Youtube is not a good source, just saying...
Intel modems had bugs on the latest iPhones, they quickly got resolved, yes, Intel modems are not as good as QC, but it close.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Acquiring the Majority of Intel's Smartphone Modem Business
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Youtube is not a good source, just saying...
Intel modems had bugs on the latest iPhones, they quickly got resolved, yes, Intel modems are not as good as QC, but it close.
You can’t compare two different chips in two different phones!
The internal antennas are designed differently, even the software is.
When you compare the two chips in the same phone - say an iPhone 8 - then you can start posting facts!
Somehow I look at this acquisition with a different angle based on facts:
- Intel 4G chips were only used by Apple... implies:
* Apple knows their business very well
* Intel could not guarantee availability of future chips for Apple
That's an interesting one, since if you're hiring the same team, how can you speed up schedule?
Was it just a management issue? Or employee's work ethics?
Either way, I see layoffs in that team!
- Intel chips did not support CDMA
This is a big one for the short-term. Verizon and Sprint are the only reason to have CDMA on the chip
Hence:
* The agreement with Qualcomm to supply Apple with CDMA chips
* I sincerely think Apple was in the know with todays news that the DOJ is agreeing to the T-Mobile-Sprint merger.
I see T-Mobile getting rid of the CDMA network and moving all Sprint customers to GSM. That was probably a big reason why Apple went for Intel's business
* That leaves Verizon which has already stated they will do only voice over LTE in the future which means Verizon will ditch CDMA too.
At that point in the future (3 years, 5 years??), the US will be like the rest of the world, on GSM and LTE 4G/5G.
Now it makes sense to get Intel chips business despite its shortcomings...
- Intel 4G chips were only used by Apple... implies:
* Apple knows their business very well
* Intel could not guarantee availability of future chips for Apple
That's an interesting one, since if you're hiring the same team, how can you speed up schedule?
Was it just a management issue? Or employee's work ethics?
Either way, I see layoffs in that team!
- Intel chips did not support CDMA
This is a big one for the short-term. Verizon and Sprint are the only reason to have CDMA on the chip
Hence:
* The agreement with Qualcomm to supply Apple with CDMA chips
* I sincerely think Apple was in the know with todays news that the DOJ is agreeing to the T-Mobile-Sprint merger.
I see T-Mobile getting rid of the CDMA network and moving all Sprint customers to GSM. That was probably a big reason why Apple went for Intel's business
* That leaves Verizon which has already stated they will do only voice over LTE in the future which means Verizon will ditch CDMA too.
At that point in the future (3 years, 5 years??), the US will be like the rest of the world, on GSM and LTE 4G/5G.
Now it makes sense to get Intel chips business despite its shortcomings...
... YouTube is a fantastic source. I work with thousands of employees who have iPhones and help manage them. Like I said, hopefully Apple can fix them up. Right now they are sub-par at best.
This is it, IMO!
Apple had to find a balance while they prepare to go independent.
Vertical integration is incredibly crucial in this industry it seems, unlike the PC business, the Smartphone business has more “Frenemies” than long term business partners. At any given point your current partner may decide to become a competitor overnight, lol. Google was once a great partner to Apple then almost overnight BOOM there was Android and suddenly the partner was a huge competitor!
It’s every man for themselves in Mobile, and the bigger you get the more you need to start making your own Hardware, Software and Services to stay relevant.
The more stuff Apple can do internally, the more they can work at their own development pace, the more they will be able to stay competitive and possibly innovative.
One just has to look at where they took their SoCs to once they began developing them themselves, the A12 Bionic and A12X are still the benchmark nearly a year later, watch them do the same with this modem business.
This is a great move for them.
Seems like your view differs from mine, there's a lot of trashing on youtube, fact.
I know a few good channels, lots of trolls, like that guy that bends the iPhone 6, just because of one guy the iP 6 sucks, haha.
56K is way too 90s. Remember the days were 9600 Hayes modems were for “pros” ?
YouTube also says the earth is flat and Robert mueller is a lizard person. Not a good source.
[doublepost=1564165601][/doublepost]
I had a 300 baud Hayes. 1200 was a fantastic step up. “ATDT7836765”
No. Not at all laughing. They were bleeding cash and had to stop loosing money. Apple as the sole bidder got away with a great deal.
Did you just... erm.. did you just generalize all of YouTube as flat-earthers? That's like saying Wikipedia is a terrible source, because there might be a couple entries that are incorrect.
That's a big yikes, buddy.
That some code they have will not and cannot be used.
They will need to continue a clean room approach for design and validation or Qualcomm will own them for years to come.
And where did I say Apple claimed they didn't owe royalties? You're making up statements I've never said and then arguing against them.
How did I imply that? Again, more strawman arguments from you.
Apple and Qualcomm were involved in a public dispute about who owed what, and both sides exaggerated their cases, including Apple's claims of Qualcomm's unscrupulous practices including witness tampering.
And you have no idea what the original licensing terms were so you're using one site of reported facts against what you're fabricating the original licensing arrangement to be.
I have lots of facts yet you insist on willfully ignoring them and supplying your own imaginary data points instead.
CDMA is already dead on Verizon.
You phone must support VoLTE to be activated today. CDMA only phones are no longer allowed.
My take is they paid too much, unless it was for the portfolio. The 2000 people they got was Intel cutting staff. You don't need 2000 people to design a modem. You need about 25% assuming the DSP modeling, architecture, design, verification and validation. I see massive layoffs coming.
I design and have designed chips for 30 years.
2000 people is why is was never done correctly.
Also Intel's design methodology is lacking. That's being nice.
[doublepost=1564170462][/doublepost]
Doing an ARM processor and a 5G modem are different.
With ARM they had/have access to a compatibility suite. They also have access to software and System C models for compatibility and validation. You must run the ARM compatibility suite. So while they have a custom architecture it is still ARM.
The modem and DSP algorithms must be developed from scratch. While the standard is published there's no canned recipe for implementation.
They have a lot of catch up to do. It will take until 2023, at least, until you see an Apple modem in an Apple phone.
It isn't as bad as some say, those people might have a (partly) faulty phone, bad antenna, tin foil around the phone..(JK).
I know it's not as good as the qualcomm modem (Not a huge difference), but not crap as some say here.
There was a comparison test with a Galaxy, Intel wasn't far off.
Well I tested my iPhone 6S today walking the dog streaming the radio, like I do with my XR, and it EASILY out performed the XR on reception..
And my XR is not faulty, it is the Intel modem as a fact is not as good as the Qualcomm one.. it is as rubbish as people say.
What a straw man, dude. Where did I generalize all of YouTube as flat-earthers?
And, yes, Wikipedia is a terrible source. That's why they teach you in school not to cite it.
You said:
You want to clarify what you actually meant by the "they went from paying $0 in the billions" comment?
I see. So you want to claim Qualcomm was "exaggerating" how much Apple owed them so you can then later claim that what Apple paid them wasn't actually LESS than they owed?
What does accusations of witness tampering have to do with the fact Qualcomm settled and Apple paid less than what Qualcomm wanted? Try and stay on topic here.
I'm only posting facts as stated by either Qualcomm or Apple. I don't need to know detailed licensing terms if Qualcomm has provided a "grand total" summary of what Apple owed. Nor do I need to know licensing terms to see what Qualcomms own earnings report states as revenue.
Lots of facts. Then where are they? I haven't seen any yet.
Biiiig yikes.
You must be pretty old then. Most schools allow Wiki to be cited now as most of it is factual. There are actual people (and bots) scanning it for accuracy/inaccuracies. One of the best sources now. As with YouTube. Get with the times!
https://fortune.com/2017/04/28/apple-iphone-royalties-qualcomm/
I see you want to invent motivations for what people say so you can then argue against those imagined motivations rather than arguing against the matter at hand.
It was an example of what feuding billion-dollar companies will say in public in attempts to get leverage over the other. Like how Apple publicly understated how much they contractually owed Qualcomm, and how Qualcomm publicly overstated how much Apple owes them.
It's hard to see the forest when you can't see past your own imagined trees.
I asked for you to explain what YOU meant, not post a link to information I already knew (and even mentioned).
Pretty clear you're not hear to actually discuss facts, but to waste peoples time with your circular arguments. Not going down that hole with you. So sorry Apple upsets you so much that you have to argue against them any chance you get.
I posted precisely what I meant - that Apple was paying $0 in royalties to Qualcomm. Sorry I wasn't able to address what you thought I meant. Since you're the one who formulated an imaginary subplot behind what was a straightforward comment perhaps you're the one best equipped to answer what YOU meant by it.
I graciously accept your concession speech.
That’s funny as in both Canada and in USA many cell telcos have family sharing plans or share your data plans. I figure since Apple has Watch with LTE and millions of uses within such country already sharing data on 1 contract between the two ... a third will work. Remember, wifi on both laptop and iPhone drásticos will reduce battery life on both; iPhone considerably as not many of the Plus/Max models. Tethering via USB/USB-C is best to keep battery life on iPhones when used as a modem but the laptop will be taxed. Investing the modem will save the laptop significant power when modem within is used. You’ve read yesterday why Apple is buying Intel modem business right? Integration on silicon!!
Apple wasn’t buying beats; they were buying Iovine and his connections with the music industry.
I view modem engineering and patents as directly-applicable to their core business (selling iPhones) than an accessories manufacturer. Every iPhone comes with a modem, but not a Beats headphone. 1 billion paid for an essential component vs 3 billion paid for an optional, extra component.
What's the ROI on Beats? Apple's recent financial statement does not list Beats, just a general "Wearables, Home and Accessories" line. Their 2018 10-K has a line for "Other Products" that includes "sales of AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod, iPod touch and other Apple-branded and third- party accessories." but nothing specifically for Beats. Anything I'm missing on their investor relations page?
Last edited: