 2016 (X50l
The X55 was announced in February 2019 and was only its second generation effort.
So much for waiting.
Did they make a big deal about that during the presentation? No! The focus was on speed and that buzzword: 5G.
At the same time as Apple released the iPhone 12, Huawei had on-SoC 5G modems yet no one was complaining about them being power hungry. They were NSA/SA capable too.
And as for buzzwords, they are what drive everything. It's why Applebhad 'Bionic' chips and a 'Dynamic Island' and every presentation is chock full of buzzwords.
No prizes for guessing what will be the star of WWDC this year and you can bet buzzwords will be the order of the day.
1) Do you get paid every time you mention Huawei in a post?
2) Power usage and was an issue, which has been posted already,.
3) Calling their SoC an A11 Bionic is branding, not a buzzword. You ask 10 out of 10 people what Bionic offers Apple's SoC over Fusion, or even which came first and you'll get a blank stare. These may as well be internal chip names. Not a single a person is buying an iPhone or iPad because it has the word Bionic on a spec sheet for the SoC. 5G will trick users, which is why AT&T was based for sing "5G" in a very sleazy way even though technically many things can be deemed the 5th generation of a thing and therefore it's practically arbitrary unless the parameters are set as to what is being discussed.
1. No.
Would you rather I spoke of Mediatek of which I don't know too much?
For mobile 5G modems it was basically Qualcomm, Huawei or Mediatek.
2. How was power usage an issue if they chose Qualcomm's older modem and used it off-SoC (adding to inefficiencies)?
Clearly it wasn't an issue (or enough of an issue to be concerned with) for them to run with that modem - in spite of being able to wait for buzzword compliance (tick that 5G box!) at a later date, sit back and use the X60 (with the gains that would bring, and get it on-SoC).
En fin. Unless of course they had other more pressing reasons, like having a 'Yikes!' moment because of that strategic goof and absolutely needing to ship a 5G modem ASAP!
That's what they did.
That's exactly what they did. They went with the 'old' X55 knowing full well that just a few months later the X60 would be shipping on competing phones.
X55, and 'bolted on', but it checked that all important 5G box. Power usage be damned. That was what had to be covered at the time.
Just like it absolutely needs to tick the 'AI checkbox' this year.
3. Branding or Buzzword. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it sticks in the minds of users. They don't have to understand anything about it. There was a time when the branding 'iPhone' was a buzzword!
And having 'Bionic' (or whatever sexy word they can cook up) on the spec sheet absolutely does serve a purpose, even for the average consumer who has no idea if it actually means something or not. It's there for a reason.
The correct usage of '5G' in terminology is clear (very clear) but that won't stop some people from abusing the way they use certain terms.
That is what AT&T did with '5G E'. It was a con. They knew it was a con but wanted to draw attention ('control the narrative' is the term they used). Yes, it was sleazy and the Better Business Bureau (part of ad regulatory body) recomended they stop using the term. That is what they did.
If that had happened in the EU they would have got hit with a hefty fine.
Dodgy marketing is all over the place and Apple itself has been fined numerous times for things like its AppleCare plans in the EU. And Huawei is currently marketing a 'pentacamera' setup for which I wouldn't call one of those cameras a camera.
I think the kickstart of 5G has very little to do with the availability of the handsets, but much more with the global availability with the 5G network infrestructure. Rolling out a nation wide 5G network is much more challenging (and costly) than to integrate a 5G modem of Qualcomm in a phone
Apple sold a lot of iPhones 12 with 5G and that is great for Apple, but this has more to do with the brand name Apple, than with 5G. Apple would have sold roughly the same number of iPhones 12 if the phone did not have 5G.
It only make business sense for the handset manufacturors to add 5G functionality to their handsets if the network coverage of 5G is big enough. And that was in 2020, despite the fact that a some premium Android handsets had 5G in 2019.
Comments
Although, if I were you, I'd pay attention to the unit sales as absolute data. Apple was simply a natural part of it (as stated by Counterpoint).
Yes, there was a steepish climb but that was Apple and pent up demand because a lot of people obviously were interested in 5G. The kickstart was already well underway... via that other 75% for which I've already given you an idea of the actual numbers!
5G modem? Of course it was a strategic goof! A gigantic strategic goof!
They basically had to settle at the doors of the court. A legal battle that had spread across the globe for years at massive cost.
Their Intel plans had completely fallen through. They ended up having to spend over a billion dollars to take on the floundering 5G modem project.
They had no plan B, no alternative and didn't just sit back and say 'hey! Let's go another year without 5G'. That was unthinkable. Can you imagine that scenario?
But what if they lost the Qualcomm battle in court?
They signed a deal with Qualcomm that clearly wasn't in their plans. If it had been in their plans they would have shipped the latest generation QC modem.
What they shipped, and yes, I think it was a major Yikes! moment for them, was the older generation modem and not even on-SoC!
Yet they still dedicated almost the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
An absolutely massive, strategic error.
Sometimes the risks pay off. Sometimes they don't. That's life.
On 5G, things backfired in spectacular fashion and you may try to spin things a different way but you won't find many takers.
Apple Goofed!
And today, in 2024, we are still waiting for an in-house solution.
The two situations are not comparable.
Apple's issues with 5G have nothing to do with being 'first' and everything to do with strategic planning.
Why did they include an off-SoC, older (and more power hungry) modem instead of waiting? Assuming that power consumption was so important to them?
The first Qualcomm 5G modem was announced in 2016 (X50l
The X55 was announced in February 2019 and was only its second generation effort.
So much for waiting.
Did they make a big deal about that during the presentation? No! The focus was on speed and that buzzword: 5G.
At the same time as Apple released the iPhone 12, Huawei had on-SoC 5G modems yet no one was complaining about them being power hungry. They were NSA/SA capable too.
And as for buzzwords, they are what drive everything. It's why Applebhad 'Bionic' chips and a 'Dynamic Island' and every presentation is chock full of buzzwords.
No prizes for guessing what will be the star of WWDC this year and you can bet buzzwords will be the order of the day.
2) Power usage and was an issue, which has been posted already,.
3) Calling their SoC an A11 Bionic is branding, not a buzzword. You ask 10 out of 10 people what Bionic offers Apple's SoC over Fusion, or even which came first and you'll get a blank stare. These may as well be internal chip names. Not a single a person is buying an iPhone or iPad because it has the word Bionic on a spec sheet for the SoC. 5G will trick users, which is why AT&T was based for sing "5G" in a very sleazy way even though technically many things can be deemed the 5th generation of a thing and therefore it's practically arbitrary unless the parameters are set as to what is being discussed.
Apple's gross profit was $105 B in 2020; that $1B was a paper cut.
You sure like to make assumptions in your arguments, none of which you have actually backed up with evidence.
Whatever incremental cost that Apple paid was a rounding error against its revenue, and likely in profits as well, but certainly, not "massive", given the value to Apple of both settling in court, something that would have happened anyway, and entering into place long term licensing and contracts, with extension options thru 2027.
Literally, there was no significant number of iPhone users that switched, and as you state, there was certainly pent up demand in Oct 2020, all of which result in Apple making a full transition to 5G in less than three years. Unlike most other manufacturers, Apple does not make any LTE models today.
Meanwhile, Apple blew past PC manufacturers with the M series, all due to what you consider "risky" decisions that Apple made in 2010 with TSMC.
So far, those decisions have been "massively" beneficial to Apple's growth.
Would you rather I spoke of Mediatek of which I don't know too much?
For mobile 5G modems it was basically Qualcomm, Huawei or Mediatek.
2. How was power usage an issue if they chose Qualcomm's older modem and used it off-SoC (adding to inefficiencies)?
Clearly it wasn't an issue (or enough of an issue to be concerned with) for them to run with that modem - in spite of being able to wait for buzzword compliance (tick that 5G box!) at a later date, sit back and use the X60 (with the gains that would bring, and get it on-SoC).
En fin. Unless of course they had other more pressing reasons, like having a 'Yikes!' moment because of that strategic goof and absolutely needing to ship a 5G modem ASAP!
That's what they did.
That's exactly what they did. They went with the 'old' X55 knowing full well that just a few months later the X60 would be shipping on competing phones.
X55, and 'bolted on', but it checked that all important 5G box. Power usage be damned. That was what had to be covered at the time.
Just like it absolutely needs to tick the 'AI checkbox' this year.
3. Branding or Buzzword. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it sticks in the minds of users. They don't have to understand anything about it. There was a time when the branding 'iPhone' was a buzzword!
And having 'Bionic' (or whatever sexy word they can cook up) on the spec sheet absolutely does serve a purpose, even for the average consumer who has no idea if it actually means something or not. It's there for a reason.
The correct usage of '5G' in terminology is clear (very clear) but that won't stop some people from abusing the way they use certain terms.
That is what AT&T did with '5G E'. It was a con. They knew it was a con but wanted to draw attention ('control the narrative' is the term they used). Yes, it was sleazy and the Better Business Bureau (part of ad regulatory body) recomended they stop using the term. That is what they did.
If that had happened in the EU they would have got hit with a hefty fine.
Dodgy marketing is all over the place and Apple itself has been fined numerous times for things like its AppleCare plans in the EU. And Huawei is currently marketing a 'pentacamera' setup for which I wouldn't call one of those cameras a camera.
That's marketing for you.