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 Developing In-House Modem That Will Eventually Replace Qualcomm Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Generally Apple gets really paranoid when they can only use a single provider for a part, or the providers don't have roadmaps that eventually ramps up significantly above Apple's needs.
Apple started using Intel modems just so that they didn't have a huge portion of their business reliant exclusively on Qualcomm, and the moment Intel gave up on 5G was when Apple decided it was going to have to invest in its own modems.
That's not the Qualcomm I know, with their 130,000 patents and deep expertise in all aspects of digital communications going back to the mid 1980s, and founded by Dr. Andrew Viterbi and other communications engineers. I have immense respect for the company and products.
I know they were technically measurably worse, but I would take my 11p’s signal any day over my 12 Mini’s (and the 12 I tried for a bit as well) - so far at least. I’ve even turned off 5G, and the number of times I lose signal completely in weak areas (and have to toggle airplane mode to get it to come back with some sense of urgency) is just silly. I’m sure there are some software tweaks that still need to happen on both ends (Apple and carrier), but it’s incredibly annoying and something I never dealt with on my 11p. I’m on Verizon in the U.S.
You don't seem to understand the concept of monopolies or anti-competitive behaviour. Maybe Wikipedia can help.
You’d be surprised how quickly the tables turn. I mean, I like iPhones and Macs over any other brand(s), but I wouldn’t say Apple is going to be this big forever. Look at blackberry or Nokia.
I'm sure an antitrust lawyer could comment more expertly but, as I understand it, vertical integration by a company is generally monopolistic only when it involves an acquisition that reduces its competitors' access to markets or suppliers.
E.g., suppose the majority of PC's in this country were sold by a single retailer, and Dell decided to vertically integrate by purchasing that retailer. That acquisition might be denied on monopolistic grounds because Dell could then reduce access to that retailer by other PC manufacturers.
By contrast, Apple going in-house isn't reducing its competitors' access to either markets or suppliers. Rather it's enabling Apple to produce a better and more singular product, which is pro-competitive, not anti-competitive.
Last edited:
Their tech is fine, it is their anti competitive license schemes that makes them one of my least favorite tech companies.
Apple M1 performance per watt is not a surprise to tech industry and Steve Jobs help reinvigorate the RISC by building extraordinary products.
QC with tons of patents will welcome this move, they will license it (as Apple lost the court battle with QC) to Apple absolve themselves from answering them for any possible defects in the connectivity. Apple will take the complete ownership, yet QC continue to make more money.
Apple already tried using the modem technology that Intel had and it didn't work. Regardless of the business practices of Qualcomm, when it came down to them and Intel, Qualcomm's modem hardware was far superior to that of Intel's. The tit for tat patent issue between Apple and Qualcomm proved that Qualcomm had the better patents for it's modem technology therefore I cannot see what Apple hopes to gain by having purchased Intel's modem technology, a technology that Apple could not get to work efficiently. So unless Apple is going to be able to legally use some of Qualcomms modem patents, Apple are going to be stuck with an inferior modem product.
Maybe not right away. But Apple will still continue using Qualcomm's modems as long as the former is superior, while retaining the option of moving away to their own in-house design the moment the latter is better.
Either way, Apple doesn't lose. Like what Intel has shown, it's never good to tie your own fate with that of a third party. All the more one that is increasingly losing its ability to innovate.
I can give you some wiggle room for WiFi / 802.11 chips as to whether they are mediocrity or not. For 3GPP / Mobile Modem, they are the by far the best in the business. And it is an indisputable fact, not an opinion.
As of today they are still, better in power efficiency, including 5G.
DRAM is a commodity business. And barrier of entry is far too high even for Apple.
Apple strategy has always been squeezing as much off their supplier as possible. Basically saying, we know how much it cost to make these chips, we know how much it cost to design, and we only want to pay you this + 20-30% profit margin for your chip. Where Apple view 20-30% cost they accept and focus their time and energy elsewhere. Some times it works, sometimes it doesn't. Broadcom has threaten to sell their WiFi business twice should Apple continue to push ahead. For others like Dialog Semiconductor they just sold those part to Apple.
Apart from WiFi and Bluetooth, which is used in all Apple Products, I dont see any other components that requires them to bring in house for cost saving. And so far the price for Broadcom WiFi seems to be within Apple's tolerance. But down the road once Apple has more experience in 5G modem, may be they will make their own All in one 5G + WiFi + Bluetooth solution.
But weren't they developing one with Intel for years? 4G and 5G as well. I would say they just continue.
RAM is relatively simple, not much to innovate there, doubtful they'd see any benefit. Same with flash storage.
Apple already uses their own controller, so all they're buying is the raw flash storage. Little upside to making your own.
There are a lot of pieces some comments on here are missing. Go back to 2011/2012, Apple contributed $2billion to a consortium to Buy the Nortel patents portfolio which included semiconductor as well as cellular/LTE patents. They also picked up some more with the Intel acquisition of cellular business. The name of the game is cross licensing, that's how Nokia, Ericson, Qualcomm operates in that business. I also expect Apple to contribute to the pool of FRAND cellular patents then use that as a basis of cross licensing at the end. When you combined all those things, I do not expect Apple to continue to pay Qualcomm long term licensing fees beyond the contract they have in place currently.
Intel failed because the Ceo said the investment require was not worth the return, an issue Apple will not have to worry about. I expect Apple to have similar success to what they accomplished with the M1. The problem for those vendors is the fact they have to justify the ROI. Apple is able to do what they are doing with the M1's because cost of the chip did not come into the equation.
That would be a cool feature for the TV too, particularly if Apple could provide a programming guide to go with it.