Settle for worse to make a point...and they say Steve Jobs is dead!
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 Considering Eliminating Qualcomm Chips From Next Year's iPhones and iPads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel launched its new XMM 7560 modem earlier this year. It supports Gigabit LTE and CDMA. You can bet Apple has sent baseband engineers to work with Intel and improve it. The chip was too late for this year's iPhones, but plenty of time for the 2018 models.
That's just dumb... Qualcomm's are so much better.
Yikes...I hope this legal battle royale between Apple and Qualcomm does not inhibit Apple's ability to support the Qualcomm chip inside the Verizon and Sprint iPhone X, over the course of the next year. Moving forward, I agree with those who suggest Apple needs to use a chip that is better than the current GSM variant used in current AT&T and T-Mobile iPhones. I have done real-world (albeit subjective since it's my own) testing and that GSM chip is usually a bar worse than the Qualcomm, and this is huge when using the iPhone on the very edge of coverage. There are places where that last bar makes the iPhone useable if Qualcomm and totally useless if Intel.
One last comment: I actually think both the current Qualcomm and current Intel chips are worse than the chips that were used a couple of years ago in Verizon models. I noticed over the weekend that my father's Verizon iPhone 6S Plus had a bar more than my SIM-free, unlocked iPhone 8 Plus (Qualcomm) at the exact same location. It wasn't a test - just an observation - but it did make me wonder yet again if Apple really did do some serious throttling of the current Qualcomm chip because of how much better than the Intel chip it was.
One last comment: I actually think both the current Qualcomm and current Intel chips are worse than the chips that were used a couple of years ago in Verizon models. I noticed over the weekend that my father's Verizon iPhone 6S Plus had a bar more than my SIM-free, unlocked iPhone 8 Plus (Qualcomm) at the exact same location. It wasn't a test - just an observation - but it did make me wonder yet again if Apple really did do some serious throttling of the current Qualcomm chip because of how much better than the Intel chip it was.
Do it. Worse reception and speed but the cost is lower so it's more profitable to Apple.
What gets me is that arguably the modem is one of the most important parts of a phone -- more important than the camera for sure. Yet reviewers often gloss over the fact that of late there are two different modems in iPhones. They also don't readily disclose which version they received from Apple (wanna bet it's the Qualcomm version) when they do discuss reception/performance. Guessing they don't want to end up on Apple's s list. Only if they do an accompanying video can you figure it out.
I feel like I'm the only one who agrees with Qualcomm. Apple accusing Qualcomm of charging too much is laughable. Apple isn't the one who ultimately pays, the customer does. I'd rather pay an extra $5 than be stuck with an Intel modem. Just put the best technology in the device Apple.
It’s deja vu all over again.
Apple - "If you don't release CPUs faster we're going to make AMD the standard"
Intel - "You can't be serious. They're slower and everyone knows it."
Apple - "Ask nVidia."
Intel - "..........****"
...but Apple still has to pay Qualcomm royalties based on the technology. Not as much for sure, but they still pay. So Qualcomm is still in the picture.
Which is double paying because intel has already paid. Why should vendors downstream have to pay too?
Not sure what the problem is supposed to be, but my 7+ with Intel modem works just fine. Good LTE speeds on Telstra and reception is exactly as with my previous phones.
I'm pretty sure you're correct, Apple is artificially gimping the Qualcomm modems to make them equal to the Intel modems. The last version of the iPhone that was Qualcomm-only was the 6S.
This only matters in the USA where we have the slowest most unreliable lte speeds in the developed world.
My anecdotal experience:
My iPhone 7 Plus (GSM version) has much worse reception than an iPhone 6 Plus compared side by side using the same carrier in Hong Kong. The iPhone 6 Plus always get connection and data while the iPhone 7 Plus has 1-2 bars less and experienced difficulty in loading data.
My iPhone 7 Plus (GSM version) has much worse reception than an iPhone 6 Plus compared side by side using the same carrier in Hong Kong. The iPhone 6 Plus always get connection and data while the iPhone 7 Plus has 1-2 bars less and experienced difficulty in loading data.
Qualcomm is Intel in this situation? Because Qualcomm is actually better...
While this is absolutely true, side-by-side testing in a lab environment is very different from real-world results. I have no data to answer the question, but it must still be asked. Will the average person know or care about the difference? Would the average technical person be able to detect a difference in day to day use? If not... then it really doesn't matter.
Basically Qualcomms modem in the iPhone 7/7plus outperforms intel by a large margin.
Brilliant rumor if nothing else. How do you get Qualcomm to back off? You invite someone else in. Either way this helps Apple. As much as Qualcomm is ticked off at Apple, they cannot afford a mass exodus to Intel. Intel is getting serious about mobile - they will figure it out.
No just the VZW and Sprint models. Assuming there will be a sim-free model that one will have the Qualcomm too.
It's not dumb when Qualcomm is basically trying to be a big bully and Apple is really the only company trying to stand up to them. Why do business with a company that wants to hold a portion of their profits hostage? There's a reason other companies are lining up to support Apple in this and not Qualcomm.