Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 8, 2014, 01:15 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Bringing More Chip Development In House




Apple is planning on creating an R&D team to develop baseband chips, which are used to control a device's radio functions like modulation, signal generation and more, for future iPhones in-house, according to a new report from DigiTimes. The baseband chip is separate from the A7 processor, which Apple already designs with an in-house team.
Quote:
Apple reportedly plans to form a R&D team to develop baseband processors for use in iPhones to be released in 2015 and will place the baseband chip orders with Samsung Electronics and Globalfoundries, according to industry sources.
Qualcomm is currently the company that Apple acquires its baseband chips from, although they're produced in mass quantities at Apple manufacturing partner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

Recently, Apple has made moves to bring more chip development in-house, including rumors of an effort to purchase a unit of Renesas Electronics that creates chips for smartphone displays. It also acquired low-power wireless chip provider Passif Semiconductor, whose chips could be used to improve battery life in wearables, like Apple's rumored iWatch.

The moves are a part of Apple's effort to control its own production supplies and core technologies, and include partnerships like Apple's deal with GT Advanced, which will provide the Cupertino company with massive supplies of sapphire displays.

Article Link: Apple Bringing More Chip Development In House
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 01:18 AM   #2
Michaelgtrusa
macrumors 603
 
Michaelgtrusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Everywhere And Nowhere
Where will they make these chips? like Tim said, in terms of made in USA " I think we can do more"
__________________
iMACAll life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
TWITTER TUMBLR
Michaelgtrusa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 01:21 AM   #3
afin
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Midwest USA
Although I love that apple exerts such care and control over their hardware, I do wonder if it's a bit dangerous for them to be investing so heavily in the R/D for such specific components (stretching themselves too thin?). Then again, the hardware software combo is one of their strengths and they should be focusing on it.
afin is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 01:33 AM   #4
businezguy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by afin View Post
Although I love that apple exerts such care and control over their hardware, I do wonder if it's a bit dangerous for them to be investing so heavily in the R/D for such specific components (stretching themselves too thin?). Then again, the hardware software combo is one of their strengths and they should be focusing on it.
I agree there's a bit of a concern here, but I don't know that Apple has a choice. This is more then an attempt at more control. Apple needs to do this to make unique products their competitors can't offer. Are they stretching themselves thin? I think so, but that's what happens when you need to find more growth in a company that has such a high valuation.
businezguy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 01:35 AM   #5
WallToWallMacs
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by afin View Post
Although I love that apple exerts such care and control over their hardware, I do wonder if it's a bit dangerous for them to be investing so heavily in the R/D for such specific components (stretching themselves too thin?). Then again, the hardware software combo is one of their strengths and they should be focusing on it.
Bringing it all in house does bring benefits especially if the can get software based modulation working which means a single product line supporting every frequency imaginable out of the box.
WallToWallMacs is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 02:08 AM   #6
smulji
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by businezguy View Post
I agree there's a bit of a concern here, but I don't know that Apple has a choice. This is more then an attempt at more control. Apple needs to do this to make unique products their competitors can't offer. Are they stretching themselves thin? I think so, but that's what happens when you need to find more growth in a company that has such a high valuation.
On the hardware side, Apple is doing great. It's the software side they've stretched themselves a bit too thin.
smulji is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 02:11 AM   #7
CosmoFox
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by smulji View Post
On the hardware side, Apple is doing great. It's the software side they've stretched themselves a bit too thin.
Um what? Apple is doing well on both ends.
CosmoFox is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 02:49 AM   #8
hchung
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
This article has a blatant error.
Apple did NOT purchase Renesas Electronics.

Aside from that, designing your own baseband? Doesn't seem like a good use of their resources. Didn't pretty much every single phone manufacturer who is/was also a baseband manufacturer end up shipping their highest end phones with Qualcomm basebands?
hchung is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 02:54 AM   #9
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by WallToWallMacs View Post
Bringing it all in house does bring benefits especially if the can get software based modulation working which means a single product line supporting every frequency imaginable out of the box.
An optimized hardware solution is almost always going to be better than a software one, as a general rule.

Apple doesn't have the expertise for this kind of thing, moreover licensing it all will be a nightmare.
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 03:26 AM   #10
Snookerman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
*image of iOS 6 not related*
__________________
15'' MacBook Pro (late 2013), 2.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, GT 750M.
Snookerman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 05:16 AM   #11
mr.bee
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Antwerp, belgium
It would be naive to think there's merely a strategy behind to 'keep things in house'.
I wonder if this chip, or part of this production process might also serve another purpose to create synergy. In another device maybe?
mr.bee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 06:35 AM   #12
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.bee View Post
It would be naive to think there's merely a strategy behind to 'keep things in house'.
I wonder if this chip, or part of this production process might also serve another purpose to create synergy. In another device maybe?
Qualcomm is the standard everyone uses. So by bringing it in-house, they can create their own standard. Another point of separation/differentiation from the rest. On the phone side it seems they have done this at every component.

I remember when they were late to LTE, because they did not think the Qualcomm chip was small enough or energy efficient enough. By controlling the chip they can get ahead of this and maybe integrate into their SoC to gain efficiencies.
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 08:13 AM   #13
businezguy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by smulji View Post
On the hardware side, Apple is doing great. It's the software side they've stretched themselves a bit too thin.
I don't know, I feel they should have offered a larger iPhone screen by now. It looks like we'll finally get one with the iPhone 6.
businezguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 08:35 AM   #14
FatMax
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
The Qualcomm chips they use, together with the screen, is by far the most power hungry part of the iPhone especially. Maybe they are trying to reduce that power usage by doing this.
FatMax is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 09:19 AM   #15
iTycho
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by businezguy View Post
I agree there's a bit of a concern here, but I don't know that Apple has a choice. This is more then an attempt at more control. Apple needs to do this to make unique products their competitors can't offer. Are they stretching themselves thin? I think so, but that's what happens when you need to find more growth in a company that has such a high valuation.
Lol @ "stretching themselves thin". For serious; I don't think you know what that phrase means!!! I'm pretty sure it refers to leaving yourself as a company with a lack of either employees or money, as either get diverted to a different area or areas.
Umm.... Apple has over 80,000 full-time employees & over $160 billion in cash.
How in the wildest stretch of imagination putting a team of a dozen engineers at most to work on a project that can only improve reception & battery life would somehow be a detriment to the company is beyond me...
Perhaps one of you posters that are so "worried" can explain to me wtf you're talking about?
iTycho is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 09:44 AM   #16
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
Qualcomm is the standard everyone uses. So by bringing it in-house, they can create their own standard. Another point of separation/differentiation from the rest. On the phone side it seems they have done this at every component.
Qualcomm is the standard because they own some major patents.

Currently, Apple pays Qualcomm between $16 - $30 for broadband chips, PLUS another ~3.2% of the cost of each iPhone from Foxconn... about $8... for license fees.

Apple might be able to save money on the silicon, but the license fees would be at least the same, and actually probably go UP since there'd be no discount for also buying the chip.

Quote:
I remember when they were late to LTE, because they did not think the Qualcomm chip was small enough or energy efficient enough. By controlling the chip they can get ahead of this and maybe integrate into their SoC to gain efficiencies.
Apple was late to LTE for the same reason they didn't include 3G in the first iPhone: they wanted to keep their build costs down. Nothing changed as far as power requirements in between.
kdarling is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 09:46 AM   #17
businezguy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTycho View Post
Lol @ "stretching themselves thin". For serious; I don't think you know what that phrase means!!! I'm pretty sure it refers to leaving yourself as a company with a lack of either employees or money, as either get diverted to a different area or areas.
Umm.... Apple has over 80,000 full-time employees & over $160 billion in cash.
How in the wildest stretch of imagination putting a team of a dozen engineers at most to work on a project that can only improve reception & battery life would somehow be a detriment to the company is beyond me...
Perhaps one of you posters that are so "worried" can explain to me wtf you're talking about?
Yeah? How many of those employees work in retail stores. How many of those employees are qualified engineers who can work on this problem to begin with? Obviously we aren't discussing money here so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up.

I think the problem is there are only so many talented engineers to go around.
businezguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 12:40 PM   #18
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Apple was late to LTE for the same reason they didn't include 3G in the first iPhone: they wanted to keep their build costs down. Nothing changed as far as power requirements in between.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time of creating the iPhone 4, there was no single chip radio solution for normal 2G/3G and LTE. The thunderbolt had multiple chips. So yes, it kept build costs down, but it also simplified the PCB and kept it smaller and saved on power consumption. It wasn't only cost.
__________________
Read my Apple A8, iPhone 6 preview and prediction thread here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1770411
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 06:13 PM   #19
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
... By controlling the chip they can get ahead of this and maybe integrate into their SoC to gain efficiencies.
Possibly... or it's possible the opposite may be occuring. That is, Qualcomm maybe working on integrating their baseband products closer to Snapdragon, to differentiate itself over it's competitors. And if this is the direction it's going then Apple may need plan ahead by building their own.
paul4339 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 07:14 PM   #20
tdtran1025
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
A team of 10, 15 people at a cost of roughly $5 million/year to control timing and production cycle is not a bad thing. To rely on someone else for something easy as the radio baseband is never a good thing considering what they have accomplished with the A7 chip. It hampers their ability to create certain market niche, such as China.
Next product with in-house chip design might be the MBA in 2015.
tdtran1025 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 08:01 PM   #21
MattInOz
macrumors 68030
 
MattInOz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul4339 View Post
Possibly... or it's possible the opposite may be occuring. That is, Qualcomm maybe working on integrating their baseband products closer to Snapdragon, to differentiate itself over it's competitors. And if this is the direction it's going then Apple may need plan ahead by building their own.
I wonder if Apple will build full baseband or just common baseband?
They could build all the basic fallback standards for LTE then they could limit second chip to just covering local standards.

Wasn't there an Apple patent of a microslot antennas using micro channels in the casing?
apples-microslot-antennas-are-invisible-to-the-naked-eye-could-see-use-in-future-iphones

I wonder if part of this more is to better interface with a new antenna design.
__________________
There is no such thing as "Collective Wisdom"
[ iPhone 5s, iPad Mini, 13" MacBookPro 2.7Ghz, 27"Al iMac i7, Black MacBook 13"]
MattInOz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 09:06 PM   #22
usarioclave
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
The problem with Apple's approach is interoperability. When a qualcomm chip goes through testing, it's a known quantity that's used by lots and lots of people. If Apple goes its own way it loses that base of testers and troubleshooters.

That would have caused problems back in the day, when iPhones apparently had some incorrect settings. That sort of debugging would be really difficult if Apple went its own way. With a Qualcomm chip, you can at least say that it's not the chip because other people's phones work fine. With Apple having its own chip, you're SOL when it comes to knowing what the issue is.
usarioclave is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2014, 09:53 PM   #23
dumastudetto
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
This is great news for consumers. It proves Apple is committed to bringing us even greater coupling of hardware and software for the best product experiences. I'm excited to see these new technologies in the next generation iPhone and iPad.
dumastudetto is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 12:41 PM   #24
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdtran1025 View Post
A team of 10, 15 people at a cost of roughly $5 million/year to control timing and production cycle is not a bad thing.
If Apple can have a team of only 10 or 15 people develop and test a chip that takes hundreds of engineers in other companies, it should definitely do it.
theBB is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 12:47 PM   #25
iTycho
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by businezguy View Post
Yeah? How many of those employees work in retail stores. How many of those employees are qualified engineers who can work on this problem to begin with? Obviously we aren't discussing money here so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up.

I think the problem is there are only so many talented engineers to go around.
Wow...
That didn't take long. Today news breaks that *wait for it.......* Apple is hiring NEW employees to work on this baseband chip!!!!

I guess you'll have to find something else to cry & mope about and get all doomsday with. Cheers.
iTycho is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple's Recent Hires from Broadcom Boost Rumors of In-House Baseband Chip Development MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 58 Apr 20, 2014 07:51 PM
More Claims of Samsung Being Cut Out of Apple's A7 Chip Development MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 165 Jul 12, 2013 02:24 AM
HBO Moved Development In-House to Speed Apple TV Project MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 90 Jun 27, 2013 07:02 PM
iPhone: Does Apple have any intention of bringing public transit information to Apple Maps? petrucci666 iOS 6 7 Feb 20, 2013 05:46 AM
Overview of Apple's A6 Chip Development and Future Plans MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 162 Sep 20, 2012 03:41 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC