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

181–188 of 188 posts

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

#181

Post by bradknowles »

mcculley wrote: post #180
bradknowles wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that they will ever be shipping their own modem. Or, if they do, I suspect that the reason will be that antitrust laws have forced Qualcomm to make changes to their business model which causes cracks in their ecosystem which Apple is then able to take advantage of. Even then, I think it would be a decade or more before Apple could start shipping their modem. Either that, or Apple gets fed up with th…

Many of the possible outcomes would lead to more flexibility for Apple, who will then immediately start shipping a feature that most pro users would benefit from.

Unfortunately, the key arguments that have to be made with Apple are:

1. How much more profit can you show that they will make if they take the decision to implement your suggestion?

2. How will this help them better meet their regulatory requirements?

For #1, you don't really have an answer. You would be one customer who would be affected, and you might choose to buy their hardware instead. But how likely is that? Can you prove that? And how many more people are there in the market who feel the same way?

For #2, your suggestion actually makes the regulatory situation worse, since you're now adding a cell phone modem to what was otherwise "just" a computing device. And that brings a whole host of additional regulations into the mix, including import laws and tariffs. And any lawsuit that is filed against Apple that could involve protectionist measures against intrusion of external businesses into local cell phone politics would now be able to stop all imports of all laptops of this type, since any of them could presumably have a cell phone modem in them.

For Apple as a corporation, I'm seeing effectively no upside here, and all downside.

For you personally, there would be a lot of upside. And people like me would also benefit. I just don't see a compelling argument that would convince Apple.

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

#182

Post by mcculley »

bradknowles wrote: post #181
mcculley wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the possible outcomes would lead to more flexibility for Apple, who will then immediately start shipping a feature that most pro users would benefit from.

Unfortunately, the key arguments that have to be made with Apple are: 1. How much more profit can you show that they will make if they take the decision to implement your suggestion? 2. How will this help them better meet their regulatory requirements? For #1, you don't really have an answer. You would be one customer who would be affected, and you might choose to buy their hardware instead. But how likely is that? C…

You are clearly convinced that this was a decision made based on the market. I don’t believe that. I believe that as soon as they are not paying a percentage of every device to Qualcomm, Apple will ship this obvious feature.

As for the fear over regulation, why do Dell laptops and Apple iPads have modems?

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

#183

Post by bradknowles »

mcculley wrote: post #182
bradknowles wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the key arguments that have to be made with Apple are: 1. How much more profit can you show that they will make if they take the decision to implement your suggestion? 2. How will this help them better meet their regulatory requirements? For #1, you don't really have an answer. You would be one customer who would be affected, and you might choose to buy their hardware instead. But how likely is that? C…

You are clearly convinced that this was a decision made based on the market. I don’t believe that. I believe that as soon as they are not paying a percentage of every device to Qualcomm, Apple will ship this obvious feature. As for the fear over regulation, why do Dell laptops and Apple iPads have modems?

Maybe, but there's only one way to find out. We will just have to wait and see.

Despite whatever you may think of me, I do hope you're right.

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

#184

Post by mcculley »

bradknowles wrote: post #183
mcculley wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are clearly convinced that this was a decision made based on the market. I don’t believe that. I believe that as soon as they are not paying a percentage of every device to Qualcomm, Apple will ship this obvious feature. As for the fear over regulation, why do Dell laptops and Apple iPads have modems?

Maybe, but there's only one way to find out. We will just have to wait and see. Despite whatever you may think of me, I do hope you're right.

I don’t think poorly of you at all. I think many assume that free market forces prevail.

It seems to me that the current monopolies are the reason we don’t have an obvious feature.

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

#185

Post by fkyoureadthedoc »

mcculley wrote: post #168
bradknowles wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove how many people would actually do so? Not the ones who say they would but in the end wouldn't cough up the money, but would actually carry through? If you can't prove that market is large enough, then it doesn't make sense for Apple to go to that expense. For example, how many people would pay enough extra to make it profitable for Apple to include a 192GB memory option for the M2 Max laptops and deskto…

Why do you think Dell bothers to put LTE modems in laptops? I asked about evidence regarding the patent and royalty situation that prevents Apple from delivering a similar product. I am on my fifth MacBook Pro. My first Mac was the 12” PowerBook G4. I bought many more for my employees. I would like to upgrade right now, but it would only be a marginal improvement. If Apple shipped a MacBook Pro today with an LTE mode…

> Why do you think Dell bothers to put LTE modems in laptops?

If I had to guess, more enterprise clients that want it.

Seriously doubt it's individuals buying up enough to make it worth it. I mean you won't even buy one right.

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

#186

Post by Synaesthesia »

revicon wrote: post #120
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.

Apple's gross margin percentage for its services segment (App Store, Apple Music, AppleCare, Apple Pay, iCloud storage services, AppleCare warranties, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple TV+, and the Apple Card) is almost twice that of the products segment. In 2021, the gross margin percentage for the services segment was nearly 70% as compared to the 35% gross margin percentage from the products segment. https://www.gl…

Yes but it's a small fraction of the profit they make from their hardware sales.

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

#187

Post by k0k0 »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #114
crazygringo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and somewhat often a bug would only manifest itself on a single cell tower. I can easily understand different brands/products/generations having their quirks, but I'm struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower. Is it a huge variety of config options, that certain combinations of settings turn out to be rare? Or is it literally just something broken like malfunctioning hardw…

> but I’m struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower. GSM is/was a complex beast. Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls (the old 2G/3G multiplexed ones, not modern VoIP), so in crowded areas they’re usually configured with a very short range. Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters ( Furthermore, li…

> Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls

Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity, but most cells and specifically the BTS in GSM parlance, especially any in a well populated area have/had way more than one transceiver. 30-40 was not unheard of in later equipment, though 10 or so was more typical. Late in GSM's life there was another technique to squeeze more channels, OSC.

Furthermore those 8 TDMA slots could be split in 1/2 or 1/4 with lower rate codecs, so it was more than 8 per TRX as well.

anything bigger than a picocell would carry way more than 8 simultaneous calls.

> Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters (Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.

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

#188

Post by 8fingerlouie »

k0k0 wrote: post #187
8fingerlouie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I’m struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower. GSM is/was a complex beast. Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls (the old 2G/3G multiplexed ones, not modern VoIP), so in crowded areas they’re usually configured with a very short range. Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters ( Furthermore, li…

> Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity, but most cells and specifically the BTS in GSM parlance, especially any in a well populated area have/had way more than one transceiver. 30-40 was not unheard of in later equipment, though 10 or so was more typical. Late in GSM's life there was…

> Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity

I was talking 2G/3G. It has been 20 years since i wrote software for mobile phones :) But i should probably have been more specific and said you can have 8 active calls per channel. And i have no doubt today with 4G/5G and a shift to VoIP that you can have way more than that.

> Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.

I was attempting to refer to the scalability/complexity of the network, which scales from 10s of kilometers to 10s of meters, or even more/less.

But as i said, i wrote software for the phones. My understanding of the network side of things was/is limited to the rudimentary knowledge needed to write that, and i'm happy to be corrected.

Post reply on HN