I read Apple pays about $20 for modem chips. But it still costs Apple something to have their chips manufactured. So at most Apple could pass on a $4 savings? But then Apple has spent a fortune developing their own modem and will not break even anytime soon. There is no savings to be passed on until years from now.
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's C1 Modem Put Through New Speed Test Ahead of iPhone 17 Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I read Apple pays about $20 for modem chips. But it still costs Apple something to have their chips manufactured. So at most Apple could pass on a $4 savings? But then Apple has spent a fortune developing their own modem and will not break even anytime soon. There is no savings to be passed on until years from now.
This is a dealbreaker. Although, I used to see more and better mmWave coverage with my carrier. Lately, it’s been far more sparse—almost like it’s being abandoned.
I am genuinely curious as to why the difference in speeds is actually a major factor in someone's daily use. For me, the most data I'll use would be to download a movie or two, maybe an audio book, so I can use them while on a drive or a flight or something. If it takes 15-20 seconds longer to download...I'm not really "put out" by that.
I'd love to hear about real-world examples of how 252 Mbps is somehow holding you back when 317 Mbps will totally make your day. I'm sure that could make a difference in somebody's world...I just don't know who or how.
For me, the issue with cell service isn't a download speed...it whether I am receiving service at all inside my vehicle or in a building when I need it. Certainly there are certain wavelengths that could help that, or an abundance of towers, but that seems to be more of a carrier issue rather than a modem issue. And certainly that 15-20 second difference is significantly less important to me than whether I get a signal at all.
I'd love to hear about real-world examples of how 252 Mbps is somehow holding you back when 317 Mbps will totally make your day. I'm sure that could make a difference in somebody's world...I just don't know who or how.
For me, the issue with cell service isn't a download speed...it whether I am receiving service at all inside my vehicle or in a building when I need it. Certainly there are certain wavelengths that could help that, or an abundance of towers, but that seems to be more of a carrier issue rather than a modem issue. And certainly that 15-20 second difference is significantly less important to me than whether I get a signal at all.
Last edited:
In the real world - frankly not so great 5g/4g in the UK where I am - I notice no appreciable difference between my previous iPhone 13 and 16e. Although it does seem to get hot at - presumably - high radio strength in areas with poor connectivity (basically where I live!). And in the UK we don't use mmWave.
I'd say if speed matters to you - stick with the pro.
And as many others have said - it's first gen. Looking forward to the C2 and 3.
I'd say if speed matters to you - stick with the pro.
And as many others have said - it's first gen. Looking forward to the C2 and 3.
While its true that this rarely happens anywhere, the true factor is that products generally get more expensive over time and any cost savings on a part may not get passed along in kind, but the saving can mean a delay in the increase. Products like an iPhone are not made in a vacuum - a business has to factor in ALL costs of the product cycle, not just the manufacturing cost of bolting parts together. R&D, variable costs of raw materials, even the cost of product support are some of the thousands of "hidden" costs that a wise company has to factor when releasing anything new. And a company that build multiple products will also create some at low or below margin to build market share or service an under serviced market, and those costs must be factored in as well.
Bottom line - cost savings without meaningful performance sacrifices are the lifeblood for a company to be able to do more, for more people, either for less $ or without significant price increases.
I suspect 99+ percent of Apple's customers don't know what a cellphone modem is or what it does.
Again, where’s the source? This sounds like something made-up.
There are many reasons a company might request a specific component. Cost, supply constraints, battery consumption, performance under multiple conditions—the list is endless.
But for some reason people want to fabricate a reason instead of using logic.
There isn’t any use case for this. It’s just so people can brag/complain.
At the same time, people will say it doesn’t matter if the iPhone has the best processor as nobody will use that speed.
Which is odd as there are many uses for fast processing speed. There are very few for a faster modem.
I have been surprised, I was really thinking there was a good chance the C1 would be a flop. Hopefully it works out just fine with upcoming generations.
Ookla web speetest reported 933 Mbps on S25 Ultra running latest Samsung updates on T-Mobile 5g.
Apple is starting to gain momentum toward better performing modems but they still have a long way to go.
Higher throughout definitely matters. My wife's iPhone mobile web browsing performance is noticeably slower. Wherever we travel I run speed.cloudflare.com tests and Samsung performance is always way ahead. I just ran it on my phone and it came in at 633 Mbps.
Last edited:
Vast majority of people will not notice 5-7% difference in speeds unless it’s their job to.
Are you really going to take seriously anything said by someone who said "Apple users deserve old tech." This makes it pretty onvious that they hate Apple, yet are here in an Apple
Forum.... with an obvious agenda.
When they switched to the M series processors? The base intel units were 1299$ even 1199$. Now 999$.
Intel > Apple switch has no relevance in this case. The lower power usage in this switch was caused by two factors:
- switch to ARM architecture
- switch to TSMC manufacturing
CPU architectures have nothing to do with the modems. Qualcomm uses TSMC just like Apple does.
"Slightly faster" never matters. Much faster (as is seemingly the case here) does matter. If anything, when the modem manages to, say, download data faster, it means it is actively working for shorter times, hence implications for the battery life.
Modem speeds in 2025 matter to MR tech nerds only...
The 16e is Apples entry model and 99%+ of users choosing that model don't care...
The 16e is Apples entry model and 99%+ of users choosing that model don't care...
The C1 modem is rumored to only support 3 component carrier aggregation, which is why it would be slower on T-Mobile (since they often use four channels for 5G — two of n41, one of n25 and one of n71).
AT&T usually has three max (one n5 channel and two n77 channels) which is why the C1’s max capabilities isn’t as impacted by their network.
AT&T usually has three max (one n5 channel and two n77 channels) which is why the C1’s max capabilities isn’t as impacted by their network.
^This, exactly!
The most energy a modem "consumes" is used for sending to the communication towers, receiving uses negligible energy compared to sending. Simple as that: The shorter times the modem is sending, the less power is used. Hence speed matters.
PS: Antenna design and the main signal amplifier for the antenna has a bigger impact on energy used than the modem itself.
Well, for T-Mobile it makes a huge difference. They were terrible in the 3G and 4G eras. I regularly get 5G speeds over 300 Mbps with them now. mmWave is even better though. You can download hundreds of songs or a whole season of a TV show right before your flight begins.
Yeah, what a coincidence, right?
Apple has been using publicly available Qualcomm modems since iPhone 4.
Apple just happened to use a custom de-featured X71M modem immediately before launching their own C1 modem.
Credit where credit is due. The C1 could easily have been rushed or half-baked. Instead Apple applied many of the painfully learned lessons from the Intel/infineon years and made a competent product. There are other areas where that should be applied but I won't get into that right now.
Just like CPUs, I care about efficiency. I use LTE because it’s fast and uses less battery.
Does Apple C1 is more efficient than the other ones?
Does Apple C1 is more efficient than the other ones?
If you examine the report, the differences aren't significant in most cases. However, when higher number of carrier aggregation and/or mmWave technology come into play, the iPhone 16 leads 16e. This is understandable because Apple's C1 chip is limited to 3 carrier aggregation (CA) and lacks mmWave technology, while the Qualcomm X71 chip in the iPhone 16 supports 4 CAand supports mmWave.
However, when you are in an area without 4 CA and/or mmWave, the iPhone 16e is on par with the iPhone 16, and even superior, particularly in terms of upload performance, all the while with longer battery life.
The iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max are expected to get Qualcomm X80 modem with support for 5 CA and with battery life optimization.