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 First 5G Chip for iPhones Reportedly Won't Support mmWave
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And T-Mobile has it almost everywhere. At least in my neck of the woods. Very handy when uploading photos and videos.
Now… I will say this: There’s talk about Qualcomm’s X75 and X80 modems being much better at carrier aggregation - spreading 5G signals out wider in the non-mmWave bands to speed data transfer. If Apple’s 5G modem does this as well - only time will tell - it could mitigate the lack of mmWave.
Adding it to a product that uses the most bandwidth and hoping users won't notice? Makes no sense.
Putting it in Watch first would make most sense, assuming the chip is as power efficient as Qualcomm's.
Why? Its a stationary device. Maybe usage of laptops on a train would approach the complexity of switching a phone does?
Bandwidth from point a to point b is not going to be the edge cases they are worrying about.
I am 100% sure you are confusing technologies. What percent of t-mobile network is currently using mmwave? Please research this before replying.
"We've always said we'll use millimetre wave where it makes sense, and this test allows us to see how the spectrum can be put to use in different situations like crowded venues or to power things like fixed-wireless access (FWA) when combined with 5G standalone," said Ulf Ewaldsson, president of technology at T-Mobile US.
Last edited:
Way to go Apple! Great job moving us back 3-5 years in technology. I will NOT be upgrading to a phone with a crappy Apple modem chip.
Who even needs mmWave. Garbage technology. You literally have to hug a cellular pole to get mmWave signal.
I get the 5G UC symbol on my iPhone 15 Plus quite often. And, when I get it, upload and download speeds are as fast as my 500 Mb/sec WiFi 6 at home. From T-Mobile’s website:
What is 5G UC?
The "UC" after 5G stands for "Ultra Capacity," which is a term that T-Mobile uses to describe a part of our 5G networkthat utilizes mid-band and/or high-band (mmWave) 5G frequencies. This provides connectivity for data-intensive applications like streaming high-definition videos, for example, or for things like gaming or transferring big files. It's different from 5G Extended Range, our low-band 5G network, which makes up the foundation of our nationwide 5G, bringing service to big cities, rural towns, and many places in between. Currently, most 5G-capable phones can access both Extended Range 5G and Ultra Capacity 5G. When you see the 5G UC icon on your 5G-ready device, you'll know you’re in an area with these speeds.”
Apple’s reliance first on Motorola and then on Intel taught them a hard lesson. If you want it done right do it yourself. It’s why we have Apple Silicon today. Being at the mercy of Qualcomm for modem advances and innovation is yet another burr under Apple’s saddle they intend to remove, especially if they can ramp up the performance in a major way.
Anybody remember the weeping and gnashing of teeth when some iPhones had Samsung chips and others had TSMC chips? Nerds were demanding to know which chip was in their iPhone or demanded to be able to select which chip was in the iPhone they wanted to buy? I predict the same chaos when/if Apple introduces their 5G modem.
Last edited:
I believe you get UC when the tower is running true 3GPP NR 5G using the former Sprint frequencies. I've seen as high as 850 megabits/second download speeds on my iPhone 12 on Speedtest when I'm near a T-Mobile USA cellphone tower.
If that’s true then improved carrier aggregation on the low- and mid-5G bands may be all we need. As I posted above, if the new Apple modem - and Qualcomm’s X75 and X80 - give us that, maybe it’s problem solved.
MacBook is not a stationary device. It also has the fastest chips.
Putting a new untested modem in the highest performance device makes no sense.
Slim doesn’t have room for mmWave antenna. SE4 doesn’t include it for cost reasons. Its very unlikely Apple will limit their modem to certain geo locations.
Woof! I had first gen SE and currently using 2nd gen. Skipped the 3rd and will likely get the next one. They’ve been perfectly fine phones. I’ll miss Touch ID if they take it away
I’m pretty sure you’re just seeing sub-6 GHz. The carriers use the same icon for sub-6 GHz and mmWave. mmWave speeds are usually multi-gigabit per second.
If the specs are right, then even the iPhone 16/16 Plus models are using the Qualcomm X75 radio modem chip, the same one used on the iPhone 16 Pro models. That could mean significantly improved 3GPP NR 5G access, particularly on the true mid-band 5G networks used by T-Mobile USA.
Thinking the iPhone 17 Series will be the last version of Qualcomm iPhones.
Apple’s custom 5G modem will bring better battery 🔋 life and less thermal heat inside there iPhones.
Apple’s custom 5G modem will bring better battery 🔋 life and less thermal heat inside there iPhones.
If the user is opting for the specific cellular model (when there is also a WiFi-only model available), the buyer must be anticipating some usage outside WiFi, and iPad Pro users are arguably more likely to use their device for more intensive tasks than the average phone user (which is why the iPad Pro has generally higher specs than the phones in most performance areas).
Still, it does look like Apple is slowly moving away from supporting mmWave 5G, possibly after some studies or surveys were conducted.
For my own uses, I don’t necessitate mmWave, but it does seem odd to remove technology from newer products rather than adding more.
The iPhone SE never had mmWave and neither did the iPad (regular), iPad Air or iPad Mini, so this decision has affected the iPad Pro and could supposedly apply to (some of/all) the flagship iPhones eventually.
I think that is the plan but it is the implementation that is worrisome. I don’t want to spend several hundreds of dollars on mobile phone with a v1.0.0 key component. I wish Apple the best of luck but I will stand aside and allow others to be the first adopters.
Huh? Got any actual data to back up the "quite inefficient and use lots of power" comment? Everything I've read is that they are the best in speed/efficiency.