I though “failure” was an absolute term? They obviously aren’t done developing yet, but that doesn’t mean they never will.
I bet they have working prototypes and it comes down to something like power draw being too high. They probably want something that’s at least on par with what Qualcomm has.
And even when the first “retail” version is done, I find it highly unlikely that they put it in the flagship iPhone first. The modem having a bug or other weird behavior in their most popular product would be detrimental. They’ll test it in cellular iPads, or maybe even in MacBooks. If they test it on an iPhone, it’ll probably be on the iPhone SE first.
And after all that, they’ll put it in their flagship iPhones.
It’s a “when”, not an “if”.
Imagine trying to navigate the patent minefield when developing something like a modem
This is the best summary I could come up with:
According to a detailed report from the Wall Street Journal, Apple’s attempt to develop its own in-house 5G modem has been stymied by issues resulting from the iPhone maker underestimating the complexity and technical challenges of the task, and a lack of global leadership to guide the separate development groups siloed in the US and abroad.
“They hate Qualcomm’s living guts,” says Edward Snyder, a wireless industry expert and managing director of Charter Equity Research, in comments reported by the WSJ.
After settling its dispute with Qualcomm in 2019, Apple quickly acquired Intel’s smartphone modem business, along with a few thousand engineers to help advance its development efforts.
That’s why Apple extended its modem deal with Qualcomm — which would have expired at the end of this year — just days before the iPhone 15 was announced.
And while some have lauded Huawei’s HiSilicon chip design business for beating Apple to the punch with the apparent development of its own 5G modem in China’s Mate 60 Pro, lab tests show that Huawei’s chips consume more power than competitors’ and cause the phone “to heat up” which is bad for performance.
Apple’s custom modem work continues, and Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman suggests we’ll likely see them gradually roll out before the current Qualcomm deal expires in 2026.
The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 44%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I don’t understand this - didn’t Intel have a working cellular modem chip before Apple bought that segment of the businesS? Sure, it wasn’t good, and Intel probably saw that it was going to be difficult but with the amount of money Apple invested in this, starting with a working product, how so they not have a working product?
I think you answered your own question. It wasn’t good. Apple isn’t willing to sacrifice battery life since it has been one of their biggest selling points on the iPhone for years. As far as why they haven’t figured it out yet. It is probably pretty difficult. Intel spent tons of money on it and couldn’t succeed. A chip maker gave up. That should tell you how difficult the process is. The 5G modem industry is basically a monopoly so there are a ton of companies that would be trying if it were easy to do.
Drop support for frequency bands and older mobile standards not used in China. Don’t worry about battery life.
Works great for Huawei, no good for Apple.
I can’t find any reviews of the chip itself, just announcements. It is too early to say they succeeded. Also intel did make a 5G modem for phones. It just was a couple of years behind Qualcomm’s chip. There is a good chance that Huawei’s 5G chip will be the same. If you look at the phone they are going to sell with the new 5G chip, it has a main processor that is performing at the standards of two years ago. The 5G modem could be the same way. Furthermore, Huawei could be breaking patents and be fine as long as the phone isn’t sold outside of China. The main difference is that Apple doesn’t want to put a worse 5G modem in their products and can’t pretend that patents don’t exist.
It’s not that surprising. Despite Job’s lies about “patenting” multi touch or whatever, they never developed tech. Most of these silicon valley companies don’t, they staple together tech that’s developed in the public sector and take all the credit and profit.
Edit: I forget that people don’t generally know about this:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/82/3e/f0/823ef0be785ee604eccea26ff6583156--mariana-ux.jpg
All of the actual tech is public sector. The form factor is a rectangular mini computer around a touchscreen. That wasn’t special either, there were lots of devices that were the same. The thing that made the iPhone “special” was the capacitive touchscreen, which wasn’t a design innovation, but a technological innovation. They put it in a shiny box and sold it to you. The other thing they did was the app store, which was a software repo with a shiny coat of paint that charged money (most software repos up to that point and to this day are free).
The other thing they did was take billions in government grants to start silicon valley. All the big tech giants are a product of goverment spending on private companies to sell us public sector innovations.
If you think the iphone or anything sold to you by a company is special, you’ve been duped by marketing. It’s understandable because they will spend billions of dollars to figure out the best way to make you want their crap, but you were still duped.
Edit 2: Lots of people saying I’m wrong, but nobody actually explaining how. I think you just don’t like being told you were duped.
Innovation is always based on what’s already been done. If some tech company takes off on tech someone else invented, the question is why the inventor was not able to monetize on it. It’s not always as simple as “tech company stole it”. Invention and prototyping is very different to making a product that people want.
The difference is that silicon valley got billions in government grants to kickstart their industry so they bould buy licenses and pay huge teams of engineers and designers whose job it is to make something marketable. Historically speaking if you actually invented something, you got nothing but a wage or a very small payout.
That’s it. They don’t innovate, they don’t develop, they package.
We have an economy that rewards exploitation, not work. That’s not the fault of the workers, it’s the fault of the ruling class who made it that way.
Historically speaking if you actually invented something, you got nothing but a wage or a very small payout.
That’s true for most innovations ever and not exclusive to the US tech industry.
Devil’s advocate would say “okay, then just go make your own iPhone if apple isn’t actually doing anything” but I don’t really want to be defending apple, lol
You can hate on Apple all you want (and I really do) but they made the right device at the right time. Tech might all have been there but the combination and usability of the first iPhone was groundbreaking.
It’s not that Apple makes amazing stuff, it’s that other companies really put out barely shiny turds.
Look at the zune, the tech was fine, or so I have heard, but it looked like an ugly brick. Seriously, a regular red brick looks better, even a yellow brick does.
I have a Subaru, and while I love it, the infotainment system is garbage. Clearly there was no effort to make it look good and usable.
UX is hugely undervalued, I wonder if one of the reasons is because you don’t notice good UX, it’s not in the way, but you noticed bad UX. So good UX without a lot of marketing is invisible.
Claiming Apple doesn’t develop tech is ridiculous, and raising them as an example even more so, because I can’t think of a vendor with higher portion of hardware built in house. You could make an argument for Sony (camera sensors) and Samsung (screens, also Exynos for their phones), but they’re up there.
Yeah, nobody’s saying you don’t write software. This is a history lesson in where the tech comes from.
Even then, a lot of the work done there is stapling together APIs, right? A lot of those APIs are implementations of tech developed, again, in the public sector.
And if you are writing novel stuff, I’d bet good money all the interesting stuff comes from research done in universities, right? Most of the interesting things I’ve ever programmed were based on public sector research.
And even then, the industry got started with public sector money. Maybe your company got its start from VC funding or whatever, but that’s after the whole sector was jump started. Now the big companies in your field don’t pay taxes, in fact a lot of them are paid by your taxes.
I mean, if you want to explain where I’m wrong, go for it. Right now all we have is “trust me”, which is famously strong evidence.
You’re overgeneralizing. Government money is in everything. It needs more effort to prove it’s causal for every innovation there is.
