iPhone 18 Pro Could Use Qualcomm Modem in the US and C2 Elsewhere

[zarmanto]

... My secondary line on Verizon had mmWave though, and still worked just fine. I believe AT&T and Verizon have mmWave at Nissan Stadium, while T-Mobile only has midband 5G.

The untested presumption herein is that you wouldn't have still been just fine on your Verizon phone, had it not been mmWave enabled.

The primary reason that mmWave improves connectivity in crowded venues is that the network has to be designed to work around the short range issues; you do that by installing more network nodes... lots of them. By default, that means that any carrier using mmWave to cover a stadium or similar venue is also required to install huge fiber upgrades to their entire backbone for that venue in order to handle all of those nodes. This inherently benefits all of Verizon's/AT&T's customers at the venue, not just mmWave customers, because those nodes are typically multi-band enabled.

Thus, even in the total absence of mmWave, if T-Mobile were to mirror that approach by upgrading their backbone at those venues and installing their own small cells throughout, the comparison would change dramatically. The problem is, of course, two fold: 1) it's not cheap to commit to those kinds of upgrades, and 2) they'd have to negotiate with the venue owners for access to the facility. These things obviously didn't happen in your case, possibly because the facility may have already promised exclusive rights to another carrier, or possibly because T-Mobile concluded that the ROI just isn't where it needs to be.

TLDR: Your real problem wasn't with midband vs mmWave... it's with T-Mobile's crappy backbone at that venue.

 

[DerekK]

I would guess that the Apple C2 modem costs Apple about the same as the Qualcomm X80 or X85, so I don't think this is a cost saving measure. This is just Apple wanting to be more in control of their platform, and in keeping more of their costs in-house.

While it looks like the C2 will catch up to the X80 with respect to upload speed, the X85 will supposedly be even faster. Obviously we will have to wait until both modems are released to see what real-world speeds are like.

Even though Apple modems are more power efficient (Gemini estimates an extra 20-30 minutes of battery life per day), I think as an average user I would notice the minute-to-minute speed difference more than the extra battery life at the end of each day.

Personally, I think this decision has more to do with having the fastest modem in the USA (where they have the highest market share). Just image the Samsung ads we would get if the flagship iPhone Pro was slower than the S26.

 

[The Oak]

While that was true back when they were Intel modems, in any recent tests I’ve read about, other than mmWave bands, the Apple modems performed as well as the Qualcomm ones.

Apple did buy Intel's modem division. You do realize the C1, C1X and C2 were likely designed by "Intel".

 

[Tagbert]

Apple did buy Intel's modem division. You do realize the C1, C1X and C2 were likely designed by "Intel".

Of course I know that Apple bought the tech and patents, but they have done significant work on their own modem with that as a basis. You can’t expect that the Apple C-series modems are just repackaged Intel modems. If you read articles that review the modem performance you will find that the Apple modem keeps up with the Qualcomm modems in most areas and is better in some. The main difference in just in mmWave support that has not, yet, come to the Apple modems.

 

[HaHaRich!]

Gruber has lost it. LTE is "fast enough?" What the heck is he doing on his phone; checking email, surfing X & Reddit, and only loading up mobile websites he first bookmarked on his iPhone 3GS? Please, take grandpa's phone away; I think I finally understand why he's the "daring fireball" 🦖🦕☄️

 

[NoGood@Usernames]

That's not a fault of LTE itself, but T-Mobile overloading the network.

It’s not that T-Mobile is “overloading” the network, but rather that T-Mobile has refarmed a vast majority of their spectrum to their 5G standalone network. They are running the LTE network on a pretty bare minimum of spectrum, that’s why it has slowed down.

If you’re on T-Mobile, you really want to have a 5G phone. On the other 2, you can get away with LTE for a little while longer.

 

[krakenrelease]

"I never feel like I'm waiting for anything to load because I'm on LTE."

LTE is dreadfully slow in my area with T-Mobile.

Do people not have 5G service and phones? I have TMobile and I get over 150MBps and even apps download in seconds.

 

[krakenrelease]

While that was true back when they were Intel modems, in any recent tests I’ve read about, other than mmWave bands, the Apple modems performed as well as the Qualcomm ones.

I had a 15 Pro side by side 16e. Had to get a 16e because I thought I lost my phone. I can tell you the 15 Pro download speeds were better and the 16e would drop calls in places where I never experienced issues on the 15. They were close, but I can tell you the experience was better on the 15 for sure.

 

[quietstormSD]

Glad that the US is finally getting the superior product this time.

 

[rbbloom99]

Because then the number doesn't go up.
You see, this model is one better.

View attachment 2642533

I had to be better. It cost 30% more 😱

 

[Baritone_Guy]

A bit strange but a good move considering the quality of the C1 and C1X

Not sure what you are talking about. I have 3 devices with the C1X and am very happy with them. As an apple device it integrates very well into the os.

Absolutely zero issues.

JPack, I can presume the iPhone Air 2 and Base iPhone 18 series will get the C2 or C2X modems from Apple 🍎 in house 🏡

I hope so. My Air with the C1X is fantastic. In 5g areas without mmWave I get better performance than I saw with Qualcomm

Glad that the US is finally getting the superior product this time.

It was like 3 devices only. The US has always been the dog that wags Apples dog.

 

[cdsapplefan]

We’ve seen this before, Apple kneecapping Qualcomm to meet the specs of the other modem. It’s a bit unfortunate Apple chose to stick with X80 rather than adopt X85.

Apple didn't use the X85 modem because it would’ve ran laps around the C1 and C1X Apple in house modems. Apple wanted to brag that their modem was better than the X80 when that wasn’t Qualcomm’s latest and greatest modem.

If these reports are true then this will be deja vu all over again Verizon Qualcomm modems vs Intel modems

International iPhones will get Apple in house Intel patent modems and the USA Will get Qualcomm patent iphones 📱

There could be further modem differentiation with the USA iPhone Air 2, 18e and base iPhone 18 getting the Apple in house modem C2X And just the Pro iPhones will have the Qualcomm modem.

 

[Rigby]

Gruber's analysis kind of misses the point. mmWave isn't so much for individuals to download at 320 Mbps, but to provide high capacity in crowded public spaces (think stadiums, concert venues, shopping malls etc.).

 

[dwaite]

We’ve seen this before, Apple kneecapping Qualcomm to meet the specs of the other modem. It’s a bit unfortunate Apple chose to stick with X80 rather than adopt X85.

So they'll go with a Qualcomm chip without mmWave?

 

[acorntoy]

Nah. It’s handy at crowded events. I went to a Bruno Mars concert in Nashville back in May and T-Mobile’s data just completely quit working when the stadium filled. My secondary line on Verizon had mmWave though, and still worked just fine. I believe AT&T and Verizon have mmWave at Nissan Stadium, while T-Mobile only has midband 5G.

So many people (including Gruber) completely missed this.

Was at a cruise terminal awhile ago and I was able to use my phone completely normally on Verizon UW (15 Pro). My brother in law with an Air meanwhile spent 40 minutes in line frantically trying to get less a than a 1mb ticket downloaded because it was stuck on Verizon 5G.

 

[ReliableSource]

It’s not that T-Mobile is “overloading” the network, but rather that T-Mobile has refarmed a vast majority of their spectrum to their 5G standalone network. They are running the LTE network on a pretty bare minimum of spectrum, that’s why it has slowed down.

If you’re on T-Mobile, you really want to have a 5G phone. On the other 2, you can get away with LTE for a little while longer.

No wonder LTE has always been unusable for me on T-Mobile. I’m on a Verizon trial right now and the LTE with them still gets ~150Mbps, which explains why Gruber is so okay with LTE.

 

[B-Mc-C]

fortunately, I don't hold text books up to my iPhone when I'm using it! I do know the mmWave 5G tower up the street manages to get through our roof and walls and gives us super fast cellular IN the house. Maybe because our walls aren't filled with text books. 😉

I think most people are fully aware that even standing under a tree will block the mmWave signal that is otherwise very close by and within line of sight. It doesn’t penetrate most buildings or even thicker windows. You basically need to be standing next to the tower, looking at it. Even if you happen to live by one, to build them out every 1,000–2,000 feet or so (basically one at every single intersection in every city) would be cost prohibitive.

I haven’t seen an ad in years but I imagine they have stopped advertising it. Never in my life have I seen it pop up on my phone, throughout Southern California.

Side note: I installed the T-Mobile test drive today as a second line and got over 1.4Gpbs on first speed test, using an iPhone Air, not being near a tower.

 

[Biro]

Side note: I installed the T-Mobile test drive today as a second line and got over 1.4Gpbs on first speed test, using an iPhone Air, not being near a tower.

That’s because T-Mobile’s 5G network is excellent. It is faster than the competition and covers more of the country than 5G from the other carriers. The problem is when the phone leaves a T-Mobile 5G cell and relies on LTE. Too many serious gaps in T-Mobile coverage - even in heavily populated areas. It was bad enough for me to switch to Verizon without missing a beat after T-Mobile told me this week they were retiring the plan I was on. Verizon’s 5G may not be as fast but I almost always have a useable signal from them. But T-Mobile might work out great for you if you’re in the right area.

 

[xpxp2002]

I think most people are fully aware that even standing under a tree will block the mmWave signal that is otherwise very close by and within line of sight. It doesn’t penetrate most buildings or even thicker windows. You basically need to be standing next to the tower, looking at it. Even if you happen to live by one, to build them out every 1,000–2,000 feet or so (basically one at every single intersection in every city) would be cost prohibitive.

I haven’t seen an ad in years but I imagine they have stopped advertising it. Never in my life have I seen it pop up on my phone, throughout Southern California.

Side note: I installed the T-Mobile test drive today as a second line and got over 1.4Gpbs on first speed test, using an iPhone Air, not being near a tower.

This is simply untrue. Trees alone do not block it. Neither do most typical construction walls.

I’ve used Verizon mmWave indoors through exterior building walls, no windows, in many occasions. A local restaurant near me has a mmWave cell across the street and handily pulls over a gig down and 200+ up from inside without being near any window.

Verizon also covered another city near me for VWHI with mmWave and they only put cell sites at every other street intersection. It’s not suitable everywhere, but it’s not cost prohibitive in dense areas either.

But as I’ve explained in prior posts, the real benefits come from denser venues where tens of thousands of people are using the cellular network in a confined area, and the propagation characteristics of mmWave bands are better suited to controlling SNR while providing enough bandwidth to deliver usable service to those thousands of UE simultaneously in ways that legacy DAS installations with FR1 bands can’t do or do efficiently.

 

[noraa]

I don't think you do get it. You think cellular internet is just used on phones? How about laptops with WWAN moving real data? I want the fastest. How about WIFI hotspots that use 5G technology to power internet in homes and businesses? Again, the faster the better.

I also wish you'd actually back up your statement with some sort of support, in particular, why mmWave 5G is "dead end technology".

No need to be rude, but I will happily explain why mmWave is a dead end technology.

mmWave functions at a very high frequency (b/w about 30-60GHz). Radio waves at this frequency cannot travel very far (a couple of blocks at most) and are easily blocked by pretty much anything (including your own hand, and even rain or snow). As such, you will only find mmWave in larger cities where they can have cell antennas every few blocks (you'll never have mmWave in rural areas precisely because it requires antennas every few blocks). In addition, the signal has to be broadcast at a very high power to even make it those few blocks, thus preventing it from being used near certain radio-sensitive areas.

Furthermore, any 5G enabled device needs to have a separate modem AND antenna for mmWave - which requires both extra space and extra power. If you've ever paid attention to iPhones (or any phone for that matter) that supports mmWave, you'll notice a separate cutout somewhere on the phone just for the mmWave antenna - typically in an area away from where your hand holds the phone.

In addition, mmWave is pretty much only found in the US (which is why Apple could use the C2 modem everywhere but the US), more or less as a means for the big 3 cell carriers to advertise how fast they are (despite those speeds being rarely if ever seen by the average person).

Those are all of the downsides to mmWave, but why exactly is it a dead end technology? Well because the fundamental issue of short travel distance and inability to penetrate simple walls isn't something that can be engineered around. You're literally running up against the laws of physics. Power usage, modem size/antenna size are things that will get better, and have gotten better - specifically with Qualcomm being able to combine the regular 5G and mmWave 5G modems on to a single SoC - but mmWave will never be able to travel more than a few blocks and will never be able to penetrate a person's hand or travel through rain.

With all of that being said, the ONLY possible future for mmWave is in super dense settings like a sports venue or an airport. Those are fairly confined spaces where multiple antennas can be installed in close proximity to each other and won't have very many obstacles in b/w a person's device and the antenna. But that's literally the only situation where mmWave has any true tangible benefit.

 

[platinumaqua]

I'm not buying the stadium/dense argument for mmWave. Other countries around the world with high population densities get by without using mmWave.

 

[SmugMaverick]

I'm not buying the stadium/dense argument for mmWave. Other countries around the world with high population densities get by without using mmWave.

Exactly, this reeks of people convincing themselves they don't need C2. 🤣

The C1X has been fantastic for me in Europe and rural places that my Pro phones always failed in, it's also better optimised for iOS because it's not a third party part.

mmWave is just another gimmick for US networks to charge more like 4G+ 🤣

 

[Closingracer]

I bought my iPhone 15 Pro from Canada to have a physical SIM slot and I have never noticed the lack of mmWave even though I use Verizon and am from NYC. I would rather have Apple's modem but oh well. Wasn't planning on upgrading this cycle anyways.

I am confident the 2027 iPhones will use C-series modems though. Apple's deal with Qualcomm expires in 2027 and I am confident that Apple plans on contesting royalty rates and probably starting litigation again. Last time Apple was forced to fold because of Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" rule and because Intel screwed up. This time Apple can hold out a lot longer since they don't need Qualcomm's modems.

mmWave you’re not going to see it in nyc streets because that’s what it is for. I’ve seen it in LGA and JFK. It’s for places that is huge like stadiums where you have a lot of people in a small space. Or like airports where you’re not going to see C band.

 

[Closingracer]

I'm not buying the stadium/dense argument for mmWave. Other countries around the world with high population densities get by without using mmWave.

Why not ? I’ve seen N77 get up to 1,500 Mbps down in certain areas but if you have a lot of people on it and if Verizon doesn’t have the capacity it will get bogged down. Realistically I usually get around 300-600 on N77. With mmWave you’re going to have much more capacity where with the amount of people on it you’ll still get a solid speed. Also Airports you’re not going to see C band. When I’m at an airport I’ve been on MmWave. With no c band you’re going to see a lot of N2 and N5 and both Verizon and AT&T is still building that out. And one of those is low band 5G.

 

[Closingracer]

Exactly, this reeks of people convincing themselves they don't need C2. 🤣

The C1X has been fantastic for me in Europe and rural places that my Pro phones always failed in, it's also better optimised for iOS because it's not a third party part.

mmWave is just another gimmick for US networks to charge more like 4G+ 🤣

Europe 5G is different and my experience in London it was…..fine. Definitely not as fast but also technically I was roaming through Verizon since my plan offers roaming included.