avon b7

AppleZulu said:

All the hand-wringing about Apple being late to the AI party is predictably nonsensical. 

The key premise at the root of this lament is that the competition is delivering world changing AI products and features while Apple flounders. Poppycock. The reality is that, across the board, AI is a half-baked, overhyped hot mess. 

To the extent that it could be unusual that Apple’s marketing folks were allowed to rebrand the existing machine learning pipeline as Apple Intelligence, the rest of the story is following a familiar pattern. Others hit the market first with a New Big Thing that’s hyped to be great, but is, in reality, unfinished and poorly implemented. Meanwhile, Apple hangs back and really works on it. Pundits declare Apple to be doomed and call for Tim Cook’s resignation, because, you know, he’s no Steve Jobs. 

Eventually, if the New Big Thing was even a thing, Apple rolls out with an implementation that comes with a twist that makes it somehow… different. Apple makes a big introduction, and the pundits receive it skeptically. It’s too little, too late, they say, and Apple will never catch up. 

But then there’s a slow burn. The twist that made it different turns out to be the thing that consumers find indispensable. Then while the pundits aren’t looking, Apple’s take becomes the obvious implementation that everybody wants, and the competition has to try to replicate it. 

Finally, the Apple version retroactively becomes an instant success, and there was actually no party before Apple showed up. The pundits pretend this was always a foregone conclusion and forget what they said before. They’ve moved on anyway. 

The pundits are now focused on decrying Apple’s annual updates to the instant success as too-slow incrementalism. Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs, after all. Didn’t Jobs launch a new, instantly successful category killer product like every six months? Also, there’s this new New Big Thing that the other companies are doing, and Apple is lagging so far behind that they’re doomed. Tim Cook should resign. He’s no Steve Jobs. 

If that were the case, Apple would have sat back and continued its refusal to even pronounce the letters 'AI'. 

It didn't and for good reason. Not only did it not do that, but it chose to 'talk it up', promise features, but 'later' and then not hit the mark with what it managed to ship.

You are free to describe the current state of AI how you please but one thing is unquestionable: the buzz around AI hasn't died down. The opposite is true.

That means, whatever its state, people are using it and getting results. Results they are perfectly happy with. Drawbacks included.

That is why Apple couldn't wait a few years to deliver its own take.

There are hundreds of LLMs out there doing amazing things.

I'm very happy with Perplexity Pro and get results I could never get from something like Siri.

Now 'Manus' is getting all the news and proving useful:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/03/11/1113133/manus-ai-review/

Just one of many popping up all over the place. 

This an area where you have to be 'all in' across the board.

Having a central control panel is standard but by no means the only option. 

Any authorised account/device should be able to interact with the (smart) home. 

Anything with input capability (voice, gesture, touch...) should seamlessly and instantly have its credentials validated and be part of the control system. 

In some cases, devices might need distributed authentication to be able to carry out certain tasks.

Then there is the sensor side which will feed data back to the system. mmWave fall detection, breathing detection, object detection/distinction, heat, smoke, air quality etc. 

To glue it all together on the communication side there are FTTR and mesh solutions tied together by software. 

Of course, things like domestic robots (from vacuum cleaners to potentially humanoid robots) will require secure IoT chipsets and other security elements. 

If all these pieces can be laid out and work seamlessly together over robust connections then it's a potentially huge revenue stream. 

If they can convince housing developers to build the system into new projects, even better. 

All of the above is already being rolled out by competitors so it won't be easy by any stretch but like I said, if you go 'all in' it could be worth it. 

9secondkox2 said:

Apple’s 5G effort won’t get a ton better due to the patents already locked up for doing thing in a more straightforward way. Apple’s modem is a workaround for now. 

Where we will see them move ahead is in the 6g arena, which they’ve been developing for years. As it is, historically with modem speed standards, 6g is due any second now. 

6G won't be here until 2030 at the least.

5.5G was being pushed at MWC this week with some ICT solutions already deployed in China. Industrial and consumer solutions are also being prepared. 

Apple had zero interest in homegrown cellular solutions until Intel failed to deliver a product on time. It just wasn't on their roadmap. 

It takes around a decade of R&D to reach a new generation of cellular connectivity (even if actual roll outs are getting faster). As an example, 5G development began in 2019.

Here is some speculation on my part:

Apple will likely remain behind the competition until it starts actually producing ICT infrastructure (possibly never).

That is because it is very hard to conceive Apple being able to fully take advantage of a cellular connection if it isn't actually involved in making the hardware that cellular modems connect to, and 6G is going to have a very high algorithmic load with AI squeezing every last drop out of the standard.

There will be a 'standard' and there will be interoperability of course but, while Apple will have a greater say in the standard itself (more than at any previous time), it is unlikely to submit as much as the established players which have decades of know-how and sway within the industry.

I don't know, but it certainly looks like Apple won't contribute as much fundamental research as others. That is logical to a point because Apple has mainly been a CE company so applied research makes more sense.

As an off-the-top-of-my-head example, much has been said about graphene in technology but moving from a theoretical application to an applied application can sometimes require major research initiatives. 

Apple has just announced its use in its phones (graphene film in 2024 I believe) but Huawei was implementing graphene film in phones way back in 2018.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/huaweis-graphene-conduction-cooling-from-the-lab-to-your-pocket

Years before that, Huawei had to research and develop its own method to layering graphene and I know for sure that it patented the solution (along with joint patents from partners including universities). It may be that Apple is licencing graphene patents from Huawei and implementing ideas for the use of graphene film. 

Huawei did the same with polar codes (Shannon's limit) in 5G. It developed the solution and got in included in the standard. 

It is doing similar fundamental research for 6G.

Apple is definitely making efforts to contribute to the 6G standards, and it is also going to receive geopolitical assistance, but does it have the same know-how and engineering capacity as the industry stalwarts? Let's not forget that Apple has been actively hiring for talent in this area (in addition to what it got through the Intel deal) but it's all relatively recent for them.

Could it have pulled off something like the Shannon's limit achievement? I doubt it. That required hundreds of scientists, mathematicians and years of investigation to finally bring a workable solution to market.

It is unlikely for the simple reason, as mentioned before, that Apple is a CE company at heart. It hasn't wanted or even needed to worry about those longstanding problems (some of which went unsolved for decades because they were very tough nuts to crack).

If it weren't for Intel falling flat Apple wouldn't be doing much at all with 6G research. Better to let others do the heavy lifting and licence the results. It makes sense in part.

Personally however, I've always thought the best route would be to carry out research into those fundamental areas so I think it is the right strategic path in this case, even if there is really no right or wrong approach (as long as it is part of your strategy). That is where Apple slipped. It made some strategic mistakes. 

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

ApplePoor said:

Apple's goal is complete vertical integration. Best example is Ford's Rouge Plant in Detroit where the iron ore from the far end of Lake Superior arrived by ship arrived at one end of the plant and a finished vehicle came out the other end. Little outside products are used to make the finished product.

So Apple is tooling up to make their own modems (which may also be used elsewhere like in their future computers and iPads) and their own versions of the Bluetooth and WiFi chips. Their economies of scale production would increase their new profits over time by not paying others to build the same products.

Complete vertical integration is impossible and wholly undesirable. Apple doesn't have the capacity to produce everything. 

Apple is trying to reduce dependencies in some key areas and strategically that makes sense.

Producing a homegrown modem is a good example but let's not forget that it wasn't part of the plan. It was an external failure (Intel). 

It looks like the C1 is a 5G modem but 5.5G is already rolling out and 5.5G capable modems are rumoured to be shipping soon. 

The rumoured Wi-Fi chipset may be another example of a homegrown effort but Broadcom will probably be playing a part in that. 

In either case, they still have to pay Qualcomm, Huawei et al for patent related questions. 

You’re right about Apple not planning to make their own modems. But with Intel having some problems and Apple deciding the bad publicity from using them wasn’t worth it, they likely sighed and said that “We might as well make our own.”. Being that they had lots of experience with complex chips. They probably thought that it wouldn’t be THAT hard. Ten, fifteen years ago, that would have been true, but today’s modems (transceivers) are far more complex. There’s no real question as to whether Apple;s modems will be fully competitive. They’ve got lots of their own patents and they’re getting more daily. All modem manufacturers license from each other. They will be licensing from Apple too.

Apple only has a small fraction of 5G patents, most of which were acquired with the Intel deal. 

Huawei charges a flat fee device charge of $2.50 for 5G and $1.50 for 4G for $0.50c for Wi-Fi 6. For IoT there are different classes but it's around $0.75c. I have no idea what Qualcomm is charging Apple.

Huawei licenced it SEP patents to Apple in 2015. 

There is no way Apple will catch Huawei, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung etc because they aren't in the same core business (Apple isn't making ICT infrastructure).

Huawei is also using its accumulated know-how (has been for years now) to give it an edge. Way back in 2017 they were comparing things like cell tower hand overs at high speed to that of Apple devices, or the ability to retain a signal in problematic scenarios like tunnels under rivers. More recently (last couple of years) we have seen their phones doing high orbit voice calling (something that Apple claimed was challenging). 

Then is their experience in things like metamaterials, MIMO, beam forming and AI for signal stability etc

No matter what patents Apple get, they still have to end up being accepted by standards bodies. Apple has a seat at the table now but that will be for 6G - not 5G.

I know that Apple is working on a research project in Europe with Huawei and others on 6G network sensing. If all goes well, 6G should be here around 2030. Network sensing is going to be an important part of 6G and I believe Huawei has been demoing its advances at MWC this week (in a smart home setting). 

The last time I read anything about Huawei/Apple cross-licencing was a few years ago when it was rumoured that Apple was licencing almost 800 patents from Huawei while Huawei was licencing around 40 from Apple. 

Xed said:

MplsP said:

Xed said:

welshdog said:

y2an said:

As I expected, much improved repairability. And actually, that’s not because it was designed specifically for repairability rather it’s because it was designed for manufacturability. Apple’s goal is now to be able to transfer manufacturing quickly between countries which means assembly skills have to be simplified.

I feel that if repairability and recyclability were required by law, it would be easier for everyone - companies and consumers alike. It is irrelevant that such constraints might have an effect on the design of the products. Designers egos and human tech infatuation are not valid reasons to make products that waste resources. I hope Apple, for what ever reason, continues to move in this direction of lower waste product lifespans for their products.

What about the waste that comes from building to the lowest common denominator? How do you build a modern smartphone that has to be designed so that anyone can repair it? If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?

I used to repair iPhones a lot and it wasn't a big deal for me, but that was before they had IP68 ratings. After that they did become more problematic. I did it because of my "tech infatuation," as you call it, which is also why I rad this article and watched the teardown. I don't think it's "tech infatuation" to want the best device possible and not expecting everything made by a company to be repairable by the customer. Does that also mean AirPods Pros can have batteries users can replace? How exactly would that work?

Not sure what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' but you seem to be using a straw man argument to make your claim. No one says that everyone should be able to fix an iPhone but we've seen designs in the past that required disconnecting the logic board to replace the battery. How about the Magic Mouse (apart from the incredibly stupid decision to put the charging port on the bottom.) The entire assembly is glued together making battery replacement next to impossible. Design decisions like these are completely unnecessary and more a sign of laziness than anything else.

Considering that I replied to a comment that stated "easier for everyone" it should be clear to you why I used the phrasing that I did. And if you then read another sentence further you'd see that I very clearly wrote, "If not everyone, then where do you draw the line?" So where do you draw the line?

You can wish that Apple made products easier to repair, but you haven't stated anything that is useful to them or to the consumer to make this possible. Again I'll ask how you would design AirPods to make their batteries user replaceable?

The bottom line is that you can't have progress if you want want to enact laws that requires Apple to make all these components user replaceable. It just can't happen. You can want this to be how the technology evolves — I certainly do — but making pie eyed comments about how great it would be to replace, say, the camera model on the iPhone 17 like it was on the original iPhone is meaningless techjackulation. When you consider waste you need to consider more than just what suits your particular needs.

At one point people expected transistors to be user replaceable, but that day is long past. Components will get smaller and more integrated which will affect the repairability of individual components, but this will also lead to opportunities for certain other components to be more repairable just as we've sene in the few years, but this is not by any means a set cadence for progress.

PS: LCD refers to the lowest level of a consumer group.

'Design for repair' is already coming and Apple is well aware of it because it has been part of the EU consultation process.

Apple has been part of the problem and infamously anti-repair. To the point of parts-pairing where users have no say. In that respect it should not be up to Apple to decide what out of warranty repair components are 'authorized' . That should be in the hands of the user.

Faulty keyboards should never have led to $700 repairs which required replacing the top case and battery. The change that led to a single failed component shorting the entire motherboard should never have happened. 

AirPods batteries should be user replaceable and may well be in the future due to new EU legislation. Some earpod style batteries are already user replaceable:

"If you feel like your Fairbuds aren't staying alive as long as they did before, it’s highly likely they’re due for a battery replacement. Like all batteries, your Fairbuds batteries will also slowly deplete over time with every charge cycle. With other wireless earbuds, this is usually where you would be forced to say goodbye to them and shop for new earbuds altogether. We do things differently at Fairphone. Our modular design allows you to swap in new batteries by yourself at home at a fraction of the cost of a new set of earbuds. With this replacement kit, you get two batteries, one for each earbud. Why two? Well, because both your originals would deplete simultaneously in most cases, and hence, would require a simultaneous swap out. You also get two new silicone rings, as your older ones would be due for an upgrade as well with continuous wear-and-tear. With the new rings, you can be assured of a tight fit and optimum performance, just like when they were new!"

https://shop.fairphone.com/shop/fairbuds-earbuds-battery-kit-414