canukstorm

TheObannonFile said:

This absolutely makes sense.  Seems like it's been moving this directions for a while.

The new A series in the Pro and Previous A series in the "Regular" has been a stop-gap to a Pro model and regular model of Apple Silicon.

They first did separation with the extra GPU core on the 13 Pro.

Then the put that with the extra GPU in the 14, giving it sill an improved chip, and the new A16 in the 14 Pro.

But now that A17 introduced "Pro", it makes sense to have an A18 and A18 Pro.

This evolution has already been underway.

coolfactor said:

When the hardware already exceeds the needs of 99.9% of the target market, what changes make sense beyond keeping the SoC current? Better than letting it wither on the vine for years.

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. 

kellie said:

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. 

Laroche1982 said:

So, this is essentially an iPad Pro on steroids.