Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#31

Post by justusw »

tech-historian wrote: post #15
zdyn5 wrote: post #5

What’s the fundamental reason why SOTA modems are more challenging than microprocessors for Apple? Intuitively I would’ve guessed the opposite was true.

From the article: "Modem chips are trickier to make than processing chips because they must work seamlessly with 5G wireless networks, as well as the 2G, 3G and 4G networks used in countries around the world, each with its own technological quirks. Apple microprocessors run software programs designed solely for its iPhones and laptops." Also: "[Apple's modem] chips were essentially three years behind Qualcomm’s best…

I wonder what some of the regional quirks are, instances where the implementation strays from the standard, but if you don’t do it in quirks mode, you can’t connect to the cellular connection or calls will not go through etc.

A sort of woops, non-strict YAML moment, but in telecommunications.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#33

Post by xwolfi »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #26
kalleboo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have they purchased a company specialized in mixed-signal circuit design? They bought Intel's modem business, which was originally part of Infineon. Intel had working 4G modems which were only a year or two behind Qualcomm to the point where most users wouldn't notice. But they never seemed to manage to make the jump to 5G.

5G is overrated

5G is absolutely insane. 100Mb/s for 20 USD/mo on a mobile phone in Hong Kong is absolutely mind-blowing. I suppose in low density areas like Tokyo, New York or Paris, it might be slower in some patches ?

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#34

Post by grandinj »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #30
zdyn5 wrote: post #5

What’s the fundamental reason why SOTA modems are more challenging than microprocessors for Apple? Intuitively I would’ve guessed the opposite was true.

A long time ago i used to work at a company that made mobile phones. This was in the days before smartphones, and 3G was a shiny new toy. Back then, many companies would implement the protocols in the phone firmware, as opposed to today where chips usually offload a large part of this. Despite doing our best to implement the GSM Standards[1], the thing at the time was 19,000 pages long, and one of our biggest issues…

This. The standard is also truly horrible to read. It's not really designed to be read, as much as it is an after-the-fact description of what somebody has already done.

To the point that testing against a very wide variety of base-stations (and the multitudinous variety of configuration options in those base-stations) is mandatory.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#35

Post by hocuspocus »

willio58 wrote: post #20
tech-historian wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure they'll get there in another year or so. Unlikely, if you read the article.

>The company scratched plans to use it in Apple’s 2023 models, and the planned rollout was moved to 2024. Eventually, Apple executives realized the company wouldn’t meet that goal either. Apple instead opened negotiations with Qualcomm to continue supplying the modem chips. Apple’s licensing deal with Qualcomm expires in April 2025, though it can be extended for another two years. Okay, so 2-4 years?

2-4 years on top of 4 years, plus many years before the business was acquired from Intel, which never managed to ship anything better than a noticeably worse 4G modem.

I think that counts as a pretty big failure.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#36

Post by mike_hearn »

aurareturn wrote: post #17
pram wrote: post #11

“Apple had planned to have its modem chip ready to use in the new iPhone models. But tests late last year found the chip was too slow and prone to overheating. Its circuit board was so big it would take up half an iPhone, making it unusable.” How is this even possible? I mean I get it’s hard but a 3 inch modem chip? lol

Wait, they needed testing late last year to figure out the chip was physically too big to be used in an iPhone? You're kidding right? Management didn't know until late last year? I call BS.

More likely that they wanted to get it working first, within power budget second, and shrinking the board to the needed physical sizes third, but they didn't get to second base.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#37

Post by mike_hearn »

grandinj wrote: post #34
8fingerlouie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long time ago i used to work at a company that made mobile phones. This was in the days before smartphones, and 3G was a shiny new toy. Back then, many companies would implement the protocols in the phone firmware, as opposed to today where chips usually offload a large part of this. Despite doing our best to implement the GSM Standards[1], the thing at the time was 19,000 pages long, and one of our biggest issues…

This. The standard is also truly horrible to read. It's not really designed to be read, as much as it is an after-the-fact description of what somebody has already done. To the point that testing against a very wide variety of base-stations (and the multitudinous variety of configuration options in those base-stations) is mandatory.

Which is presumably hard to impossible without flying around the world with test chips and physically being in those places, as I guess only a handful of carriers can and will reveal all their config settings and software stacks in practice.

The more I think about this modem development problem the harder it seems to get. No wonder Apple have struggled and nobody else even seems to try. The amount of tribal knowledge and random hotfixes in the Qualcomm firmware alone must be irreplaceable.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#38

Post by kalleboo »

xwolfi wrote: post #33
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G is overrated

5G is absolutely insane. 100Mb/s for 20 USD/mo on a mobile phone in Hong Kong is absolutely mind-blowing. I suppose in low density areas like Tokyo, New York or Paris, it might be slower in some patches ?

I typically get around 300-600 Mbps on 5G, but in some areas I've seen speeds up to 1.3 Gbps (on NR, not even mmWave). This is in a Japanese city of pop 300,000

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#39

Post by SSLy »

lathiat wrote: post #8
brokenmachine wrote: post #2

Paywalled

Reminder: If you have Apple News (or get it bundled with Apple One), it includes access to the Wall Street Journal among many other paywalled sources. On iOS you can use the share sheet to open the URL in news and it will auto-open it. Otherwise you can search for the title. I do wish this feature was better integrated, and using the share sheet to open with any app including News seems always confusing - you're neve…

NB: Apple is pointlessly exclusionary and you can't get News or Fitness in most of the world.

Re: Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones

#40

Post by drevil-v2 »

xwolfi wrote: post #33
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G is overrated

5G is absolutely insane. 100Mb/s for 20 USD/mo on a mobile phone in Hong Kong is absolutely mind-blowing. I suppose in low density areas like Tokyo, New York or Paris, it might be slower in some patches ?

What are you doing on a handheld device screen that would blow your mind once the novelty of seeing the big numbers on speedtest app wore off? Genuinely curious- what can you do on 5G phone that you can’t on your 4G phone?
Post reply on HN