ericthehalfbee

spheric said:

9secondkox2 said:

So stupid. There is no antitrust when you have options. Apple provides them in settings. 

Google isn’t the only option. Enabled by default is fine. 

As Microsoft found out both in the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case and the European case, "enabled by default" can absolutely constitute an antitrust issue, because the vast majority of users never ever touch their defaults. 

It's weird how twenty years later, people are still perpetuating weird myths that have long been dispelled by actual (very expensive) court cases. 

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

canukstorm said:

avon b7 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.

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.