Apple's C1 modem is a quiet game-changer that's mostly flying under the radar
With the launch of iPhone 16e, we also saw the launch of something far more important -- Apple's custom C1 modem. Here's what means and why you should care about it.
The C1 modem debuted in iPhone 16e
To cover the basics, the modem a chip in your phone that connects you to your cell provider. The C1 modem chip is the fruit of Apple Silicon research. It is Apple's first modem that it has created entirely in-house, versus buying off-the-shelf components from Qualcomm.
There's discussion online that Apple's efforts to create their own modem are just a way to stop paying Qualcomm. That may be partially true, but it's got more to do with supply chain control and Apple's future plans.
Technically, even though it's Apple's chip, Apple is still paying licensing fees of some sort. It may phase out Qualcomm's modems, but will still owe royalties for use of the 5G standard.
But now, Apple has control over designing the chips, how they're produced, and exactly what they can do. Plus, Apple is already utilizing this chip in some really unique ways that pays off for you - the user.
Compromises on a first-gen chip
As the first Apple modem, Apple did have to make some compromises. Shortcomings include the lack of support for Wi-Fi 7, as well as no mmWave cellular support.
So far, while the C1 doesn't break any speed records, it's at least as capable as Qualcomm in core 5G performance in early tests.
Apple excels in designing the hardware and software together, down to a chip level
No Wi-Fi 7 may hurt eventually, but it is a brand new standard. Apple appears to be late to the game for supporting new Wi-Fi spec, so with control over the chip, it could speed things along.
I know some may balk at the lack of mmWave, but it's still not commonplace enough to matter for most users. Its inability to go through walls relegates it largely to select outdoor areas in big cities or in stadiums -- at best.
That's likely why the C1 debuted in Apple's iPhone SE successor. If performance isn't up to snuff, it won't be as big of a deal compared to the priority flagships.
Don't let these negatives sour you on Apple's chip, though. It's full of potential.
Future Apple C-series chips and products
The C1 does some cool stuff within your phone that Apple couldn't otherwise do. For example, it can communicate directly with the processor.
iPhone 16e may not have Wi-Fi 7 or mmWave, but it has a few tricks such as amazing battery life
your processor when the network is congested or slow. Then your processor can reply back to the modem with what data should be prioritized.
The result, is even in poor network conditions, your phone feels faster. That's not something a speed test can show readily.
It's that kind of tight integration between hardware and software Apple is known for, and something that gets largely unrecognized.
The same innovation goes for the battery life. The C1 is so power efficient, it gets four more hours of use than the comparable iPhone 16 with its Qualcomm chip.
So with its first try, it has a chip that is comparable to Qualcomm with far better power efficiency and unique chip-level communication. It's great for the iPhone 16e, but could show up in other products too.
Up next, iPhone 17 Air is the most likely contender. Rumors say it will get the C1, while the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max will stick with existing Qualcomm chips.
For example, putting C1 in the iPhone 17 Air makes perfect sense. It's a whole new device with a tiny form factor so battery life will be incredibly important.
Rumored to be under 6mm thick, there's very little internal volume for a large battery. As a result, Apple will have to use smaller battery than others in the lineup.
Thanks to the C1, Apple may be able to match or exceed the other phone's battery lives with such a small chassis -- as it has done with the iPhone 16e.
Looking further into the future, reports say Apple is already hard at work on a C2 and even C3 chip. These are the ones that are more likely to show up future iPhones that improve battery life further, add on mmWave, and go to at least Wi-Fi 7.
Furthermore, a recent report says that Apple is even working on integrating the C-series chips directly into its A and M-series processors. Which means, theoretically, we could finally get cellular Macs.
Inside Apple's chip testing labs. Source: Andru Edwards
Cellular Macs have been a long-time dream for users over the years and while you can use the wireless hotspot on your phone, it isn't the same. Performance isn't as good unless you're tethering with a cable. For better or worse, Apple's C1 in Mac and would allow you to have one data plan for your laptop and a second for your phone.
For example, you could have a Mac on a movie set, or in a street market without needing Wi-Fi or someone's phone to tether to.
A photographer shooting remotely would have a more reliable connection. Why tether from your phone and stay next to your laptop during a photo upload session when the laptop itself could have a self-sustaining cellular connection?
Sources familiar with Apple's plans say that it is currently integrating the modem more tightly with other hardware, for benefits including greater efficiency. I'd love to see inclusion in a Home Hub as part of iCloud+ as a redundancy in case of network outages.
The ability for Apple to add new features, iterate more quickly, improve performance, and allow devices to be thinner and longer lasting sounds amazing. And we're just at the beginning here.
The C1 is an amazing piece of tech and I'm sure we'll eventually look back on this just as we do now to when Apple ditched Power PC for Intel and then Intel for its own chips. It's under-the-radar inclusion on the iPhone 16e is the start of a whole new era for cellular Apple devices.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
I wonder if Apple will buy or build their own fab so that they are both designing and manufacturing their chips. I know what the knee jerk reaction to that suggestion will be, but TSMC margins are steadily going up, which means that's profit Apple is missing out on. Time and time again, we have seen Apple identify suppliers with fat profit margins and then take over that business themselves.
Maybe a way to start could be a joint venture with TSMC or Intel to build an Apple fab in the US. Apple could finance and own the fab and pay their partner some patent licensing and management/operation fees. Eventually Apple could then take over the management and operation.
I've thought about an "iPod Streamer" device. Yes, it is just a small iPhone, but it would be tailored to only streaming Apple Music, Podcasts and TV+. No apps. No web. $200 plus whatever you subscribe to. Just a focused device that is basically an Apple One subscription client. But everyone has a phone, right? No market. People would have to learn to eschew having a phone with them at all times.
iPhone 16e may not have Wi-Fi 7 or mmWave, but it has a few tricks such as amazing battery life
The C1 is so power efficient, it gets four more hours of use than the comparable iPhone 16 with its Qualcomm chip.
Not sure about the basis for the above statements. One can look into the talktime duration of iPhone 16 Vs iPhone 16e against the battery capacity of each phone in the GSMArea battery life test Apple iPhone 16e review: Lab tests - display, battery life, charging speed, speakers. Apple designed C1 modem in iPhone 16e is about 20% inefficient than Qualcomm modem in iPhone 16 as per GSMA tests. It is iPhone 16 which is actually getting 4 more hours of use than iPhone 16e according to their automated battery tests. And that seems the most likely scenario, given that GSMA has observed that Apple has used inferior display as well in iPhone 16e when compared to iPhone 16. Not sure from where the battery life data is coming from for the AppleInsider.
Some reviewers and vloggers have measured bandwidth and power consumption. For those, I think all you can say is that it is about the same iPhone 16, 16 Pro models. Who knows if those tests were actually using the same bands across phones.
”WE NEED ALL OF THE PROFITS!!!”
I remember when Ray and Luke raised a big cheer one day when they got the first character to transfer between two Apple IIs with their networking card.
Apple Australia were enthusiastic. Ray and Luke's next project was to do a modem card. That actually became the basis of NetComm business.
Owen left, and he and I went on to do SNA for Burroughs machines at American Express. However, we did not get funding for that, and I returned to doing work for NetComm, but it was more Macintosh by then in MacApp. So I was one of the first people doing OO, at least in this country. Shame Apple wrecked MacApp with C++.
no. Apple decided to not do that, and they’re right.
While space is a consideration for Macs as their mobos these days are very small, power considerations, latency and other performance issues are just as important, or more so. Modern modems are expensive standalone computers. They are getting close to the size of an SoC. If Apple couldn’t figure out how to integrate into the SoC as Qualcomm’s SoCs are integrated, that would also save money in the packaging. So there would be good reasons to integrate.
People don’t remember that Intel’s modem was about as good as Qualcomm’s modem except in edge cases where Qualcomm’s would get weaker to where it dropped. Intel’s would be about the same but would just drop. That was about the only difference. But it was hyped by “reviewer’s” as being very important, when it was a minor deficiency. Apple dropped it because of the bad publicity. I never found it to be a problem in my iPhone at the time.
i imagine that Apple is very recognizant of that and wouldn’t have released this one if they weren’t confident that performance was pretty much equal to Qualcomm’s. And from Qualcomm’s statements over the last two years of this, they seem to be expressing that Apple’s modems will be competitive. That’s a pretty neutral stance.
I’m not saying Apple would buy Intel fabrication business. Not only am I not saying that, but I’m darn-near positive that Apple would never, lol.
BUT (just to speculate wildly): If Apple did want to get into fabrication (which it doesn’t), there is a quick way to skip all the time consuming parts that you mentioned. It would just require a large sum of money (which Apple has), Intel’s willingness to sell (which it might) and some government approval (since Intel took CHIPS Act money that requires Intel to not sell their fabrication business for some time).
Again, I’m not at all saying this is something that would happen. And it wouldn’t never be as simple as that. Just having fun speculating about something that definitely won’t happen, lol.
at any rate, refusing to cooperate with Apple in making the A series of SoCs because they didn’t believe Apple’s numbers, which they later said were correct, was a reason TSMC has risen, and they have fallen.
i don’t understand why people make these proposals. Years ago it would have been easier. It’s far more difficult now. If they were going to do this they should have started before the first A series was ready, back in 2007. They could have bought a number of state of the art fabs from IBM, AMD and others at the time really cheaply, with a much easier learning curve. It’s too late now.
So impressive how much thought some people put into their super genius comments here at AppleInsider. Very insightful!
It's not but it is a 10-15 year project it isn't instantaneous most short-term thinkers (most people) won't accept that very similar to the Apple Silicon project.
The Next logo can't hide you make it better......
Someone will/has tested it already but the main reason for the existence of C1 and the other variants coming up are for future Apple devices down the road that Apple wants to build without Qualcomm.