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

[konqerror]

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.

Actually no, loading antennas to make them electrically longer exactly results in loss. There is a relationship with the physical size, the well-known Chu limit:

Chu–Harrington limit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The design is basically maximize physical size you have, then try to get as close to the Chu limit as you can.

The second unique problem with mm-wave and 60 GHz is cost. All of the academic and military systems tend to use substrates particularly PTFE-based RT/duroid, which is very expensive. I know there's a lot of work in alternate low-loss substrates like LCP. The challenge with Apple and Qualcomm will be to see what the best technology they can get for their budget with their huge volumes.

 

[allenvanhellen]

Put it in the camera hump.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Put it in the camera hump.

The camera bump area is already filled with cameras and lenses. I guess they could have an antenna bump but some people would probably complain about that too.

Probably best to re-design the antenna module properly so it isn’t so thick. Apple’s used to having to do things themselves when they can’t get what they need off the shelf.

 

[Constable Odo]

I just hope Apple isn't putting form before function. I understand Apple's need for having some slick design, but I'd rather they not make a compromise and weaken the antenna's reception. I've heard that 5G mmWave's signal is already weak enough.

 

[BvizioN]

Agreed. The old saying, never buy a first gen apple product!

Yep. Like the original iPod, original iPhone, original iPad, original Apple Watch, original AirPods. They were such a terrible products, weren’t they?

 

[sofila]

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. ❤🍿

It's the "whine" and "whiners" all wrong from the start. I'll take a good laugh about that even in the next three decades. This may be my personal way to recall Steve Jobs' strenght, so you may want to respect others' opinions. Friendly yours.

 

[Analog Kid]

Actually no, loading antennas to make them electrically longer exactly results in loss. There is a relationship with the physical size, the well-known Chu limit:

Chu–Harrington limit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The design is basically maximize physical size you have, then try to get as close to the Chu limit as you can.

The second unique problem with mm-wave and 60 GHz is cost. All of the academic and military systems tend to use substrates particularly PTFE-based RT/duroid, which is very expensive. I know there's a lot of work in alternate low-loss substrates like LCP. The challenge with Apple and Qualcomm will be to see what the best technology they can get for their budget with their huge volumes.

To what exactly are you responding "no"? The Chu limit relates bandwidth to the electrical size (k*a) of the antenna. The Chu limit is expressly for lossless antennas. The loading doesn't affect the electrical length of the antenna (where electrical length is the size of the radiating element measured in wavelengths of the principal signal). You typically load them to match to the circuit because electrically short antennas are reactive. Of course any matching circuit will have some real impedance to it, but like I said this isn't a design failure, its a design tradeoff against the antenna size. Depending on the application, you may also have to resistively load them to broaden their bandwidth-- again an expected design tradeoff.

I guess I'm just not following the point you're making. My point was that Apple is more than capable of making a decent antenna-- is that still what we're arguing, or are we just deep diving on electrodynamics?

 

[sofila]

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

Said it or not, we're not here on a trial, it's not about being guilty or true or false. These few words quickly remind people about what was happening at that time. Like a good advertising, a flash and you're directly "there". My original post is about the abuse of "whine" word. Years passed, millions of iPhones sold, everyone knows the story. If there's someone who needs to separate good from "whiners" even 15 models later, then he has a problem.

 

[robertcoogan]

Why do iPhones have to be so thin??
[automerge]1581852103[/automerge]

Agreed. The old saying, never buy a first gen apple product!

Still suffering through my 2016 MBP. And the bad keyboard.

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[cmaier]

Said it or not, we're not here on a trial, it's not about being guilty or true or false. These few words quickly remind people about what was happening at that time. Like a good advertising, a flash and you're directly "there". My original post is about the abuse of "whine" word. Years passed, millions of iPhones sold, everyone knows the story. If there's someone who needs to separate good from "whiners" even 15 models later, then he has a problem.

Not sure what most of this paragraph means, but any time someone says “it’s not about being true or false” one has to doubt the premise.
[automerge]1581860001[/automerge]

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.

Weird use of the term monopoly.

but yes.

 

[chucker23n1]

The camera bump area is already filled with cameras and lenses. I guess they could have an antenna bump but some people would probably complain about that too.

If they spread the bump to the entire horizontal, I would actually consider that a net win. The iPhone 11 wobbles quite annoyingly when lying flat on a table (of course, Face ID also works poorly that way anyway, so it's just all around a worse device in that respect compared to the 8; maybe future revisions of Face ID can handle more angles?).

 

[sofila]

Not sure what most of this paragraph means, but any time someone says “it’s not about being true or false” one has to doubt the premise.

My english is very poor. I guess your desire to understand may improve too.

 

[cmaier]

My english is very poor. I guess your desire to understand may improve too.

No, I’d love to understand. But the beginning of your premise is that the truth doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether something is true or false, or if someone is guilty or innocent. I don‘t subscribe to that world-view, and any opinion that is based on that logic immediately loses any credibility with me.

 

[chucker23n1]

Said it or not, we're not here on a trial, it's not about being guilty or true or false. These few words quickly remind people about what was happening at that time.

Do they? It happened with the iPhone 4. At the time, Apple sold less than 40 million iPhones a year (it has since stabilized at over 200 million per year). It was growing, but it wasn't yet the mass phenomenon it is today. A massive amount of iPhone users will never have heard of the story at all.

And even if they have, it's simply a silly comparison. Apple makes a dozen generations of iPhones, one of them has a design flaw in the antenna, and therefore, they should never make antennas again?

Should Samsung never make phones again because one had a catastrophic battery issue? (If so, should Apple never make laptops again because the PowerBook 5300 had a similar problem?)

 

[sofila]

Do they? It happened with the iPhone 4. At the time, Apple sold less than 40 million iPhones a year (it has since stabilized at over 200 million per year). It was growing, but it wasn't yet the mass phenomenon it is today. A massive amount of iPhone users will never have heard of the story at all.

And even if they have, it's simply a silly comparison. Apple makes a dozen generations of iPhones, one of them has a design flaw in the antenna, and therefore, they should never make antennas again?

Should Samsung never make phones again because one had a catastrophic battery issue? (If so, should Apple never make laptops again because the PowerBook 5300 had a similar problem?)

it is exactly the opposite. The post replies to an user describing as futile whining some joke regarding "millions and millions of iPhones" ago. The problem with antennas was there, Steve Jobs approach/reply/solution became history. End of the chapter.

 

[cmaier]

it is exactly the opposite. The post replies to an user describing as futile whining some joke regarding "millions and millions of iPhones" ago. The problem with antennas was there, Steve Jobs approach/reply/solution became history. End of the chapter.

History remembered by almost nobody, that had no lasting affect on Apple’s reputation or on sales of Apple devices, yes.

 

[sofila]

No, I’d love to understand. But the beginning of your premise is that the truth doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether something is true or false, or if someone is guilty or innocent. I don‘t subscribe to that world-view, and any opinion that is based on that logic immediately loses any credibility with me.

There was a problem with iPhone 4 antenna design. This problem had its solution. 10 years and 18 iPhones later, exact words and phrasing don't matter anymore. Call whiner whoever reminds that time is at least presumptuous.

 

[cmaier]

There was a problem with iPhone 4 antenna design. This problem had its solution. 10 years and 18 iPhones later, exact words and phrasing don't matter anymore. Call whiner whoever reminds that time is at least presumptuous.

No, if all one is doing is reminding everybody of that glitch, that IS merely whining.

If one, instead, is not merely reminding, but is instead trying to make the point “apple can’t design good antennae” and using that episode as evidence, that is NOT whining. But it IS (as others have pointed out), very weak evidence, precisely because it was so long ago and was merely one of dozens of cellular devices Apple has designed over the years.

So, take your pick - the “holding it wrong” misquote is either (a) whining with no purpose or (b) pisspoor evidence of a faulty proposition.

 

[sofila]

No, if all one is doing is reminding everybody of that glitch, that IS merely whining.

If one, instead, is not merely reminding, but is instead trying to make the point “apple can’t design good antennae” and using that episode as evidence, that is NOT whining. But it IS (as others have pointed out), very weak evidence, precisely because it was so long ago and was merely one of dozens of cellular devices Apple has designed over the years.

So, take your pick - the “holding it wrong” misquote is either (a) whining with no purpose or (b) pisspoor evidence of a faulty proposition.

Ok.
ou just forgot someting like IMO. I'd like to live a life full of certainties too.

 

[cmaier]

Ok.
ou just forgot someting like IMO. I'd like to live a life full of certainties too.

Which part of my statement is debatable? If one is pointing out that old episode for no reason, then that is certainly whining, or at the least, trolling.

And how is one episode from years ago possibly evidence that apple cannot design antennae, given that they’ve had numerous ipads and iphones over the years with antennae that work just fine?

 

[sofila]

And how is one episode from years ago possibly evidence that apple cannot design antennae, given that they’ve had numerous ipads and iphones over the years with antennae that work just fine?

This is a theory from other users, not mine. My very 1st post on this thread was a useless trivial fruitless attempt to speculate why after 10 years many still remember the antenna of iPhone4.

I repeat myself, I personally do not like the abuse of the term whine whenever someone dares to express anything against the work of Apple.

 

[name99]

Ohhhh boy. Bring on the speed tests when the iPhone comes out. And all the "excuses" when/if the iPhone's 5G speeds are slower compared to its competitors. Hope that's not what happens. But at least we won't have to deal with the shoddy Intel modems that have gimped the iPhone for the last two-three years now.

I won't see 5G from AT&T for a while anyway lol.

It's the mmWave antenna...
So, yeah, good luck FINDING an environment where that works well enough to even test speed...


This whole thing is tempest in a teacup. Antenna design is the bizarre love child of Dunning-Kruger and bike-shedding, where everyone believes they're an expert and can usefully contribute to the discussion.

Meanwhile, what do ACTUAL experts have to say about antenna design?

Department Colloquium Series - EECS at Berkeley

Discover groundbreaking research and emerging trends in electrical engineering and computer sciences through the Berkeley EECS Colloquium. Weekly talks feature leading experts from academia and industry. Open to the public.

eecs.berkeley.edu

 

[konqerror]

To what exactly are you responding "no"? The Chu limit relates bandwidth to the electrical size (k*a) of the antenna. The Chu limit is expressly for lossless antennas. The loading doesn't affect the electrical length of the antenna (where electrical length is the size of the radiating element measured in wavelengths of the principal signal). You typically load them to match to the circuit because electrically short antennas are reactive. Of course any matching circuit will have some real impedance to it, but like I said this isn't a design failure, its a design tradeoff against the antenna size. Depending on the application, you may also have to resistively load them to broaden their bandwidth-- again an expected design tradeoff.

I guess I'm just not following the point you're making. My point was that Apple is more than capable of making a decent antenna-- is that still what we're arguing, or are we just deep diving on electrodynamics?

Wrong. You are mistaken in calling d/lambda the "electrical length". It is not. That is the physical length of the antenna. Electrical length refers to the length of an antenna as it appears to a circuit at the feedpoint. This is affected by antenna loading, e.g. inductors, that shorten the physical length versus the electrical length.

You're falling into a very common trap by people who don't design antennas and that is thinking S11/VSWR describes the performance of an antenna and that problems can be fixed by matching. That is completely wrong. If antenna feedpoint impedance is low, then radiation resistance must be low, and therefore antenna losses (ohmic) will be high, both in the antenna and matching network.

The reason why people fall into this trap is that antenna efficiency is very difficult to measure, unlike S11. You went to school and stuck a VNA and go S11. They could not afford a free-space scanning field measurement system, so you never learned efficiency measurements.

The Chu limit is a nice piece of theory that matches the loss due to low radiation resistance versus tricks like matching and loading.

Perhaps you need to stop arguing and look at what you said in earlier posts. The article said that Apple designed an antenna with half the antenna efficiency as somebody else's. This is perfectly logical to an antenna designer, somebody managed to make an antenna 3 dB better.

It also proves that it's difficult to design antennas, unlike what you claim. RFICs are straightforward in comparison to very free-form design of antennas. Further, any modern antenna design is heavily dependent on computational tools, it takes a lot of sim time to iterate a design, so you have to have a good intuitive feel of the system.

 

[djgamble]

don’t forget it triggered one of Steve’s most iconic comebacks “You’re holding it wrong”

Which was true. It was basically a YouTube gimmick that if you cupped your iPhone (or any phone for that matter) in a certain way it would kill the reception.

Still the case with all phones on the market...