Yeah, like they need another hole for FaceID.Maybe even for the iPhone 17e Mini
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 Already Testing a C2 Modem for iPhones, According to Leaker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To me apple has never been about being the fastest, but the most efficient. That’s how they described the M1 chip when it first came out. So these cellular modem chips won’t be the fastest, they just need to be fast enough while being efficient.
I don't agree.
Intel had decades to produce low power high performance CPUs. Apple got tired of waiting, so they developed their own (the A & M series we see in iPhones, iPads, laptops, and desktops) with new concepts that eclipsed Intel and their so-called decades of experience.
So, what that Qualcomm, Huawei or MediaTek have had years/decades to do whatever they are doing. The C series of modems might just rival the other modems, just like Apple's A & M series CPUs did to Intel.
P.S. Also think of SpaceX and how they have rivaled the so-called "experts with decades of experience" Boeing, Lockheed, etc.
Much more likely when they only have to pay for the silicone, and not a comparatively high charge for licensing.
Somewhere along the line in the past 20 years Mac / Apple site started to become a Tech site with all sort of WRONG information which leads to its reader misinformed.
And for once the Macrumors comment got it right. They have been calling for it to be corrected. but this time it is MR itself who refuse to do so.
A modem first and foremost, is to establish and maintain connectivity to the internet and make/receive phone calls. Speed is always the second priority. A slow but reliable modem would easily beat a fast but unreliable modem any day.
I am planning to get this fall's iPhone (from 12PM) so I am curious if they will stick the C1 in it or stick with Qualcom.
The C2 is likely capable of at least Qualcomm Snapdragon X80 performance but at much lower cost, since it doesn't have to be a "univesal" radio modem chip.
likely? Not.
" ... He said the second modem will achieve theoretical download speeds of up to 6 Gbps, compared to up to 4 Gbps for Apple's first modem. He also alluded to Apple's wish for its third-generation modem to surpass Qualcomm's modems in terms of performance and AI features in 2027. ... "
Report: Apple's C1 Is Just the Beginning of Modem Changes
Apple plans to move away from Qualcomm modems in the Apple Watch while bolstering its new in-house alternatives, according to The Information's...
www.macrumors.com
Even that "surpass Qualcomm's modems" likely talking about Qualcomm's current stuff. Apple will catch up to what they are (likely) skipping. In two years, the x80 won't be the fastest , best thing that Qualcomm has. It isn't like the Intel CPU-iGPU situation where they were 'stuck in the mud' as Apple whizzed by. Qualcomm is making incremental progress already. They've already shipped adaptive heuristics modems to get better performance.
Apple's terminology of fastest modem in an iPhone when iPhones have stopped following the Qualcomm modem progression is an issue. If iPhone 17 comes with x71 modems again ... this is bit like Apple's comparisons of the MP 2019 verus MP 2023. There is a 4 year, 'rip van winkle' gap there too where didn't do anything and skipped possible upgrades.
"lower cost" is a bit of a stretch also. There are large validation and R&D expenses for these modems. Apple paid $1B and basically go no revenue for 4-5 years. Paid the interest on that in this "much lower cost" ? Certainly did not return the principal.
The modem has to interoperatable with 100+ countries and equally wide set of disperate carriers. All have their own small variances. It does have to be "universal" in that sense. The interface to the outside world much bigger hassle than the intra-device interface between CPU/SoC and the modem.
P.S. x80 is at 10 Gbps (peak).
List of Qualcomm Snapdragon modems - Wikipedia
C-series progressing from 4 to 6 to 10 wouldn't be surprising. I doubt Apple is really going to try to chase them in some speed contest. They'll continue pointing back to battery as the primary metric and being "fast enough".
Last edited:
Those additional ports/connectivity come at the cost of internal space. Which Mac laptops typically don't have much "extra" space. The MBA only has two ports in part because there is only room to provision two ports with the necessary PHYs chips and required infrastructure for the ports. Laptops are bigger than the phone/iPad but also have more stuff. (bigger batteries , cooling , hinges , storage , RAM , etc. )
Again for the laptops Apple has 'acceptable' places where can put antennas which is different criteria than iPad/iPhones.
iPhone/iPad can be a hotspot also. Mac and iPhone logged into same Apple ID very seamlessly connect.
In a narrow way Apple is competing with hotspots and that is Apple's answer... need cellular for Mac laptops... buy an iPhone. Not the cheapest path, but it makes Apple more money.
The 'C-series' modem is really a subsystem of multiple chips on different fab processes. That cost shrinking a whole lot is likely a big stretch. At test to the point where it is down to 'zero' so that Apple doesn't increase the price of the non-celluar option. IF the modem chip moves fron N4 to N3/N2/etc over time even more so. The leading edge dies aren't getting cheaper.
In aggregate across the whole line up that is ton of collective die space throwing out the window to do nothing. Effectively wasting gobs of wafers just to simplify SKUs.
I completely concur with your technical analysis, but I do take issue with some of your assumptions about cost. The Intel procurement and the years of R&D costs are sunk. Those costs have already been realized and going forward from this point Apple will not recover any of those costs. It doesn’t matter which modem they use. They’ve already paid those costs.
Here's an attempt at figuring out the size of the numbers. An LSEG Reuters Breakingviews post says:
So if these numbers are roughly accurate - even given the ongoing license fees of $1.6 billion - there is roughly $6 billion in annual chip revenues that Apple can internalize by using its own modems. Qualcomm may be ahead in IP and speed, but both outsource actual semiconductor production, and THAT edge goes to Apple and it's somewhat symbiotic relationship with TSMC. Plus Apple hired a group of chip designers over the last decade that have focused on optimizing power and performance for a VERY limited set of products, rather than just selling generic items and providing the specs for other companies to implement.
A modem is a processor running the entire field of digital communications. So there are two theaters of war: silicon design, and digital communications. Silicon design refers to instructions per clock cycle, cache hit ratio, branch misprediction penalty, node process, etc. Digital communications refers to the techniques for modulation and demodulation many of which are under SEP and non-SEP licenses belonging to Qcomm.
If Apple has superior silicon design and only slightly behind Qcomm in digital communications, it means a better overall product.
a 'Sunk cost' is not just all past costs. Technically a sunk cost has occurred in the past and has no possiblility of being recovered.
" ... A sunk cost is an expense that cannot be recovered by additional spending or investment. ... "
What Is a Sunk Cost—and the Sunk Cost Fallacy?
A sunk cost is an expense that cannot be recovered. These types of costs should be excluded from decision-making.
"Sunk costs" are a subset of past costs. The 'already paid' doesn't buy the 'sunk' descriptor.
If Apple killed their modem program before they every completed and shipped the C1, then that would be a sunk cost. Apple has very substantive opportuny to recover the money they have spent over the last 5 years on the C1. The simplest way is to just charge customers just as much money as Qualcomm would for their modems. That cost is already built into the iPhone.
If iPhone prices were dropping 30% and inflation was going up, then perhaps Apple might have a problem but that isn't happening. If anything the 16e shows prices are going up for some Apple iPhone users. ( Apple took the SE product line off the market).
The average selling price of an iPhone is going up ; not down.
P.S. 'sunk cost' ... go read some old macrumors Apple Car articles. The vast majority of that is a sunk cost.
( probably some AI vision stuff and a few other things that show up in Vision Pro and some other products. )
Last edited:
How? The transceiver die is on N7. Apple has exclusive access to 7nm that other folks don't. What other very high volume buys of 7nm is Apple currently making? The iPHone? nope. Macs? nope. iPads? nope.
The 'compute' modem chip is on N4. Again at this point, Apple's volume is higher than who's Nividia , AMD ?
In the integrated modem space Qualcomm 8 Elite Gen 2 is on N3P
Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 2 Will Exclusively Be Mass Produced On TSMC’s 3nm ‘N3P’ Process, Samsung Has Lost The Production Bid
TSMC has once again taken advantage of its superior lithography compared to Samsung as it will be exclusively mass produce Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 2 for next year. We have previously reported that the chipset maker wanted the Korean foundry to enter its supply chain as it would result...
semiwiki.com
That is a 'compute' modem die component on a more advanced process than Apple's for this year. Qualcomm sometimes goes 'cheaper' fab on the discrete modems. But that is a cost savings move for a market that is relatively smaller and isn't as competitive. If they had to compete harder there , then they would largely just get thinner margins; not doomed because couldn't buy wafers.
Wafer costs keep going up and Apple primary A-series dies are not shrinking much, if at all. Doubtful Apple is going to throw gas on the 'fire' by trying to go to even higher costs on the modem die also. Qualcomm trailing a bit on the discrete modems means they can Apple doesn't have to compete as hard and can save some money. What Qualcomm does in the chiplet/tile modem space will determine how deep the battle goes on there in the future. TSMC doesn't have a complete lock in on packaging tech for this space.
Modems require far more interoperability than Apple's previous efforts and just going internal iPhone/iPad/Mac components. For example, Apple tossed dGPUs out the windows for Macs. That was a regression in interoperability.
Apple didn't want to deal with covering those specs so they just dropped it. Same thing with certain aspects of Arm opcode standards ... Apple just skipped parts they don't like (when given the option).
There a supplements to the 5G standards coming. There is 6G standards coming. The number of cell phone suppliers , base station manufacturers , etc. is not going down dramatically.
As for "Performance". Apple is making no claims about that at all. Video streaming from the on board storge disk leads to better battery life. That mostly just indicative that the modem consumes less power when handed a minimum performance task ( mostly sleep awaiting something to do). Maybe better 'race to sleep'.
The amount of technology / trick accumulations required for CPU design is magnitude smaller than cellular modem chip.
Intel and AMD CPUs are all CISC ones, Apple’s CPUs are RISC ones, based on ARM Holdings’ decades of research.
and Apple purchased Intel’s modem business in 2019, which has been in development for over a decade.