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

71–80 of 188 posts

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

#71

Post by kylehotchkiss »

vdfs wrote: post #53
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.

> 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.

If you have satellite comms for emergencies, maybe the requirement for supporting 2G can slowly be reduced.

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

#72

Post by justcradd »

reic wrote: post #47
Goodroo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Huawei seems to have succeeded

Huawei invented most of 5G technology and could tailor the 5G standards to their implementations. Which is also why they were first to market with carrier equipment [1] and had the first CPU with an on-chip 5G modem [2]. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-break... [2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/Kirin_990

No they didn’t. This is utter garbage. I have worked in cellular testing since 1997. The first to market with pre-5G were NTT DoCoMo and Verizon. Huawuei were late to the game. My source is the companies we sold to and I supported personally.

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

#73

Post by mcculley »

Loic wrote: post #58
mcculley wrote: post #51

Every time a new MacBook Pro is released, I check to see if they have figured out how to put a modem in it like they manage to with watches, phones, and tablets. This is an obvious example where the market is failing. The best explanation I heard is that the Apple deal with Qualcomm pays Qualcomm a royalty as a function of the price of the device and Apple does not want to give that much money to Qualcomm and/or rais…

Hotspot with the iPhone?

I use Hotspot with the iPhone. I would rather have a modem in the laptop, like I can get from Dell.

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

#74

Post by mcculley »

baggy_trough wrote: post #56
mcculley wrote: post #51

Every time a new MacBook Pro is released, I check to see if they have figured out how to put a modem in it like they manage to with watches, phones, and tablets. This is an obvious example where the market is failing. The best explanation I heard is that the Apple deal with Qualcomm pays Qualcomm a royalty as a function of the price of the device and Apple does not want to give that much money to Qualcomm and/or rais…

The absence of a modem in MacBook Pros does not mean the market is failing.

No matter how much I am willing to pay, I cannot buy what I want. That is a market failure.

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

#75

Post by mcculley »

Veliladon wrote: post #57
mcculley wrote: post #51

Every time a new MacBook Pro is released, I check to see if they have figured out how to put a modem in it like they manage to with watches, phones, and tablets. This is an obvious example where the market is failing. The best explanation I heard is that the Apple deal with Qualcomm pays Qualcomm a royalty as a function of the price of the device and Apple does not want to give that much money to Qualcomm and/or rais…

They literally have one click pairing to the Wifi hotspot on an iPhone or iPad logged in to the same iCloud account. Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?

I use this a lot. It burns two batteries instead of one, is unreliable, and adds latency. I would very much like to buy a laptop from Apple that has a modem builtin like I can get from Dell. Furthermore, I would like a modem in the laptop that is always on and ready, just like in the iPad (zero click).

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

#76

Post by justcradd »

giobox wrote: post #64
Veliladon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally have one click pairing to the Wifi hotspot on an iPhone or iPad logged in to the same iCloud account. Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?

This logic doesn't hold - the same is true of an iPad. To quote you, "Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?" - if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.

[dead]

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

#77

Post by justcradd »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #67
layer8 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, iPads wouldn’t need a cellular variant either.

This is correct. Tethering is flaky. I was trying to tether my iPad to my iPhone just last night, eventually gave up and just read my book on my iPhone instead. If I depended on tethering for actually getting my work done I'd have an aneurism.

[dead]

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

#78

Post by jjtheblunt »

giobox wrote: post #64
Veliladon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally have one click pairing to the Wifi hotspot on an iPhone or iPad logged in to the same iCloud account. Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?

This logic doesn't hold - the same is true of an iPad. To quote you, "Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?" - if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.

the thing is, historically, if you already make laptops (and they 20 years ago had a pcmcia slot in which a verizon, etc, cellular modem could fit...i had one), and you already later make iPhones, then it's a short jump from iPhone logic board to iPad.

it's a longer jump to get a cellular capable antenna complex in an all metal (think semi faraday cage) aluminium unibody.

point is, it's historical artifact originally.

now, a decade later, perhaps the BOM thing is just enough motivation to not do it, or the ubiquity of "hotspots" via cellular lessens the appeal at scale.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

giobox wrote: post #64
Veliladon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally have one click pairing to the Wifi hotspot on an iPhone or iPad logged in to the same iCloud account. Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?

This logic doesn't hold - the same is true of an iPad. To quote you, "Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?" - if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by baby_souffle »

Sporktacular wrote: post #50
ksec wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intuitively I would’ve guessed the opposite was true. It wouldn't be intuitive if people actually have some basic understanding of how modern wireless network works. Unfortunately even those who work on Hardware, CPU design and embedding programming dont understand that. Let alone 99.99999999% of HN.

So, what's the answer?

> So, what's the answer?

Probably a mix of things. QCM has a lot of IP/Patents in this space so there are some "intuitive" engineering solutions that ... can't be pursued w/o a license.

But even if there was no legal blockers, RF engineering is a _whole other ball game_ compared to the "routine" circuits used in CPUs. I don't just mean from a "well, the schematic sure looks different" perspective, I mean from a "how you build it in the fab" perspective as well.

TL;DR: if electricity is magic, RF is black magic.

Post reply on HN