Apple Designing 5G iPhone Antenna Module In-House After Being Dissatisfied With Qualcomm's Version

[deconstruct60]

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/05/05/kuo-lcp-antennas-2019-iphones-ipads/

1) The article you cited said modified-pi only for 2019, then back to LCP for the 2020 5G models.

The article is as much about Apple's willing shift to save costs as it was to a permanent move to a better RF tech. Same general factor can be in play here. Apple looking for "thinner design" would sound better coming from Apple internal sources than Apple looking to "pay less and charge just as much as they do now".

2) There are no issues with IP, and no need to reverse engineer. Apple has licensed Qualcomm’s full portfolio.

Licensing tech/process IP doesn't get you working implementations. There are almost always crossing t's and dotting i's that matter to getting something that is a working solution that is profitable to make. Design patens are mainly about dotting i's and crossing t's but that isn't the vast bulk of Qualcomm's portfolio. Those aren't about solutions to problems, but mainly about a specific implementation of a design.

Infineon / Intel had access to Qualcomm IP to and that didn't necessarily make them competitive in a timely fashion with Qualcomm either.

Right now Apple doesn't have widely field tested solutions so it is pretty likely they are bow waving off of one that is to save time. And will probably continue to do it until they switch over to their in-house stuff.

 

[deconstruct60]

I believe Verizon is currently deploying ONLY mmWave.

I think Verizon sub6 rollout is somewhat dependent upon them shutting down the older "CDMA" system. That is in progress but not turned all the way off at this point.

Verizon sticks behind ambiguous 2020 DSS rollout plan

While T-Mobile’s President of Technology Neville Ray threw water on Verizon’s dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS) plans on Thursday, Verizon said it’s sticking by its prior public commitments. | While T-Mobile’s President of Technology Neville Ray threw water on Verizon’s dynamic spectrum sharing...

www.fiercewireless.com

Short term, yes... it is just about all mmWave. But it isn't wholly dependent upon mmWave either over the long term. Apple's 5G iPhones aren't coming until much later in the year. And much later in the year is when the 'CDMA network' is flipped off. There may not be as huge of a gap there on Verizon network as there is right now if talking Feb-June 2021 when these 2020 iPhones would certainly be in use.

Verizon doesn't have as much of the spectrum breadth as the new T-mobile/Spring combo does. But that new combo has to get a merged network deployed. ATT has they own issues. The quirk that all are having to deal with is getting sub6 up and running concurrently with the older more legacy system they have going without throwing gobs of "new" spectrum at it. ( and how to get more "new" spectrum. For Verizon it looks like they are going to try to use more 'recycled' and/or 'shared' spectrum. )


If there is an objective to keep a phone for 3-4 years then where Verizon's network is right this minute in early 2020 isn't likely a good match to where Verizon for most of that 3-4 year span. For folks who churn their phones on a 1-2 year window it won't matter as much.

I'm buying a Samsung s20 which lacks mmWave support but has the lower frequency 5G hardware. I'm on AT&T which barely has a 4G presence here in the boonies so it's kind of moot for me for another couple of years. (I'm not buying it for 5G)

If too far into the boonies to get dense higher end broadband backhaul then 5G probably isn't coming regardless of what is on the towers.

Verizon customers who want their 5G where Verizon 5G servicr currently exists are going to have to be happy with big phones like the S20+ and S20 ultra because it's mmWave only. Which personally I think is annoying and crazy of Verizon, but what do I know.

Temporary.

"... Samsung’s 6.2-inch S20 5G ($999.99) smartphone currently only supports the low and mid-band 5G varieties, but Verizon said it will start offering a version of the S20 that works with mmWave spectrum in the second quarter of 2020. ..."

New Samsung 5G phones can tap both sub-6 GHz and millimeter wave spectrum

Samsung Electronics on Tuesday introduced its new Galaxy S20 5G lineup of smartphones, including two 5G models that are the first capable of tapping both sub-6 GHz and millimeter wave spectrum band | Samsung on Tuesday introduced its new Galaxy S20 5G lineup of smartphones, including two 5G...

www.fiercewireless.com

Anything the size of an iphone 11 on down apparently can't accommodate the mmWave antennas yet. Though Verizon said they will be releasing an mmWave capable S20 toward the end of the year somehow. If they can find a way to fit mmWave antennas into an S20, then Apple will be able to do it, but like this article says, they'll probably have to buy that capability.

The s20 isn't a small-midsized phone in the classic sense. It is still big ( although the "norms" folks are using to judge size are shifting over time. )

s20 5G 151.7 x 69.1 x 7.9 mm (5.97 x 2.72 x 0.31 in)

Samsung Galaxy S20 5G - Full phone specifications

www.gsmarena.com

iPhone 11/XR 150.9 x 75.7 x 8.3 mm ( 5.94 x 2.98 x 0.33 in )

iPhone 8 138.4 x 67.3 x 7.3mm ( 5.45 x 2.65 x 0.29 in )

iPhone - Compare Models

Compare features and technical specifications for iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro Max, iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone SE, and many more.

www.apple.com

Apple has a probably a more rigid frame ( which takes incrementally more space) but the 11 (and XR) are approximately the same size as the S20 ( 5G or not.. the 5G s20 isn't any bigger).

for the iPhone 8 sized phones ( the new iPhone 9 an the probably the 'plain' iPhone 12 ) mmWave is probably an issue. But it shouldn't be a rocket science project to put it into the 11/XR sized chassis.

It seems like they wouldn't have the time to design their own hardware and put it into production by the usual iPhone release schedule. And they're still probably wrestling with issues from the virus in China. It will be interesting to see how this all resolves.

Apple could still do their dog and pony show in September and release very close to the end of September to shortages. But yeah if they didn't have a largely complete alternative model working before the virus shutdown hit .... that is likely a timeliness issue ( or a shovel buggy product out the door issue. )

 

[tf_dc]

I hope Apple messes it up and punishes itself for its obsession with thinness with its own hands. Than we'll have chance to get thicker phones with, hopefully, bigger batteries.

 

[5105973]

I hope Apple messes it up and punishes itself for its obsession with thinness with its own hands. Than we'll have chance to get thicker phones with, hopefully, bigger batteries.

My knee jerk reaction was honestly the same as yours because I'm grumpy that way. My first reaction to almost everything is negative, which is why I learned to be laid back and not react the moment an impulse or thought first enters my head. I did leave my earlier somewhat addled comments on the matter lying around though, so it's possible to see I had a progression of thought on the matter.

And, putting some thought into it, I completely change my mind from my initial knee jerk reaction.

Look I don't want to get into an argument on a forum like this but a wish like that punishes customers. Anytime a company does something stupid that results in their products being a poor choice, that narrows down the playing field and that is usually bad for customers. We need more excellent choices, not fewer.

I don't want to see Apple fail anything. They put good battery capacity back into the 2019 iPhones. My 11 Pro can go all day with heavy use even in a low signal area. And they make a pretty good, though ugly battery case I can supplement the phone with. They made this effort already, so wanting to punish them further on the issue of battery size just doesn't make sense. If they try to get batteries as large as the ones Samsung uses and not make the end result ridiculously heavy, they're going to have to switch to lighter weight frames and probably ditch Face ID, and then that will open them up to a whole other litany of complaints. We are already poised to lose the iPhone 11 Pro size class in 2020.

They are trying to keep the phones a manageable size (have you seen the sizes of the competition?) while having to add in more space consuming hardware. So they're trying to find a more efficient antenna design.

Where this rumor made me a sourpuss is in portraying their choice as a continuation of their petulant attitude toward Qualcomm.

If, and I do mean IF that rumor is true, that's petty and they'd deserve a comeuppance for such an unprofessional attitude. But Apple is a company. Whose petty feelings are we talking about here? I don't think they want to shoot themselves in the foot like that when they have stockholders to answer to.

They already have enough on their plate coping with production issues related to the virus. I don't think this is about petty games.

I do believe they are ultimately seeking as much independence from Qualcom as possible, though. That makes sense.

 

[Phillyfinest89]

Not just Apple. Name the others as well if your throwing apple out there.

 

[Glideslope]

I believe Verizon is currently deploying ONLY mmWave. I'm buying a Samsung s20 which lacks mmWave support but has the lower frequency 5G hardware. I'm on AT&T which barely has a 4G presence here in the boonies so it's kind of moot for me for another couple of years. (I'm not buying it for 5G)

Verizon customers who want their 5G where Verizon 5G servicr currently exists are going to have to be happy with big phones like the S20+ and S20 ultra because it's mmWave only. Which personally I think is annoying and crazy of Verizon, but what do I know.

Anything the size of an iphone 11 on down apparently can't accommodate the mmWave antennas yet. Though Verizon said they will be releasing an mmWave capable S20 toward the end of the year somehow. If they can find a way to fit mmWave antennas into an S20, then Apple will be able to do it, but like this article says, they'll probably have to buy that capability. It seems like they wouldn't have the time to design their own hardware and put it into production by the usual iPhone release schedule. And they're still probably wrestling with issues from the virus in China. It will be interesting to see how this all resolves.

Agreed.

 

[PickUrPoison]

The article is as much about Apple's willing shift to save costs as it was to a permanent move to a better RF tech. Same general factor can be in play here. Apple looking for "thinner design" would sound better coming from Apple internal sources than Apple looking to "pay less and charge just as much as they do now".

Licensing tech/process IP doesn't get you working implementations. There are almost always crossing t's and dotting i's that matter to getting something that is a working solution that is profitable to make. Design patens are mainly about dotting i's and crossing t's but that isn't the vast bulk of Qualcomm's portfolio. Those aren't about solutions to problems, but mainly about a specific implementation of a design.

Infineon / Intel had access to Qualcomm IP to and that didn't necessarily make them competitive in a timely fashion with Qualcomm either.

Right now Apple doesn't have widely field tested solutions so it is pretty likely they are bow waving off of one that is to save time. And will probably continue to do it until they switch over to their in-house stuff.

1) You were clearly using that article to support your rant about Apple just wanting a bigger piece of the pie and being cheap, “That is just more money for the Scrooge McDuck money pit” etc.

We already know Apple is ruthless on cost so the article adds nothing in that respect, and doesn’t provide any support for the entire premise of your post: “Apple moving [to] the easier and cheaper solution. That could be thrown on top of thinner” because the article was talking about 2019 phones. You can’t use non-evidence to build a case.

The fact is that Apple’s gross margins have been stable for years. Anyone who thinks Apple has been cost cutting and pocketing the difference is just wrong.

2) Intel/Infineon would only have had access to Qualcomm’s SEPs. And we don’t know what dysfunction led to the schedule issue at Intel. We also don’t know what other antenna design expertise Apple has already acquired; they’ve been recruiting and hiring from San Diego for years. Antenna design is a far easier lift than designing a baseband modem in any case.

 

[Falhófnir]

Generally speaking I think Apple's in house solutions are often better than what they can buy in - they seem to have a real problem with iPhone SAR values though, I hope these new iPhones won't cause spontaneous tentacle growth! 🐙

 

[justperry]

5G is over hyped, with those speeds you need unlimited data caps. A 800Mbps 5G phone will run the whole 22GB data cap on mobile under 4 minutes. Your whole month limit allowance is gone in under 4 minutes of the month.

I once heard that unlimited data does not cost cellphone carriers any more, they just put it there to squeeze more money from people.

None of what you said above makes sense.
How does your online presence differ from one modem tech to the other......it doesn't, you still do the same thing.
More data costs more, although not much it will cost more to relay that data, for instance electricity, hardware renewal, more data means more heat, thus more cooling...and so on.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I hope Apple messes it up and punishes itself for its obsession with thinness with its own hands. Than we'll have chance to get thicker phones with, hopefully, bigger batteries.

I find it quite amusing that after iPhones getting thicker literally every year since the 2014 iPhone 6, it’s only after Ive leaves—he who so many were so sure had an “obsession with thinness”—that Apple is supposedly now actually chasing thinness. Hilarious 🤣

 

[IG88]

Anything the size of an iphone 11 on down apparently can't accommodate the mmWave antennas yet.

If true, the first gen of 5G is going to be a hard pass, even more so than I initially thought.

What was that HTC first-gen LTE phone, the Thunderbolt? Ran hot and bad battery life.

 

[chucker23n1]

I find it quite amusing that after iPhones getting thicker literally every year since the 2014 iPhone 6, it’s only after Ive leaves—he who so many were so sure had an “obsession with thinness”—that Apple is supposedly now actually chasing thinness. Hilarious 🤣

I don't think Ive had that much influence on iPhone hardware design at the time. He set certain expectations for a product and then moved on to the next thing. The 6s, 7, and 8 were largely iterative. Maybe he was already part of the iPhone X project at the time. Maybe he never joined that.

As for thinness, I think it's more that he had the general expectation that phones would eventually become this:

That is, the technical details disappear as much as possible, and the shell mainly exists as a way to hold the device (such that you can look at and interact with the screen), not to contain internals.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I dont know much about the tech side of cellular radios other than it’s hard and Qualcomm is the best at it.

If it is the RF front end or the antenna is this an Apple or Qualcomm issue? Not sure if the answer

can you explain why iPhones with intel modems have issues with signal strength compared to a Qualcomm iPhone. Side by side

The broadest definition of front end would be everything between the antenna and the baseband modem. You could have an Intel modem that outperforms Qualcomm’s, but if there is a deficiency in the antenna and/or front end, the modem will not be able to perform properly.

I don’t know what the issues were with the iPhone X was that led to the underperformance at the lowest signal levels in that test you refer to. But I’ve heard very little about issues with iPhone 11, and it uses an Intel baseband modem.

There are currently no Qualcomm parts in the iPhone afaik, and the 2020 5G iPhone 12 (the iPhone “SE2” won’t have 5G, this year or probably ever) models’ only Qualcomm part may be the baseband modem chip. We’ll find out for sure after the teardown.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

This didn’t just happen, this situation occurred many months ago. They already made the decision which way to go, and it appears they’re using the Apple design. Qualcomm seemed to signal quite some time ago Apple would only be using the X55.

More importantly, Apple got what they wanted with their IP licensing deal and didn't expect Qualcomm capable of delivering on these new phone designs. Combine that with the IP and talent acquired from Intel, Apple will release an industry leading 5G Modem just for their products, most likely put into every new Macbook, iPad, iPhone, Watch, etc.

 

[sofila]

Funny that people are still whining about the 2010 iPhone 4 antenna design. A decade isn’t long enough to get over it? How long does it take? 15 years? 20 years? 😂

"You're holding it wrong" placed it in the Hall of Fame. It will be never forgotten.

 

[PickUrPoison]

"You're holding it wrong" placed it in the Hall of Fame. It will be never forgotten.

It should be, since Jobs never said that.

 

[chucker23n1]

"You're holding it wrong" placed it in the Hall of Fame. It will be never forgotten.

Don't Hold It Wrong

There is only one device you could possibly hold wrong. Organized by David Chartier

dontholditwrong.tumblr.com

 

[PickUrPoison]

Don't Hold It Wrong

There is only one device you could possibly hold wrong. Organized by David Chartier

dontholditwrong.tumblr.com

Never saw that before, thx for posting it 🙂

 

[NickName99]

It should be, since Jobs never said that.

What he actually wrote was “Just avoid holding it in that way.”

I had an iPhone 4 back in 2010, I didn’t have problems with the antenna since I didn’t naturally grip the phone firmly like that. My hands are too big - if I held it that way my fingers would wrap around and obscure the screen.

They fixed the problem in 2011 with the iPhone 4S. May the whiners ever whine and misquote, evermore. ❤️🍿

 

[Appleman3546]

I don’t mind Apple wanting to save costs by designing the antenna in house (that is what they do with their A11 chips), as long as a. They pass the savings onto consumers (unlikely) or b. Focus on quality or energy conservation rather than thinness so that we can get a bigger battery (also unlikely)

 

[PickUrPoison]

I don’t mind Apple wanting to save costs by designing the antenna in house (that is what they do with their A11 chips), as long as a. They pass the savings onto consumers (unlikely) or b. Focus on quality or energy conservation rather than thinness so that we can get a bigger battery (also unlikely)

Apple makes their own silicon in-house mainly because it’s a competitive advantage to have the incredible performance they get by doing it themselves. Their team is world class and there’s no commercially available parts that compare. It may even cost them more, who knows, but the advantages are numerous. Their power management tech is excellent as well.

re: battery, we’ve been getting bigger batteries for years and what you'll hear nowadays is that they’ve gone too far, that the phones are too big, thick and heavy. People are even getting two days with their iPhone 11/Pro/Pro Max. I hope they are able to make them smaller, with the lower power requirements of the 5nm A14.

 

[cmaier]

"You're holding it wrong" placed it in the Hall of Fame. It will be never forgotten.

The thing that he never said gets into the hall of fame?

 

[Analog Kid]

Tell that to people who spend their entire careers and PhDs in antenna design. When you have to account for factors like detuning because somebody's hand is next to it, RF safety, other antennas and random metal pieces from the rest of the phone coupling in, and cost. It's a nasty problem.

Nothing you are describing is new. A sufficiently large number of those PhDs are gainfully employed by Apple and given all the best modeling and simulation tools. There’s no reason to think Qualcomm can do it better— Apple is more than capable of designing a fine antenna. I’d have no problem telling the Apple RF team that I think it’s lower risk for them to design an antenna than for Apple to design a new 5G baseband.

Not matching. Antenna efficiency, i.e. radiation resistance. Small antennas are bad at efficiency, by the laws of physics.

And "mm-wave" is 30 GHz = 1 cm, which means everything within 2-3 cm is in the near-field, which given multiple antennas for MIMO, it means the whole phone is interacting.

All radio bands span an order of magnitude so yes, sometimes mm-waves are 10mm long. This is something like 30 times shorter than 800MHz LTE signals. The longer LTE wavelengths typically have a larger near field. A larger near field means more stuff is interacting. That's a harder problem, yet Apple seems to have done ok with it. I think they're capable of doing ok with mm wave signals as well.

To be more pedantic, what they call mm-wave for 5G goes down to 24GHz, which isn't technically mm-wave anymore-- of course what they call UWB isn't UWB, so...

Small antennas tend to have greater ohmic losses sure, but that’s not a criticism of Apple’s capabilities. That's a design tradeoff-- fit the antenna in a small thin device-- not a bad design. So if that's the issue then, again, I find it an odd thing to criticize the engineering team on.

More importantly to the mm-wave discussion, it's not the physical size of the antenna that drives the efficiency but the electrical size. Keep the enclosure design the same and increase the frequency and the antenna gets electrically larger and efficiency goes up-- so it should be easier to make an efficient mm-wave antenna than LTE antenna.

 

[MacBH928]

None of what you said above makes sense.
How does your online presence differ from one modem tech to the other......it doesn't, you still do the same thing.
More data costs more, although not much it will cost more to relay that data, for instance electricity, hardware renewal, more data means more heat, thus more cooling...and so on.

How do you explain companies that offer 1Gbps connections with unlimited usage?

 

[Yvan256]

Customers have the choices to buy something else they want. Apple has to buy from Qualcomm because it has a near monopoly.

If you need or want macOS or iOS, you have no choice but to buy the hardware that Apple sells, since they have a monopoly on those operating systems.