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

141–150 of 188 posts

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

#141

Post by musicale »

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.

> if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.

This exactly.

The iPad is already like a smaller MacBook without a built-in keyboard that runs iPadOS.

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

#142

Post by musicale »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #138
giobox wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are you wanting a plastic band atop the laptop closing screen, to get a cellular capable antenna in an otherwise metal body? I'm almost certain Apple's world class hardware team can integrate a cellular antenna to an aluminum laptop in a way that is visually pleasing, yes. This isn't some insurmountable problem we are positing here.

it probably would help if you'd listen to a person from the world class hardware team in question who worked in exactly this world for years, spanning all the devices discussed. that person might have strongly insinuated the law of nature challenges constraining propagation of RF at widely varying frequencies as they are paired with the esthetics challenges from a different group, if you noticed.

The iPad itself and competing MacBook/MacBook Pro-like aluminum laptops from other vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) are existence proofs.

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

#143

Post by nervlord »

mcculley wrote: post #124
Synaesthesia wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make almost all their profits from hardware, and use good software as a strategy to sell more hardware.

I buy Apple not because they make hardware or software but because they make integrated systems of both.

[dead]

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

#144

Post by rz2k »

mcculley wrote: post #105
rz2k wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how it will work if you attach an iPhone 15 Pro to your laptop with a short USB/Thunderbolt cable. Presumably it will at least save on rebroadcasting the internet connection.

I often do this with my iPhone 11 Pro. It is dumb and works better than having no connection. It is a ridiculous thing to do at a time when watches have LTE modems.

I have the same phone and the performance never seems any better than when using bluetooth PAN. I mentioned the iPhone 15 Pro, because it will be the first one with more than 480mbps over USB. At 10gbps the wired connection should have enough bandwidth to handle anything even 5g will offer for a while.

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

#145

Post by mcculley »

justcradd wrote: post #126
mcculley wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often do this with my iPhone 11 Pro. It is dumb and works better than having no connection. It is a ridiculous thing to do at a time when watches have LTE modems.

It is not ridiculous. An extra modem is an extra data line. Tethering works perfectly.

Your experience differs from mine. I try to use it quite a lot and fail. When it does succeed, I watch both batteries.

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

#146

Post by jjtheblunt »

musicale wrote: post #142
jjtheblunt wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it probably would help if you'd listen to a person from the world class hardware team in question who worked in exactly this world for years, spanning all the devices discussed. that person might have strongly insinuated the law of nature challenges constraining propagation of RF at widely varying frequencies as they are paired with the esthetics challenges from a different group, if you noticed.

The iPad itself and competing MacBook/MacBook Pro-like aluminum laptops from other vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) are existence proofs.

You didn’t read the discussion of the cellular ipad having the plastic band, or that prioritizing no plastic band is a problem if you want antennas capable for useful cellular reliability

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

#147

Post by giobox »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #146
musicale wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPad itself and competing MacBook/MacBook Pro-like aluminum laptops from other vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) are existence proofs.

You didn’t read the discussion of the cellular ipad having the plastic band, or that prioritizing no plastic band is a problem if you want antennas capable for useful cellular reliability

No, the cellular iPad and other devices are indeed proof positive. The exact same cellular window solution could be applied in a redesign of the MacBook. No one is disputing aluminium blocks radio waves - the dispute is your constant argument it can’t be done because it would require a giant RF window - there is no reason a future design can’t neatly incorporate an antenna system, just like it has been done on many other aluminium devices - including iPads, iPhones and Apple Watches.

Having built 5G systems for hobbyist computer boards (Pi etc), the antenna required is not so very large either.

A MacBook is not and has never been a seamless block of aluminium - there are plenty of design choices to be made to help hide or minimise any antennas.

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

#148

Post by mcculley »

johnwalkr wrote: post #132
giobox wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think the BOM is the issue. It’s a huge cost to have different variations for different regions, and a huge cost to go through certification for various regions. It’s obviously worth it for iPhone and watch, apparently worth it for iPad although most people I know buy the wifi only models. For MacBooks, even though they now share a lot of design with iPhones, I can’t see it being worth it for the few percent…

I specifically said MacBook Pro. I agree it is probably not worthwhile for MacBook. I use my MacBook Pro for work travel. I realize other use cases can do without connectivity.

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

#149

Post by astrange »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #40
xwolfi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Among other things, 5G works better in crowds. And the faster your transfer finishes, the faster you can turn the antenna off and save power.

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

#150

Post by nier »

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…

Apple would also need to get the software ready. Numerous services would need switches for controlling download and sync behavior when connecting over cellular to conserve data usage.
Post reply on HN