Slashdot Mirror


Apple Might Start Making Its Own Batteries For iPhones, Macs (bloomberg.com)

Apple has hired an executive from the battery-making division of Samsung to help lead its own battery work. The new hire suggests that the company might start making its own batteries for iPhones and Macs. Bloomberg reports: Soonho Ahn joined Apple in December as global head of battery developments, after working as a senior vice president at Samsung SDI since 2015, according to his LinkedIn profile. At Samsung SDI, Ahn led development of lithium battery packs and worked on "next-generation" battery technology, the profile says. Apple has used batteries from Samsung SDI to power its own products in the past. The iPhone maker has been trying to reduce reliance on third-party components, and the notable battery technology hire suggests it may be doing the same for batteries. Apple has been working on its own MicroLED display technology for future devices, which would help wean itself off Samsung in other areas. It's also increasingly building its own processors and is investigating the development of its own cellular modems.

3 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Proprietary battery ? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if Apple will develop its own battery format (iBattery ?!?). If they do, I guess that it will be patented and not freely available on the market as a single piece. And so we can say bye-bye to the "right to repair"....

  2. Apple vs vertical integration by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple has always relied on differentiating its products with unique hardware.

    You mean unique software. Apple is at its core a software company. This seems counter-intuitive until you think about it for a minute. The hardware in most Apple devices is at best superficially different from the competition and Apple doesn't even manufacture it. Oh they make a big stink about their design as a marketing ploy but it isn't what really makes their products distinct. You can (and I have) put Windows on a Macintosh and the experience is not meaningfully different than on a Dell or HP. Apple differentiates their products primarily through their software. If a Macintosh was sold with Windows they would be unable to command the profit margins they currently do because their hardware is nice but it's not that different or better than their best competition. This is not my opinion either. Steve Jobs understood this thoroughly. I think the current management seems a bit confused about this point.

    Increasingly their competitors are getting ahead now, with things like foldable screens looking like they will be huge and Apple mostly reduced to just removing stuff like the headphone jack.

    Folding screens as they currently stand are a fad that is not ready for prime time. It's a solution looking for a problem. Have you actually seen any of these products? If they are big hits I'll be truly astonished. The idea of a folding device is a good one but the form factors they are throwing out there currently are crap. And if you think Apple isn't taking a hard look at this stuff you are crazy.

    By developing their own screens, batteries, modems and other hardware they can differentiate themselves like they do with CPUs now.

    Certainly they could do this but they'll have to take it a LOT further. And unless they can actually create an improved component (cost and/or features) then there is no reason for them to do it in house. I think carefully curated vertical integration is actually probably a very good idea for Apple like you suggest. Tesla and SpaceX have done this too good effect. Plus one of the problems Apple has is that they do such huge volumes that supply becomes a problem. It's easy to do a folding screen when you only sell a few tens of thousands of devices. Apple sells tens of millions of iPhones which means that simply getting enough of any given component is a huge problem. Vertical integration can be a very good way to handle this issue and I think Apple has outsourced perhaps a bit too much of their hardware manufacturing.

    1. Re:Apple vs vertical integration by Daltorak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean unique software. Apple is at its core a software company. This seems counter-intuitive until you think about it for a minute. The hardware in most Apple devices is at best superficially different from the competition and Apple doesn't even manufacture it. Oh they make a big stink about their design as a marketing ploy but it isn't what really makes their products distinct. You can (and I have) put Windows on a Macintosh and the experience is not meaningfully different than on a Dell or HP. Apple differentiates their products primarily through their software. If a Macintosh was sold with Windows they would be unable to command the profit margins they currently do because their hardware is nice but it's not that different or better than their best competition.

      This theory ignores the fact that the primary attraction for many Mac users, especially web developers and science/engineering types, is the POSIX underpinnings and the GNU toolchain. Apple did not create POSIX or GNU and do not substantially contribute to the development to them. Their support of CUPS and Clang is welcome and appreciated, and they recently open-sourced FoundationDB, which is nice if Cassandra isn't small-batch-craft-beer-check-shirt enough for your hipster ass..... but.... what else do they do in this space? Almost 100% of people working in these fields could use Linux instead, but they choose macOS because of the well-polished hardware integration, especially the screens, keyboards (maybe less so now) and touchpad.

      Yes, there was a period where Apple was well-defined by great software: The early-mid 2000's. Programs like iPhoto, Garageband, and iMovie cemented their reputation as a company that could create really innovative software that was really easy to use. But that's a long, long time ago now. Here's the reality: There has been exactly one entirely new Mac application from Apple this entire decade. Yes, just one, and you'd never guess it: iBooks Author. That's it. Everything else they've done has been iterating on products from the Steve Jobs era (Mainstage, Motion, iTunes), or doing mediocre ports of mediocre iOS apps, like Homekit and Stocks. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Nobody's buying a Mac instead of a Surface because it can run desktop versions of mobile apps.

      Apple isn't exactly the gold standard in pro software either. Most software devs don't love XCode.... Final Cut Pro X isn't capturing converts from Premiere.... Logic is very good but ProTools is still the industry standard.... tons of people choose Office over Pages, Sheets, Keynote and Mail.... Safari is generally considered inferior to Firefox and Chrome....

      Add to that the fact that almost nobody can name a new feature of Mojave other than Dark Mode.... it sure feels like Apple is coasting on their Mac software efforts, not leading.