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 to Discontinue Custom 5G Modem Development, Claim Reports
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course they want to save money - that's what public companies are supposed to do for their shareholders - but there are, of course, other reasons than "just save money". Power savings, for instance, since an internally developed modem chip could be placed directly on the Ax SoC instead of being a separate chip. Then there is the desire to not be dependent on an external vendor for a critical component of Apple's main product. That was the primary reason Apple moved away from Intel - they just could not depend on Intel to enhance their chips to the extent Apple needed and in the timeframes Apple needed.
Nah, I expect Apple management treated it like they do software development.
Manager, "It has to be ready by this date" (read expected Keynote date)
Engineer, "We can't do that with the quality expectations, resources and time we have been given."
Manager, "Did you not hear me, you have until this date. Getter done." (quality is usually sacrificed)
Engineer, "Ok". Then starts looking for another job.
This is a management style that is predominant in large organizations where management has lost the ability to understand the issues and technology. And where telling your boss "no can do" gets one fired.
RF design is hard. That is why Apple WiFi and Bluetooth are also not the creme of the crop.
It's interesting how in the forums "running" a company from an armchair (or should the idiom be updated to say gamer's chair?) is so easy.
"Apple should have done this."
"Apple should have done that."
"If I were running Apple, this is what it should be doing."
"Didn't they know better than to do (or not do) this?"
And on and on it goes.
It makes me wonder if a better Apple Inc. could be run if these members of MacRumors forum were on Apple's C-level suite or Apple's board.
Hmmm...
"Apple should have done this."
"Apple should have done that."
"If I were running Apple, this is what it should be doing."
"Didn't they know better than to do (or not do) this?"
And on and on it goes.
It makes me wonder if a better Apple Inc. could be run if these members of MacRumors forum were on Apple's C-level suite or Apple's board.
Hmmm...
And in the analog days of cellular, Nokia had the best RF designs in the business. Don't know where they stand right now, but this could be good for competition.
Ok Einstein, show us how easy it is.
You forgot Apretire which was miles ahead of Adobe Lightroom.
Is anyone else suspicious of rumors coming from 'supply chain' members in this case? Unlike rumors about upcoming iPhones, why would famously secret Apple notify supply chain partners of their intent to discontinue modem development? It's not like Apple was anywhere near production of an internally developed modem and even if they were, it would likely be on the Ax SoC - so what supply chain partners, other than Qualcom, would be affected?
too many ip and other factors more likely. Let’s just hope qualcomm doesn’t have a massive hiccup anytime soon. That could suck for a lot of people since their the only ones who seems to only know how to make a modem.
Qualcomm's founders (Andrew Viterbi, Irwin Jacobs, etc) long ago pretty much wrote the book on the science of modern digital communications. And have thousands of patents in that field to protect their IP.
There was no way Apple could compete in that field, which is FAR different than competing with Intel with respect to CPU/GPU design.
No.
Front end BAW filters. The radio signal in the air doesn’t just get piped into the modem. There are a bunch of radio filters made by suppliers like Skyworks and Qorvo.
And then somebody has to fab that chip. We all know who that is.
The way they been writing iOS software in the last few years, I am not surprised they can’t get the 5G modem done. Their OS has more bugs than a Louisiana swamp at sunset. I am also sure there’s IP issues at hand.
Last edited:
Apple could design a modem in it's sleep.
But, to design a modem that does NOT use any of the currently patented IP..
I have no inside information about Apple's efforts, but as an Electrical Engineer, I know that the "technical" issues would be easily solvable with such a team. The IP issues are almost certainly the problem.
I'm sure Apple (and Intel) figured that with enough of a team and budget, they would be able to find an engineering solution around the IP.. but, Qualcom may have covered the process so well (with it's IP) that there isn't a practical way around it, no matter how much money you throw at it.
But, to design a modem that does NOT use any of the currently patented IP..
I have no inside information about Apple's efforts, but as an Electrical Engineer, I know that the "technical" issues would be easily solvable with such a team. The IP issues are almost certainly the problem.
I'm sure Apple (and Intel) figured that with enough of a team and budget, they would be able to find an engineering solution around the IP.. but, Qualcom may have covered the process so well (with it's IP) that there isn't a practical way around it, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Was this because the standard is so ill defined that only Qualcomm could implement it, or was Apple held back by trying to avoid as many patents as possible to reduce Qualcomm’s licensing? How much involved mmWave support that’s been US-only so far?
Apple might also be ill suited to be a new entrant to 5G radios since their goal would be to be cheaper than Qualcomm and as good as if not better, both performance, size and power consumption-wise. Another vendor might gain the experience necessary to get better by starting out with not as good radios in cheaper, lower stakes devices. Apple would have to get it perfect immediately and also be able to keep up with Qualcomm’s improvements, unless they limited it to other markets or devices like iPads.
Apple might also be ill suited to be a new entrant to 5G radios since their goal would be to be cheaper than Qualcomm and as good as if not better, both performance, size and power consumption-wise. Another vendor might gain the experience necessary to get better by starting out with not as good radios in cheaper, lower stakes devices. Apple would have to get it perfect immediately and also be able to keep up with Qualcomm’s improvements, unless they limited it to other markets or devices like iPads.
It’s so “easy,” yet Apple doesn’t even have their own Wi-Fi or BT chips… radio ain’t easy at all.
In other words, greed.
“Greed by any other name would stink just as much.” -some poet, probably
I was wondering how they could create anything around patents, how many ways is there to connect to a 5G tower. I was just hoping for energy efficiency, and for them to bring 5G to MacBooks. I think they should be realistic, and keep going at it and just jump on 6G swinging.
It's like the old saying: "When at first you don't succeed, try, try again, and then fire everyone"
Thinking about this. I highly doubt that is the case because Intel modems have always been low performance quality than Qualcomm. Think about it, Qualcomm is not about to get into a cross license agreement with a competitor that would allow the competitor access to patents that would allow them to make modems on a performance par with Qualcomm. Intel probably did have cross licensing agreements with Qualcomm but not with regards to the patents that matter. Qualcomm are keeping those patents to themselves. So of course, when Apple buys Intel, someone at Apple must have realized the purchase did not come with pre-existing license agreements on the patents that matter. This meant Apple was forever going to struggle.
Because despite all the promises, it's no better than LTE, unless you're in the square meter of space that can get a good MMWave signal (and hope that nothing steps between you and the antenna).
I get it everywhere I go too, including 5GUW here in the middle of nowhere where I live. It's the exact same speed as LTE was.
Last edited by a moderator: