Apple Reportedly Shifts to In-House Modem Engineering Led by Johny Srouji

[deconstruct60]

How is bringing costly design in-house financially practical when sales are down 15% on top of low market share? In this situation out sourcing makes more sense. ..... Worst case they go Mediatek which is even lower cost than Intel but probably performs slightly better. Still no match for Qualcomm though.

Mediatek probably better than Intel. I wouldn't bet on that. ( variances on which fab each was doing production on).

To jump to LTE ( and all the various implementations which pragmatically need a "soft modem" firmware implementation) Intel used CEVA DSP solutions. Circa about 2015

"... ntel licensed CEVA-XC core for LTE chips back in 2010 at around the same time when it was acquiring Infineon's wireless business unit. Infineon also used CEVA's DSP engines in its ARM-based 3G and 4G LTE chips. However, Intel's licensing deal with CEVA was independent of its pending acquisition of Infineon's baseband business. ..."
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4560-ceva-dsp-cores-inside-intel.html

If you go to CEVA's licensing page you will find Mediatek , Samsung , and Intel. [ Every 'Plan B' alternative for Qualcomm is on pretty much on that list. ] There is probably substantive large chunks common among those folks ( there are non DSP parts too but there is commonality too. )

That is not by any means 100% of getting a cellular modem to work but Apple wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch. The bigger critical missing skill that I'd suspect Apple would have problems with is the analog and analog to digital parts need for the cellular modem. But I suspect Apple's move is that they could churn out something that was just as equally "off the mark" as any of their 'Plan B' vendors they had to choose from. And perhaps over time get better but initially it would just be a "cheaper and just good" move.


It goes to why Qualcomm was highly agitated about steps Apple might have been doing to shift IP from Qualcomms firmware soft modern over to Intel. For the parts being transferred on the DSP modem aspect It would basically be the very similar 'hints' that Apple would need to transfer to Intel , Samsung, MediaTek , or themselves. Just sitting there helping Apple dump you as a supplier.

 

[jingbugle]

Case in point, AirPower. Apple likes to customize which makes me worry in general about compatibility with networks, lock/unlock aspects.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple has been moving towards control of all aspects of iPhone production for a while now. And that’s the operative word, ‘control’, so they are not at the mercy of third parties.

This isn't moving toward aspects of production as much as the "System on a Chip" (SoC) 'black hole' effect. No other major competitor to the iPhone has a discrete baseband modem. They are mostly 'on chip' solutions ( may get some Frankenstein early 5G configurations but that will disappear in 1-2 years. )

More stuff is being done by fewer chips. Where Apple has a "mini Black Hole " A series it will just suck in more stuff over time. Apple is at the stage where the modem probably makes sense if the next phone is going to be 'even thinner' and internal volume for the circuit board shrinks again.

On the T-series side it will probably suck in the PMIC ( since Apple bought a chunk of Dialog that was doing that for them. Some power management is probably going to the A-series too).

 

[AppleSauce007]

Case in point, AirPower. Apple likes to customize which makes me worry in general about compatibility with networks, lock/unlock aspects.

Compatibility should be fine just like the Apple WiFi modems, but possibly enhanced with additional features.
Apple has to do this because 5G integration with autonomous systems like self driving cars.
Apple could compete head on with Qualcomm with its own 5G modem.

 

[luvbug]

I've always been surprised that people that know the least seem to talk the most.

 

[cmaier]

I've always been surprised that people that know the least seem to talk the most.

This is a surprise? ;-)

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple has assembled an in-house modem engineering team led by its chipmaking chief Johny Srouji, according to Reuters.
from the report

Apple Inc has moved its modem chip engineering effort into its in-house hardware technology group from its supply chain unit, two people familiar with the move told Reuters, a sign the tech company is looking to develop a key component of its iPhones after years of buying it from outside suppliers.

​

Another alternative here is not that Apple is shifting to their own internal modem but would be shifting to a Multiple Chip Package. The modem chip would move inside the Apple package and the Apple in house group would have to come up with internal interfaces ( although with whatever semi-custom modem they go from the supplier).

That would only same some space as having two physical packages.

Apple's watch S-series is really a packaging effort; it isn't 100% Apple on a single die.

Apple would be dropping the "supply chain logistics' folks because this is different from buying completed parts from other vendors. Apple die would have to very closely co-habitat with the other one. if the S-series mash-up is under the chip team also ( instead of logistics) all the more so ( because a MCM is harder to integrate)

Apple could be trying to slap everything onto a single die but trying to do this too quickly would be a problem.

Apple is expected to release its first 5G-enabled iPhone in 2020, but it's unclear if it will have an in-house chip ready by that time.

If it was just handed to him in Janurary there is about zero way that make anything even in 2021 without someone handing them a mostly complete reference implementation. 2020 ... not even remotely creditable.

A MCM solution would be viable way for Intel perhaps to dump their celluar business. Or at least the implementation the have sunk substantially millions into pretty much solely to win the Apple contract. Apple "buying out" the modem they asked for over time would be a path. (Apple would probably 'port' it to another fab over time. ).

if Intel looses Apple 100% as a celluar customer what business do they really have left..... at least at scale. ( Maybe the home, car , PC 5G market but are they really going to get the scale there. )

 

[OSXconvert]

While I'm sure Qualcomm has a fair amount of special sauce in their hardware and algorithms, I do wonder how much of the speed and reliability is due to the hardware and software on the cellphone towers and in wifi modems. Specifically I wonder if Qualcomm and others might "pay" or "help" design that side of the connection so that their modems perform better. No way to prove this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Icaras]

Can’t wait for Apple to start making their own modem chips! None of this Qualcomm and intel BS anymore.

 

[PickUrPoison]

What percentage does Apple hold?

What percentage does Apple need?

Spoiler: None. All standards essential patents are available for license at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms—whether Apple makes their own chip or buys it from another supplier.

 

[hank moody]

this guy is a wizard walking between us mere mortals.
i hope he does well and that he comes with a great modem for future iPhones.

 

[deconstruct60]

While I'm sure Qualcomm has a fair amount of special sauce in their hardware and algorithms, I do wonder how much of the speed and reliability is due to the hardware and software on the cellphone towers and in wifi modems. Specifically I wonder if Qualcomm and others might "pay" or "help" design that side of the connection so that their modems perform better. No way to prove this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Probably not. "speed and reliablity" aren't just 'digital' things. If the Analog and analog to digital stuff is off then you can have a ultra power DSP but that still won't get you around "garbage in , garbage out " . A very good DSP and software can clean up stuff somewhat but if have screwed up the inputs ... then have problems.

Motorola cellphones used be rock solid cellphones in part because Moto had folks with decades of experience making radios. Apple's wheelhouse is not analog.

The far more likely "pay" aspect to Qualcomm radios sets working better with towers is likely because they just pay more to do more testing and they have been in the business longer. So early on they work with Nokia , Erricsoon, Haiwei , etc. cell tower equipment vendors and the anntenna makers and just put in more time and money into testing. in part it is a "chicken and egg" thing. Qualcomm is a dominant radio set marker so it isn't hard to get included early in testing of future products.

I'm not sure Apple is going to get that kind of base vendor buy in. iPhones are a shrinking share of the overall cellphone market. Towers and basestation spend more time talking to non iPhones. Apple going rogue here ( technically a newbie to the business ) probably doesn't give them "first in line" status. All the work the basestation/tower folks put doesn't scale as well as others that are in mulitple products and types of products ( Apple cell modem in cars ? Probably not. Alarm systems? Nope. Home Internet modems? No. Signage ? Most likely nope. Road sensors? No. etc. etc. etc etc. ). Will Apple be completely shunned? No. But one of the first two-three call in for testing with? Probably not.

 

[ksec]

AFAIK the "huge majority of modem technology" you're talking about is for 4G and below. Qualcomm's hold is much weaker on the 5G side. Maybe Apple can include its own 5G on-chip with the Ax processor and use Intel for for the older stuff. When 5G is ubiquitous, that chip could be chucked.

It is weaker but not *much* weaker. And a lot of 5G is built on top of 4G. Basically you cant get away from Qualcomm. Those 5G E from AT&T aka 3GPP Rel 14 features? That is lots of Qualcomm Stuff in there, and 5G / 3GPP Rel 15 is building on top of that. ( Don't trust too much on main stream media, they have absolutely no clue. )

Qualcomm holds a lot of patents but not a huge majority.

View attachment 820437

https://www.ipegconsultancy.com/we-do-ip-brokerage/

Um....

1. It is not the number of a patents that count, you could have many but most of them are not high valued. Qualcomm owns quite a bit of the LTE building blocks.

2. That Chart is LTE and LTE ONLY. Which neglect many part of 4G. Hence... inaccurate.

How is bringing costly design in-house financially practical when sales are down 15% on top of low market share? In this situation out sourcing makes more sense. Or, is this smoke and mirrors to save face when they return to using Qualcomm but with an agreement where they can claim it's designed in-house, like with ARM SoC and multi-touch display, because the average Joe's swallow that up and it'll help boost share price? Worst case they go Mediatek which is even lower cost than Intel but probably performs slightly better. Still no match for Qualcomm though.

I mean people needs to stop reading news as if they were hard fact. They are mostly a reprint or reinterpretation of Numbers. Apple is the third largest Smartphone vendor. How can any media paint a 3rd largest vendor as having low market shares is totally beyond me. And they were 2nd in 2017. i.e They have the unit volume to bring it in house.

Apple also has the highest 4G tablet market shares, possible integration of 5G Modem in MacBook, and Apple Watch. That is a potential unit of 300M / year.
[doublepost=1549570732][/doublepost]

While I'm sure Qualcomm has a fair amount of special sauce in their hardware and algorithms, I do wonder how much of the speed and reliability is due to the hardware and software on the cellphone towers and in wifi modems. Specifically I wonder if Qualcomm and others might "pay" or "help" design that side of the connection so that their modems perform better. No way to prove this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

None- You cell tower are mostly ran by Nokia or Ericcsson, lately Huawei. And trust me these guys don't really like Qualcomm much at all.

There isn't really any special source, Qualcomm made much of the standards, especially on the client side, they are the largest Modem chip maker, which also means they are the most tested Modem Chip on the market. They are also the earliest on the market due to the input on 3/4/5G standard, hence they have more time to test it. By the time most competitor has caught up to 5G quality of Qualcomm, they would have moved to 5.5G already.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yeah, the experience in the A series chips won’t help them at all...

Yes, Apple is great at making processors. How could this not translate to them being great at unrelated things?

 

[mdriftmeyer]

They’ll need to pay someone for modem patents. Guess who?

I see the usual ignorance around here. Apple announcing a change in focus for in-house Modems means the development has been licensed and patented, and on-going for the past 24-36 months internally. It's how we did it when I was at NeXT and Apple.

The iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., were all long-term development projects before the first whiff of their existence was known.

The patent pools Apple has invested in are extensive. The cross-licensing pools are very extensive, or does everyone seem to forget the billions Apple has shelled over the past decade for joint pools and cross-licensing patent portfolio settlements?

 

[technole]

Never a problem with Intel modems on 8 and XS with LTE service, and I've been across US and Europe quite a bit. It's just the usual Macrumors believes Intel is bad.

Having one supplier is bad for Apple, but I doubt Intel and Apple will be fighting anytime soon.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Um....

1. It is not the number of a patents that count, you could have many but most of them are not high valued. Qualcomm owns quite a bit of the LTE building blocks.

2. That Chart is LTE and LTE ONLY. Which neglect many part of 4G. Hence... inaccurate.

Excellent points. Indeed, a broader view of the 2G/3G/4G IP landscape is quite informative.

For those interested, IPlytics has done an analysis of the number, relevance and value of SEPs for the following technologies:

• GSM/GPRS standard – including GSM, HSCSD, GPRS, EDGE and updates and other evolutions;

• UMTS standard – including UMTS, HSDPA and HSUPA (collectively known as ‘HSPA’) and updates and other evolutions; and

• LTE standard – LTE (including SAE) and updates and other evolutions

(They detail their methodology for determining relevance and value in the paper linked below.)

An excerpt from the linked paper:

“The analysis performed for counting
results showed that over 30% of all standard-essential patents declared by Nokia and Siemens related to at least two standards generations, followed by Nokia Siemens Networks and Qualcomm with a share of over 20%. Standard-essential patents which are relevant for multiple generations of standards are relevant for core layers of the standardised cellular technologies. The measure reflects the value of those standard-essential patents for the standards generations.”

https://www.iam-media.com/how-count-and-valuate-standard-essential-patents

 

[coolfactor]

Now they can make a chip that slower than QC or even Intel, runs hot and uses more battery, but hey it doesn't include 5G or a FM receiver and is thinner yet.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but Apple creates the industry's best mobile SoC's, beating out QC, so what makes you think their modem chip would be a poor performer?

 

[farmboy]

they will license the necessary patents, under FRAND, like everyone else. They have to pay the license fees either way - may as well do so with their own silicon.

Yes, and actually they *must* license those patents, according to FTC v Qualcomm, where in November Judge Lucy Koh ruled as such. Qualcomm agreed to two separate policies that said it would offer select patents on a non-discriminatory basis. Those patents were essential to wireless standards — and only accepted into the standards because of Qualcomm’s agreement to license to everyone. That meant that QC had to license patents necessary for building a smartphone modem to competing companies, like Intel. So Intel doesn't even have to "work around" the patents, it can just use them. They have to pay the license, of course, as you said.

 

[deasys]

"Fully designed" by Apple? No. Apple put together two ARM Cortex-A9 CPU cores and one Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU core, and then Samsung fabbed and packaged it. Not trying to imply what Apple did was easy - it is still an amazing feat on a first attempt. But to say they "fully designed" that is laughable.

Do you know what else is laughable? You thinking you actually know what you're talking about. Here, let me help you out:

Apple's processor designs implement the ARM instruction set but do not use any of ARM's generic silicon designs:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/28/how-apple-dethroned-intel-as-the-worlds-most-innov.aspx
"Apple's first in-house processor core, known as Swift, delivered performance that was right up there with Arm Holdings' then-flagship Cortex A15 processor core, but the A6 was earlier to market and arguably more power-efficient." [notice the wording]

"The combination of Apple's chip-design prowess and a highly capable ecosystem of contract chip-manufacturing partners has led to some huge advances in mobile computing."

"…if it can open a comfortable lead over Intel, Apple could use the superiority of its in-house designed processors…"

"I think Apple is the most innovative chip designer in the world right now thanks to a combination of world-class engineering talent, exceptional management, and access to dependable manufacturing partners."​

…and:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/..._small_uk_company_conquered_the_world/?page=3
"When discussing his company's 64-bit ARMv8 architecture, [ARM's] Shore revealed that ARM-licensee Apple's implementation of it in its A7 processor came as a surprise to many at ARM. 'Our fruity friends earlier this year stunned the world, actually, and stunned most of ARM's employees, in fact, by releasing the latest version of the iPhone supporting and including a 64-bit processor,' he said. 'They'd done that incredibly secretly and ended up stealing a march on the whole of the rest of the industry. It was quite a staggering achievement, to be honest.'"
​

Direct from ARM! "Quite a staggering achievement," indeed! And as far as I know, ARM is not part of Apple's marketing and investor relations departments.

Apple does *not* use generic ARM designs. All of Apple's A-series chips are designed and engineered in-house by Apple itself. Please be aware that Apple is one of the world's few *architectural* licensees of ARM.

…and:

https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-licenses-chips/
"Architectural licensees get a set of specs and a testing suite that they have to pass, the rest is up to them. If they want to make a processor that is faster, slower, more efficient, smaller, or anything else than the one ARM supplies, this is what they have to do. Qualcomm’s Snapdragon line and Apple’s A6 are probably the most widely known current products resulting from an architectural license"​

…and from 2013:

https://semiaccurate.com/2013/01/02/apples-silicon-design-capabilities-increase/
Apple is pretty hell-bent on making their own mainstream CPU, top to bottom…"Then came the A6 line, the most recent chips. No A9 core this time, it was a somewhat unexpected A15 ISA core. More unexpected was that it wasn’t a vanilla ARM licensed A15 core either, it was a full blown custom core…Apple made their own core, top to bottom."
​

Crystal clear, isn't it? ---> "Apple made their own core, top to bottom" And that was already true way back in 2013.

There is a world of difference between designing a system chip comprised of a number of designs supplied by ARM…Apple did not attempt to design their own cores until the iPhone 8, where they designed their own GPU - but still used ARM cores for the CPUs.

Nope. Apple has the right to implement the ARM instruction set ( i.e. the fundamental interface between hardware and software in the processor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set_architecture ) in its *own* silicon. Apple strictly uses its own designs, not ARM's. In fact, that's one of the reasons Apple mobile processors are so high performing in comparison to the rest of the world's offerings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Business_model

Thanks for the opportunity to disabuse you.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Do you know what else is laughable? You thinking you actually know what you're talking about. Here, let me help you out:

Apple's processor designs implement the ARM instruction set but do not use any of ARM's generic silicon designs:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/28/how-apple-dethroned-intel-as-the-worlds-most-innov.aspx
"Apple's first in-house processor core, known as Swift, delivered performance that was right up there with Arm Holdings' then-flagship Cortex A15 processor core, but the A6 was earlier to market and arguably more power-efficient." [notice the wording]

"The combination of Apple's chip-design prowess and a highly capable ecosystem of contract chip-manufacturing partners has led to some huge advances in mobile computing."

"…if it can open a comfortable lead over Intel, Apple could use the superiority of its in-house designed processors…"

"I think Apple is the most innovative chip designer in the world right now thanks to a combination of world-class engineering talent, exceptional management, and access to dependable manufacturing partners."​

…and:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/..._small_uk_company_conquered_the_world/?page=3
"When discussing his company's 64-bit ARMv8 architecture, [ARM's] Shore revealed that ARM-licensee Apple's implementation of it in its A7 processor came as a surprise to many at ARM. 'Our fruity friends earlier this year stunned the world, actually, and stunned most of ARM's employees, in fact, by releasing the latest version of the iPhone supporting and including a 64-bit processor,' he said. 'They'd done that incredibly secretly and ended up stealing a march on the whole of the rest of the industry. It was quite a staggering achievement, to be honest.'"
​

Direct from ARM! "Quite a staggering achievement," indeed! And as far as I know, ARM is not part of Apple's marketing and investor relations departments.

Apple does *not* use generic ARM designs. All of Apple's A-series chips are designed and engineered in-house by Apple itself. Please be aware that Apple is one of the world's few *architectural* licensees of ARM.

…and:

https://semiaccurate.com/2013/01/02/apples-silicon-design-capabilities-increase/
"Architectural licensees get a set of specs and a testing suite that they have to pass, the rest is up to them. If they want to make a processor that is faster, slower, more efficient, smaller, or anything else than the one ARM supplies, this is what they have to do. Qualcomm’s Snapdragon line and Apple’s A6 are probably the most widely known current products resulting from an architectural license"​

…and from 2013:

https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-licenses-chips/
Apple is pretty hell-bent on making their own mainstream CPU, top to bottom…"Then came the A6 line, the most recent chips. No A9 core this time, it was a somewhat unexpected A15 ISA core. More unexpected was that it wasn’t a vanilla ARM licensed A15 core either, it was a full blown custom core…Apple made their own core, top to bottom."
​

Crystal clear, isn't it? ---> "Apple made their own core, top to bottom" And that was already true way back in 2013.



Nope. Apple has the right to implement the ARM instruction set ( i.e. the fundamental interface between hardware and software in the processor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_set_architecture ) in its *own* silicon. Apple strictly uses its own designs, not ARM's. In fact, that's one of the reasons Apple mobile processors are so high performing in comparison to the rest of the world's offerings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Business_model

Thanks for the opportunity to disabuse you.

Good job, except the guy I was replying to (if you had bothered to read the quoted text) was talking about the A5. None of the stuff you quoted has to do with the A5. Back in the A5, as someone corrected me above, Apple did indeed just use off-the-shelf ARM cores.

 

[deasys]

Good job, except the guy I was replying to (if you had bothered to read the quoted text) was talking about the A5. None of the stuff you quoted has to do with the A5. Back in the A5, as someone corrected me above, Apple did indeed just use off-the-shelf ARM cores.

No squirming allowed, oneMadRssn—the first guy you replied to (Baymowe335) referred to A-series processors in general.

That aside, even the A4 processors were not mere off-the-shelf designs. They were custom:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2010/02/meet-the-a4-the-ipads-brain/
"…the A4 is a 1GHz custom SoC with a single Cortex A8…In all, the A4 is quite comparable to the other Cortex A8-based SoCs that are coming onto the market, except that the A4 has even less hardware…It's lean and mean to a degree that isn't possible with an off-the-shelf SoC."​

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Apple does not make the best chips by a long shot. Kettle brand is far and away better.

LOL
[doublepost=1549582089][/doublepost]

Mediatek probably better than Intel. I wouldn't bet on that. ( variances on which fab each was doing production on).

To jump to LTE ( and all the various implementations which pragmatically need a "soft modem" firmware implementation) Intel used CEVA DSP solutions. Circa about 2015

"... ntel licensed CEVA-XC core for LTE chips back in 2010 at around the same time when it was acquiring Infineon's wireless business unit. Infineon also used CEVA's DSP engines in its ARM-based 3G and 4G LTE chips. However, Intel's licensing deal with CEVA was independent of its pending acquisition of Infineon's baseband business. ..."
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4560-ceva-dsp-cores-inside-intel.html

If you go to CEVA's licensing page you will find Mediatek , Samsung , and Intel. [ Every 'Plan B' alternative for Qualcomm is on pretty much on that list. ] There is probably substantive large chunks common among those folks ( there are non DSP parts too but there is commonality too. )

That is not by any means 100% of getting a cellular modem to work but Apple wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch. The bigger critical missing skill that I'd suspect Apple would have problems with is the analog and analog to digital parts need for the cellular modem. But I suspect Apple's move is that they could churn out something that was just as equally "off the mark" as any of their 'Plan B' vendors they had to choose from. And perhaps over time get better but initially it would just be a "cheaper and just good" move.


It goes to why Qualcomm was highly agitated about steps Apple might have been doing to shift IP from Qualcomms firmware soft modern over to Intel. For the parts being transferred on the DSP modem aspect It would basically be the very similar 'hints' that Apple would need to transfer to Intel , Samsung, MediaTek , or themselves. Just sitting there helping Apple dump you as a supplier.

I'm curious, do you think that Qualcomm's assertion that Apple 'stole' their technology has merit?
I have just assumed this was Qualcomm doing everything in their power not to lose a massive revenue stream AND control of the modem market.

I also don't understand how it is really possible in a world full of highly intelligent and technically adept engineers/designers that no one has been able to design new (high quality) competing modem tech. ?

 

[oneMadRssn]

No squirming allowed, oneMadRssn—the first guy you replied to (Baymowe335) referred to A-series processors in general.

That aside, even the A4 processors were not mere off-the-shelf designs. They were custom:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2010/02/meet-the-a4-the-ipads-brain/
"…the A4 is a 1GHz custom SoC with a single Cortex A8…In all, the A4 is quite comparable to the other Cortex A8-based SoCs that are coming onto the market, except that the A4 has even less hardware…It's lean and mean to a degree that isn't possible with an off-the-shelf SoC."​

Nope, the A4 uses an off-the-shelf Cortex A8 CPU core.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/3

 

[acorntoy]

They’ll need to pay someone for modem patents. Guess who?

Depends. Imagination was so sure Apple couldn’t develop a compliant GPU without them they even told their investors not to worry. It didn’t end well for them.