Report: Apple's C1 Is Just the Beginning of Modem Changes

[MacRumors]

Apple plans to move away from Qualcomm modems in the Apple Watch while bolstering its new in-house alternatives, according to The Information's Wayne Ma.

Later this year, Apple plans to eliminate the Qualcomm modem used in the Apple Watch Ultra. Rather than using the C1 modem or another custom Apple chip, Apple plans to switch from using Qualcomm units to MediaTek ones. MediaTek is one of the few companies capable of designing 5G modems.

In 2026, Apple will debut a new custom modem with support for mmWave 5G. The C1 does not have this capability. The modem with mmWave support will be used in iPhones and "at least one iPad." This project has the codename "Ganymede."

The C1 currently falls short of Qualcomm's performance, and the report suggests its direct 2026 successor will be the same. It will not be until a third generation in 2027 that Apple will "finally be able to exceed the performance of Qualcomm's modems." This project is codenamed "Prometheus."

While this information appears to have been sourced independently, it corroborates previous rumors. In December, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reported that Apple's second-generation 5G modem will add mmWave support and debut in the iPhone 18 lineup in 2026 and come to the iPad Pro by 2027.

He said the second modem will achieve theoretical download speeds of up to 6 Gbps, compared to up to 4 Gbps for Apple's first modem. He also alluded to Apple's wish for its third-generation modem to surpass Qualcomm's modems in terms of performance and AI features in 2027.

Another Bloomberg report mentioned Apple's plan to transition to MediaTek modems in the Apple Watch. MediaTek's modem adds support for 5G RedCap, a 5G service that's designed for connected devices and wearables that don't need standard 5G speeds. The current cellular Apple Watch models still use 4G LTE.

The Information's full article details Apple's tumultuous relationship with Qualcomm and how it developed the all-new C1 chip.

Article Link: Report: Apple's C1 Is Just the Beginning of Modem Changes

 

[sniffies]

Imagine if Apple's C1 was the end of modem changes

 

[formularossa]

Hopefully this opens up the possibility of a cellular MacBook Pro!

 

[vertsix]

Better be. It's half-baked and doesn't support mmWave.

 

[Realityck]

Imagine if Apple's C1 was the end of modem changes

Sure this chip line will be around a lot longer then their misguided Airport boxes.

 

[menist]

At least they can update the firmware quickly if it does have First Gen issues.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

Better be. It's half-baked and doesn't support mmWave.

That doesn't make it half baked. No one cares about mmWave. Cellular data hasn't changed meaningfully since we started using 3G. It is still slow, latent, spotty, and expensive. It is still something you use as little as possible, in between hops from one Wi-Fi network to the next. Nothing about 4G or 5G has changed the way that the majority of users treat cellular data.

As such, Apple is on the right track here to completely reboot the concept with more efficient technology so that we can get some kind of short term gain, while they continue to improve speed over time.

 

[QuarterSwede]

That doesn't make it half baked. No one cares about mmWave. Cellular data hasn't changed meaningfully since we started using 3G. It is still slow, latent, spotty, and expensive. It is still something you use as little as possible, in between hops from one Wi-Fi network to the next. Nothing about 4G or 5G has changed the way that the majority of users treat cellular data.

As such, Apple is on the right track here to completely reboot the concept with more efficient technology so that we can get some kind of short term gain, while they continue to improve speed over time.

I agree with the sentiment that mmWave is useless for the vast majority of users and majority of the time.

However, the speed difference between 3G and LTE was absolutely noticeable. Between 5G, not so much, but 5G feels like fiber due to much lower latency and more bandwidth per tower vs LTE (fast but takes longer to connect).

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

I agree with the sentiment that mmWave is useless for the vast majority of users and majority of the time.

However, the speed difference between 3G and LTE was absolutely noticeable. Between 5G, not so much, but 5G feels like fiber due to much lower latency and more bandwidth per tower vs LTE (fast but takes longer to connect).

Don't quote me theoretical speeds of cellular. That is what carriers do. That is not what real world use is like. Speeds and coverage and latency vary WILDLY. As such, the way people use cellular has not changed.

 

[thefrost]

Show them Apple!

 

[suchnerve]

mmWave has only been around for a couple of years, and hasn’t even been deployed on the vast majority of cell sites. Of course its coverage sucks right now — nobody’s given it a fair chance yet.

Deploying mmWave on most cell sites and installing repeaters will dramatically improve its coverage, which is critical for long-term network stability because there’s very little new midband spectrum in the pipeline. The existing midband channels will eventually become congested, at which point it’s mmWave or bust. And it’s better to get a head start on infrastructural problems, rather than procrastinating until they become emergencies.

 

[jhwalker]

Don't quote me theoretical speeds of cellular. That is what carriers do. That is not what real world use is like. Speeds and coverage and latency vary WILDLY. As such, the way people use cellular has not changed.

I live in a cell-rich area, and I DEFINITELY get the benefits of 5G over LTE - LTE was about 50-75Mbps, 5G is 800Mbps+, with no latency to speak of. Upload speeds are HIGHER than what I can get with cable :/

I'd switch to 5G Internet for my home if they would allow inbound traffic (or, rather, allow management of the router to allow such).

 

[jicon]

Ultimately I'm not expecting any device price cuts with a switch to custom made inhouse chips. That's all Apple's internal play to improve their bottom line. If I'm paying top dollar for a pro phone, I want the device with best battery and cellular performance. If that remains to be Qualcom under the hood for a few more years, so be it.

 

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

The C1 will increase Apple’s iPhone margins significantly.

 

[SactoGuy18]

The C1 is likely about the same as the Snapdragon X70, while the C2 is likely about the same as the Snapdragon X80. It's still going to be faster than the Snapdragon X55 that the iPhone 12 used.

 

[0049190]

I hope this doesn’t end up in the courts. Qualcomm doesn’t like competition.

 

[xmach]

Ultimately I'm not expecting any device price cuts with a switch to custom made inhouse chips. That's all Apple's internal play to improve their bottom line. If I'm paying top dollar for a pro phone, I want the device with best battery and cellular performance. If that remains to be Qualcom under the hood for a few more years, so be it.

Yeah but right now there's a split: Qualcomm makes the most performant modem, but Apple's C1 is now the most power-efficient modem. At present there is no one modem product that is simultaneously 'most performant' and 'most efficient' -- you have to choose or the other.

Since cellular bandwidth above what you can get with LTE isn't important for most people most of the time, then it seems like Apple is probably making a good choice for most people in going with their own modems.

 

[Dejesus]

Next move. Put C1 on macbooks

 

[CWallace]

The iPhone SE (3rd generation) did not support mmWave so even if Apple was using a Qualcomm modem with the 16e, would we be 100% certain that mmWave would have been supported within the US?

Personally, I expect Apple feels mmWave is not important at the moment since only the US supports it and then only in very limited situations. So it is something they can add to a future generation of the C series when it becomes actually relevant to more people.

 

[mansplains]

Ultimately I'm not expecting any device price cuts with a switch to custom made inhouse chips. That's all Apple's internal play to improve their bottom line. If I'm paying top dollar for a pro phone, I want the device with best battery and cellular performance. If that remains to be Qualcom under the hood for a few more years, so be it.

They’ve gotta recoup the R&D money for their in-house modems before passing any sort of savings

 

[Thehangmn]

Ultimately I'm not expecting any device price cuts with a switch to custom made inhouse chips. That's all Apple's internal play to improve their bottom line. If I'm paying top dollar for a pro phone, I want the device with best battery and cellular performance. If that remains to be Qualcom under the hood for a few more years, so be it.

Its not about price cuts. C1 is already significantly more power efficient than the QCOM modem. So your statement about having the device with best battery AND cellular performance is already in conflict. Also, consider that Apple may want to implement some proprietary functionality as well. That would make the C series value proposition much more valuable in my mind. It will put QCOM on the defensive, and drive innovation in general.

Apple will continue to improve their modems and you can bet that they will start to compete with the flagship QCOM offerings. That much is for certain.

But for now just that fact that Apple was able to design their own 5G cellular modem is a huge accomplishment. We should celebrate this and look forward to the competition it will drive.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Don't quote me theoretical speeds of cellular. That is what carriers do. That is not what real world use is like. Speeds and coverage and latency vary WILDLY. As such, the way people use cellular has not changed.

What theoretical speeds did I quote? I’m talking about real world noticeable differences. Seeing as a bunch of people seemed to agree with me, I’d say your experience is not the norm.

 

[deconstruct60]

That doesn't make it half baked. No one cares about mmWave. Cellular data hasn't changed meaningfully since we started using 3G. It is still slow, latent, spotty, and expensive. It is still something you use as little as possible, in between hops from one Wi-Fi network to the next. Nothing about 4G or 5G has changed the way that the majority of users treat cellular data.

Same usage profile as back in pre iPHone days. That is a gross exerageration.

" ...In the period, cable TV companies added around 5,000 new internet customers, while T-Mobile and Verizon added 941,000 customers. ..."

T-Mobile Is The Fastest Growing Home Internet Provider In the United States As Cord Cutting 2.0 Grows | Cord Cutters News

Cord Cutting 2.0 is growing faster than ever even as cable TV companies struggled to add new customers in the third quarter, according to a report from Leichtman Research Group. In the period, cable TV companies added around 5,000 new internet customers, while T-Mobile and Verizon added 941,000...

cordcuttersnews.com

mmWave is reduced in part because of C-band and also plans to phase out 3G and repurpose the bandwidth/frequencies. So notion if were just stuck with 3G restrictions things would mostly be OK hugely flawed.

Not just home internet, but Alarm systems are far more widespread on celluar networks now.

For leading edge systems the whole system is data ( including the voice). Merging the voice onto the data stream doesn't change the data utilization provide at all? Probably not. Have not got teenagers secure messaging each other from across the room instead of talking . Don't think that had any impact of voice vs data ratio?

If you 3G era tower still has the same bandwidth backhaul provisioning that it has a 5G tower then that tower likely sucks when tasked with any significant load ( and/or surge load).

As such, Apple is on the right track here to completely reboot the concept with more efficient technology so that we can get some kind of short term gain, while they continue to improve speed over time.

Apple energy efficiency claims are rather shallow. There is lots of hype about the max video playback differences between the plain 16 and 16e. But that isn't streamed (so no modem involved). 22 vs 26. But as soon as streamed it is 18 vs 21. (likely over wifi which isn't the modem either and slower WiFi capped at plain 6 on 16e. ).

They claim it, but don't want to show data. It smacks of the chart where they had the Ultra outpacing the 3070 (or 3090) on some cherry picked benchmark metric , but at least that was some data.


In another Macrumors post (https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/20/apple-says-c1-modem-is-just-the-start/) there was a link to a Reuters article.

" ...
For example, if an iPhone encounters congested data networks, the phone's processor can signal to the modem which traffic is the most time sensitive and put it ahead of other data transfers, making the phone feel more responsive to the user's needs, said Arun Mathias, vice president for wireless software at Apple. ... "

https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-reveals-first-custom-modem-chip-shifting-away-qualcomm-2025-02-19/

how far did they take this "feels fast" into the energy efficiency zones. IF use the iPhone as a hotspot and the external device throws lots of congestion at the other 'side' of the modem does the energy efficiency gains stay the same?


Yes , it made sense for Apple to do something substantially simpler before doing something more complicated. But there is lots of tap dancing here to put the dimensions of comparison on ill defined and poorly demonstrated metrics.

 

[deconstruct60]

The iPhone SE (3rd generation) did not support mmWave so even if Apple was using a Qualcomm modem with the 16e, would we be 100% certain that mmWave would have been supported within the US?

The SE 3rd generation was $100+ more affordable . Loosing mmWave also costs less , because buying less . It likely still would be gone because Apple was still be trying to lower the Bill of Materials (BoM) costs.

Going forward the 1xe is likely to be gimped in some manor on modem to cut costs. Either older one ( 17e, or 18e if wait long enough, would still have C1) or missing components ( drop mmWave transceiver once Apple has a working one).

Mostly likely the screen , form factor, and some other components won't move either to Scrooge McDuck the BoM costs, also.

Personally, I expect Apple feels mmWave is not important at the moment since only the US supports it and then only in very limited situations.

the 16e is also somewhat primarily a replacement for the 14 , not the SE, So the USB-C port thing is likely factor far more than the mmWave. It is an EU substitute.

The notion that this is a replacement for SE is flawed. Apple is walking away for a substantial segment of SE customers. ( not quite the 100% entry price increase of the Mac Pro 2013->2019 , but at least they changed the name to better signal the 'walk away' objective. )



P.S. 16e is also missing UWB feature also. Mainly cheaper not to put it on (and probably goose a bit more power savings also ).

 

[MacAddict1978]

I agree with the sentiment that mmWave is useless for the vast majority of users and majority of the time.

However, the speed difference between 3G and LTE was absolutely noticeable. Between 5G, not so much, but 5G feels like fiber due to much lower latency and more bandwidth per tower vs LTE (fast but takes longer to connect).

You care about mmWave when your carrier offers it and you live in an area that has it. The difference IS VERY noticeable. Also, you don't notice much difference on a mobile phone between LTE and 5G... you do if you're using it on a laptop. Mobile apps generally don't need the extra speed or arent built to take advantage of it.