Kuo: Apple Developing Faster 'Refreshed' C1 Modem With mmWave Support for Mass Production Next Year

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

It's not about saving money, but not having to rely on a third party.
And also every important, it's about power efficiency, where Apple excels.
There are also rumors they plan to integrate it in the SoC.

It’s can be both and all three.

As for integration, if Apple is doing the development and TSMC is fabricating them, it’s a way to stay ahead. Or catch up to the pieces sold by others.

Either way.

 

[mannyvel]

The more people use mmWave the more useful normal 5g will be to everyone else.

It's just like the LTE bands - sometimes they're faster than 5g because they're less utilized.

Not sure what people do with that much bandwidth. What's the point of streaming 4k to your ProMax? Because you can?

 

[9081094]

It's not about saving money, but not having to rely on a third party.
And also every important, it's about power efficiency, where Apple excels.
There are also rumors they plan to integrate it in the SoC.

I hear lots of talking about the power efficiency compared to the modems of Qualcomm. Is there a comparison sheet or info somewhere that shows how much less the C1 consumes in energie compared to Qualcomm?

 

[9081094]

The C1 is slower by a lot compared to the Qualcomm modem used in the iPhone 16 and 16 pro. Even the iPhone 16 and 16 pro are using an older chipset of the Qualcomm modem:

We tested Apple's new C1 modem: These are the surprising results

We tested the iPhone 16e against the iPhone 16, and found it to be slower, but acceptable.

www.macworld.com

 

[I7guy]

The C1 is slower by a lot compared to the Qualcomm modem used in the iPhone 16 and 16 pro. Even the iPhone 16 and 16 pro are using an older chipset of the Qualcomm modem:

We tested Apple's new C1 modem: These are the surprising results

We tested the iPhone 16e against the iPhone 16, and found it to be slower, but acceptable.

www.macworld.com

No, the c1 is about on par and uses less battery life.

 

[svish]

Good to hear about this. It should enable mmWave support for all iPhone models sold globally. Waiting to see the improvements Apple makes in this space.

 

[mansplains]

This is apple we are talking about. It will be the C1S.

And the C1e doesn't support 5G at all

 

[haunebu]

The C1 is slower by a lot compared to the Qualcomm modem used in the iPhone 16 and 16 pro. Even the iPhone 16 and 16 pro are using an older chipset of the Qualcomm modem:

We tested Apple's new C1 modem: These are the surprising results

We tested the iPhone 16e against the iPhone 16, and found it to be slower, but acceptable.

www.macworld.com

Yep. The C1 is slower even under ideal conditions, no question. Anyone who wants the fastest solution, especially when network coverage is poor, needs a Qualcomm modem.

 

[McScooby]

It's not about saving money, but not having to rely on a third party.
And also every important, it's about power efficiency, where Apple excels.
There are also rumors they plan to integrate it in the SoC.

In part it is, history tells us this when Qualcomm wanted, and thought it had a right to, charge Apple per price of device sold, not simply the component cost. IIRC, according to folklore, this is why Apple never included a modem in the MacBooks.

Also it means being able to power the modem efficiently (directly on apple silicon) whilst not giving other companies access to the thought process and future direction.

Tech aside, it's always about money, whilst pushing the envelope on what the devices are capable of - the greatest and fastest is not always the best as power per watt has shown.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Apple’s own modem and esim should make it easier to sign up for data plan from a MacBook Pro. Come one Apple give a cellular option for mac.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Go ahead and put it in the MacBooks as an optional upgrade.

 

[MVMNT]

Silly, it will be called C2. Where's the critical thinking?

 

[gridlocked]

You are conflating wavelength with bandwidth, although there are relationships.

There is much higher *bandwidth* available in the mm wave band. This alone gives you higher throughput.

In addition, the very short wavelengths involved mean that the signals don't propagate very far at all, which gives the cell providers more capacity (more users doing more things). At the same time this capacity comes at the very real cost of having nano cell sites just hundreds of feet apart to provide coverage.

As one might expect, rolling out thousands upon thousands of nano sites just to cover a small area is no small task, and many operators probably aren't going to do it any time soon - if ever.

Just correcting the post that stated that the higher frequency is what makes it faster which is nonsense. I never conflated wavelength with bandwidth. If you can't look at the context the post was written with...............

 

[Hammerd]