Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Internal Hardware Team Is Working On Modems That Will Likely Replace Intel (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Apple will design its own modems in-house, according to sources that spoke with Reuters. In doing so, the company may hope to leave behind Intel modems in its mobile devices, which Apple has used since a recent falling out with Qualcomm. According to the sources, the team working on modem design now reports to Johny Srouji, Apple's senior vice president of hardware technologies. Srouji joined Apple back in 2004 and led development of Apple's first in-house system-on-a-chip, the A4. He has overseen Apple silicon ever since, including the recent A12 and A12X in the new iPhone and iPad Pro models.

Before this move, Apple's modem work ultimately fell under Dan Riccio, who ran engineering for iPhones, iPads, and Macs. As Reuters noted, that division was heavily focused on managing the supply chain and working with externally made components. The fact that the team is moving into the group focused on developing in-house components is a strong signal that Apple will not be looking outside its own walls for modems in the future. In recent years, Apple has been locked in a costly and complex series of legal battles with Qualcomm, the industry's foremost maker of mobile wireless chips. While Apple previously used Qualcomm's chips in its phones, the legal struggles led the tech giant to turn instead to Intel in recent iPhones.

81 comments

  1. Best of luck by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out. Apple has had great success with their ARM SoC design, and I don't doubt they can design a modem and baseband, but will they be able to design something that provides similar performance to what Qualcomm produces. Intel hasn't had a lot of success outside of x86, so I don't know how much of their failings can be pinned on the company, but rolling your own hardware is no small task.

    If nothing else, I suspect that there are some Qualcomm on Intel employees who work on these designs that are about to receive some job offers with very attractive salaries.

    1. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel = Apple already has partnerships and can probably expect kickback pricing on other projects. If they wanted to in-house everything they could have just bought Motorola for cash, lol.

    2. Re: Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorola doesn't make everything. It isn't the Motorola of old that made processors, etc.
      That part of the company split off to become Freescale. Apple can add on customizations to ARM. They have never done their own complete design.

    3. Re: Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Others have pointed this fact out before. I suppose various explanations about culture, fit, logistics blah blah were more attractive to people

    4. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the even bigger question is: can they do it while avoiding the patent minefield that Qualcomm and, presumably, Intel (and the other big players, like Samsung) have laid surrounding cellular modems.

    5. Re: Best of luck by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      Motorola doesn't make anything.

      Fixed that for you. Motorola of old is now just a name slapped on a Chinese box.

    6. Re: Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They still own IP which was the original point.

    7. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wireless communication is a pretty tech and research intensive field. Then again, so is microprocessor design.

      There is immense demand for the technology and Qualcomm won't be on the top of the pile for long with the way they keep behaving.

      Intel made a good stab at it, but Intel has severe structural problems as a company that dooms their side ventures to failure.

      Apple has been good at developing first party parts for their products and if anyone has a chance they will- They'll also have the good sense to abandon the venture if it's not working well.

      I've got a hunch this may end up as a partnership between many vendors. Pretty much everyone is itching to get out from underneath Qualcomm's thumb. They're not a good business partner. ..Except, oddly, Microsoft. Of course Microsoft so far has gotten nowhere with their ARM based products (Windows mobile, windows on arm products), which explicitly and exclusively support Qualcomm SoCs.. Maybe this isn't a coincidence.

    8. Re:Best of luck by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple has had great success with their ARM SoC design,

      I suspect a large part of this success is not due to technical superiority, but getting priority at newer (lower power) fabs due to Apple's large volume of orders. Their Ax processors were the first to use the smaller lithography available from fabs, which meant a corresponding reduction in power consumption for the same level of performance (or alternatively, better performance at the same power consumption). Back when they still used Samsung as a fab, even Samsung Semiconductor prioritized Apple's order ahead of Samsung Mobile's own Exynos SoCs.

      If you remember the whole mess over the Nvidia Maxwell GPUs (the 8xx and 9xx series) not performing as expected, it's for the same reason. Nvidia assumed they'd be able to use TSMC's new 16nm and Samsung's new 14nm processes to manufacture Maxwell, and designed Maxwell assuming the thermal limits of those lithographies. But Apple's order for Ax processors bumped them down in the queue. That forced Nvidia to manufacture Maxwell on 28nm, leading it to overheat until they redesigned it with fewer cores, meaning it under-performed. It was so bad they actually re-used the Kepler architecture (700x series) for their higher-end mobile 8xx GPUs, since it was already optimized for the thermals of 28nm. Pascal (10xx series) was manufactured on 14nm and 16nm as expected, and was a success.

    9. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      qualcomm and intel employee won't be able to make modem chip at apple. even qualcomm and intel employees cant make chips at their own company from ground up.

    10. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they really doing that well on their ARM Chips though in comparison to other companies?

      Just because Apple stands on stage and says how awesome their hardware is, doesn't always make it true..

    11. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUT can they, or will they, design an in-house modem chip that isn't tainted by other companies' IP and patents. i'm not sure that they can. this will be an interesting thing to watch. intel won't let a huge customer slip away easily, and qualcomm is already fighting hard.

    12. Re: Best of luck by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Most of it already cross-licensed to Apple, I think. :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re: Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has enough cash to buy Intel ... They could close down all the pet projects wasting money over there and focus that group on the essentials and not have to develop this stuff from scratch.

      Their relationship with Microsoft will get WEIRD but it would be fun to watch...

    14. Re:Best of luck by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Intel hasn't had a lot of success outside of x86"

      Intel's greatest success outside of x86 has been... their cellular modems. Until the XMM 7560 their modems used ARM cores for the communications processor and were manufactured on TSMC processes.

    15. Re:Best of luck by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Apple supposedly opened an office in San Diego right next to where Qualcomm designs its baseband processors.
      You can guess why.

    16. Re:Best of luck by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      NVIDIA never manufactured anything at a Samsung fab and the processes are not even compatible.

      You would have to redesign the chip to manufacture it there.

    17. Re:Best of luck by jcr · · Score: 2

      will they be able to design something that provides similar performance to what Qualcomm produces

      Of course they will. They will hire whoever they need to do so.

      Apple didn't know how to run retail stores. They hired Ron Johnson. They didn't know how to do portable devices. They hired Tony Fadell. Whenever they get into any new field, they go on a hiring spree, and they can outbid any competitor for the people they really want.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re: Best of luck by jcr · · Score: 1

      Yes, they could do that, but it's a political can of worms that they do not want to deal with. If they were the main CPU vendor to the Dells and HPs of the world, they'd have no end of litigation every time a project plan was changed or dropped. Not to mention, the cost of trying to merge organizations with such drastically different cultures.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:Best of luck by jcr · · Score: 2

      Are they really doing that well on their ARM Chips though in comparison to other companies?

      Yes, they are.

      Just because Apple stands on stage and says how awesome their hardware is, doesn't always make it true..

      If you don't trust the sites that run and publish the benchmarks, you can always do it yourself to be sure.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Success? Their current generation doesn't last in terms of battery life as long as it's equals (see practically every battery life test, where the likes of Samsung have an hour on it).

      Intel -- being a CPU behemoth which (and I stress) CREATES IT'S OWN PROCESSORS FROM SCRATCH -- can only make a decent Modem that QC blows apart in terms of signal efficiency and power consumption (see the many many reviews in the comments, youtube, sites etc).

      Apple has never made it's own CPU. It licenses and modifies the design from ARM and has never really made a chip from scratch on it's own.

      Good luck on doing so while keeping the power and signal competitive. I'm sure people will still buy it even if it's shit, since they won't know any better.

    21. Re:Best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple regularly lies, and treats it's customers like garbage (from certain perspectives) and overcharges. There's a ton of people on these forums claiming they'll not last very long. They only have a 20-30% marketshare on mobile and computer space.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/233415/global-market-share-of-applications-processor-suppliers/

      Qualcomm has DOUBLE of what Apple has, and has increased over the past several years, unlike Apple who has been on the steady decline (though they're currently squeezing more out of the installed base). No other company seems to have a problem with them, and consumers are pretty happy with the end product.

      To answer your question about Microsoft and Qualcomm, they do not explicitly support QC. They support ARM based architectures. It just so happens most companies choose QC because of their quality, price-point, and market domination. It'd be like saying that Windows supports Android devices better than idevices = Microsoft has a bias for them. They don't - it's just marketshare (ignoring that idevices are less flexible and often require licensing to support).

      So QC can keep doing what they're doing.

  2. Only now? by seoras · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised they taken until now to begin this. Having your own silicon design team, who have already produced the W2 chip for the ear buds (yeah I know different ball park but still a toe dipped in wireless), you'd think you'd have started this back when they picked a fight with Qualcomm.
    Also with the perpetual drive to put everything on a single chip and use less space this seems like an obvious move.
    I'm guessing it's their habit of focusing on just a few things (CPU, Graphics & AI silicon) that has taken a higher priority until now. But still, only now?

    1. Re: Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have been working on it for years. But not ready due to patents. So pick a fight with bully Qualcomm and see what happens right? Hope apple wins

    2. Re: Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're saying QC is a bully asking for it's licensing fees that apple explicitly uses? And you don't think Apple isn't a bully for asking to simply remove from market / ask for unreasonable licensing fees for smartphones that somewhat resemble each other?

  3. Inevitable, yet interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After they moved chip production in-house with their A-series, which has routinely been benchmarking far ahead of contemporary chips from Qualcomm, people started wondering when they'd do the same with cellular modems. Their recent spat with Qualcomm and their reliance on a lesser product from Intel may have hastened their decision to take it on themselves.

    It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems? And how will they avoid Qualcomm's prodigious patent portfolio covering the technology?

    1. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're trying to compete with hardware companies on hardware chips. This will not end well.... for Apple. Short that stock and plow every last dollar in

    2. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And how will they avoid Qualcomm's prodigious patent portfolio covering the technology?" - Are you kidding? There is certainly more than one way to accomplish mo-demodulation and Intel also owns related IP.

      No doubt they're prioritizing avoiding QC patents as the cornerstone of the overall objective, having deliberately shifted away from that partnership for that reason. The question is more about their efficacy vs. licensing from others.

      Not whether they theoretically can avoid QC IP, that's certainly not impossible.

    3. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they're trying to compete with hardware companies on hardware chips. This will not end well.... for Apple.

      Given that it’s already going well for Apple with their A-series chips, I’m inclined to think you’re a bit out of touch with reality. Please re-sync with reality at your earliest convenience.

    4. Re: Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Qualcomm has some sort of dominating position in the patent space. If you look at it from Qualcomms view, sure they have a good chunk of patents. As far as what percentage of all patents in the wireless space they have? It might as well be none.

    5. Re: Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they defend each patent as though one invalid patent would cause their whole patent outfit to fall apart

    6. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah they don't have to worry about chip margin

    7. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Apple can't get anyone to just infringe on the patents and let qualcomm sue, so they're trying it themselves. They'll just design around the losses (or be strategic about where they decide to infringe vs workaround). I'm just spitballing here.

    8. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. They totally designed that ARM core.

    9. Re: Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Intel is paying Qualcomm. I think the real issue is Apple thinks it has enough cash and lawyers to outlast all comers in a scorched-earth legal battle it will stretch out for decades if need be.

    10. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.

      This is very different from designing a modem, a task which far more experienced companies than Apple are doing poorly at.

    11. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well one thing they might want to do is make cellular connectivity common, even is it's not the latest and greatest standard. Right now you get WiFi+BT on almost everything but cellular is always a big extra. Yes, you can use the phone as a hotspot but a laptop has a bigger battery, better space for an antenna and you're more likely to have that plugged in. If it's an in house design they can throw in there for the cost of die space it could be a mass market feature instead of a road warrior niche.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're trying to compete with hardware companies on hardware chips. This will not end well.... for Apple.

      Given that it’s already going well for Apple with their A-series chips, I’m inclined to think you’re a bit out of touch with reality. Please re-sync with reality at your earliest convenience.

      I'd re-sync with Reality but I don't have a phone jack.

    13. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, no. Their cores are fully custom and designed from scratch. They haven't licensed other people's technology and bolted them together since the A5 over seven years ago.

      The idea that first access to fabs is the only reason their ARM cores beat everyone else's is laughable, considering that Huawei's core was out on the same process as the A12 within a month or two but only half as fast. In fact, Apple's two year old A10 is pretty comparable to the Huawei's latest, and Qualcomm's upcoming Snapdragon 855 (which also uses the same process as the A12)

    14. Re: Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between cpus and cell modems is apple licensed rights and designs from arm to make the cpus. wireless is a whole new ballgame, with Qualcomm owning tons of patents. Good luck to apple, theyll likely be in court with Qualcomm over said patents

    15. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      cellular connectivity is only good when it's not locked in any way and has a dual sim as well.
      But DO NOT REPLACE e-net or wifi with cell only. We do not need to pay $10-40/mo outlet fee per device or be stuck with 15-20G caps.

    16. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by zieroh · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego

      If it were that easy, wouldn't everyone else be doing it too?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    17. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.

      What you just said doesn’t have the ring of truth to it, nor does it hold up to scrutiny. For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC? And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had? Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear, what with all of the other manufacturers ordering them. And yet the Snapdragon line has been about a year behind in terms of performance for the last few years.

      Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.

      What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then. That was in large part thanks to the same lead engineer who was also responsible for the Zen architecture that has been turning AMD’s fortunes around. He was with Apple for several years and got them going down a good path.

      I do agree that designing modems is a different beast than designing SoCs, which I alluded to in the first post of this thread, but Apple had never designed their own SoCa before the A-series either, so in that sense, it’s more of the same.

    18. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      After they moved chip production in-house with their A-series

      Production, really ? I think that they only design them.

    19. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Sorry, no. Their cores are fully custom and designed from scratch.

      There's an entire universe of difference between "fully custom and designed from scratch" and licensing the entire architecture from ARM.

    20. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Everyone IS doing it. SoCs are dime a dozen from basically every manufacturer remotely related to technology. The difference is in their market power which provides them an edge when it comes to getting it fabbed.

    21. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC?

      Indeed. Did you read to the end of my sentence. Just because I walk up to TSMC doesn't mean I'll get access to what Apple has.

      And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had?

      Well given the rounding error differences between top of the line ARM SoCs on the market in terms of performance I fully agree with you.

      Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear ... snip ... Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.

      Except no. How many units you crank out and what you pay at the fab are two different hings. Qualcomm live on tight margins, Apple is the exact opposite and past stories have shown they pay such a nice premium for access to fabs that even Samsung prioritised producing Apple's chips over the processors for it's own flagship devices.

      What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then.

      No I'm fully aware of that fact. What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei? Given that they are trying to get away from the very people who own all of the designs what they are doing here is worlds different from their processor efforts.

      Their success of their SoCs has nothing at all to do with their ability to design a 5G modem and it'll be a far larger and more complicated task.

    22. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's an entire universe of difference between "fully custom and designed from scratch" and licensing the entire architecture from ARM.

      Apple needs a license to build anything using the ARM aarch64 instruction set. The implementation is pure Apple.

    23. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All they are licensing is the iSA. That's a definition of what the opcodes are and what the opcode is supposed to do, it is just text. Apple's engineers laid out the entire CPU, deciding where every transistor and wire goes, they didn't get any of that from ARM. Neither did Samsung for their latest Exynos, it also had fully custom cores. Qualcomm, on the other hand, licenses an ARM core like the A76 and makes a few modifications, and Huawei just licenses the straight core and doesn't make any changes of their own.

    24. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yes, it’s just design, not fabrication. I misspoke. Thanks for the correction.

    25. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei?

      Actually, I’m not. You apparently forgot how I started this thread:

      It'll be interesting to see if, when, and how it pans out. With their processors and GPUs, they were able to build on top of ARM and Imagination tech, respectively (though they're now doing their own thing with the latter), but what do they build on with modems?

      And at this point, I’m so confused by what you’re trying to argue. You acknowledge the “success of their SoCs” and claim it’s based on access to better fabrication techniques, yet you’re saying there’s a “rounding error difference” in terms of top of the line performance, which seems to contradict what you just said of their success and what the benchmarks have been saying for years.

      Moreover, Apple hasn’t been using better processes well in advance of everyone else. The A7 to A12 have respectively used:
      28nm, 20nm, 16nm, 16nm, 10nm, and 7nm

      Comparable Snapdragon chips have respectively used:
      28nm, 20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 10nm, and 7nm

      Apple has either been matching node size or behind every single generation, yet they’ve been routinely outperforming them by quite a bit more than a rounding error.

    26. Re:Inevitable, yet interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the other smarthphones were as featurelocked as idevices, I'd bet that most processors would be equal speed.

      It's weird though. You say things are twice as fast, but all the side-by-side comparisons only indicate a marginal increase... but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkiniAkBOyU the battery life test is garbage. LOL

  4. So you'll be locked to Apple for repairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of disturbing in my opinion for Apple to take on yet another custom chip design. Apple has started taking steps to become the exclusive hardware maker for its products like back in the Power PC days. Tweaking a ARM chip is a lot different then creating a locked down modem design exclusive to Apple products. Makes me wonder what sort of scheme they have in mind?

  5. New CPUs coming for Macs too, correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the love affair between Apple and Intel might be on its last legs...

    1. Re:New CPUs coming for Macs too, correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a business perspective, having multiple choices of suppliers helps you get better pricing.

      Qualcomm vs Intel was beneficial while it existed.
      Now, internal vs Intel serves a like purpose.

      However, this isn't to say they won't succeed, and switch to their own chips.

  6. How will a modem replace a chip company? by jtara · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Wish authors would learn to write headlines...

    1. Re:How will a modem replace a chip company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not interesting, nor an experiment. Your posts come across as arrogant and superior, where everyone should have your view. In your first post on VPNs, you said no one needs a VPN SERVICE. That is plainly incorrect. Geoblocking and privacy (in Australia all ISPs have to log your metadata for 2 years, it's government mandated) for example. So your narrow world view is yours, and you should keep it to yourself.

  7. Repair? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    If a surface mount chip goes on your phone, you toss the whole board. Reworking an SMC part would be cost-comparable to buying a new phone.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Repair? by ReneR · · Score: 1

      SMD rework is not as difficult as most people think: https://www.youtube.com/channe... https://www.youtube.com/user/r...

  8. Re:So no more Windows or windows in a VM on mac = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually.. it doesn't mean that at all.

  9. I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by mtaht · · Score: 1

    It's just intolerable on LTE and 5G. This was a test I ran today of bloat on tethered android cell phone - 2+ seconds of observed delay: http://www.dslreports.com/spee... Early tests of 5G are equally dismal, with over 1.5 seconds of observed latency under load. As osx adopted fq_codel (RFC8290) last year for their wifi drivers, awareness of this problem has finally made it to at least some of Apple's upper management. Here's hoping it's made it to the lte folk there also!

    1. Re:I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the end user device is in any way in control of this?

    2. Re:I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by mtaht · · Score: 1

      8 years of R&D and having fixed wifi thoroughly with work shipping in both linux and OSX? BQL+ RFC8290/fq _codel for ethernet , SQM/or sch_cake for linux on cable, dsl & fiber, fq_codel + ATF for wifi: https://www.usenix.org/system/... In wifi, now, at least, uplinks are easily controlled at the user device (phone), which is what I was mostly measuring. Same principles apply to lte and 5g. In lte, for downlinks, you need help at the enode b and backhaul. Those suck too, but "only" to about 600ms max latency under load. https://www.ericsson.com/en/er...

    3. Re:I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      In wifi, now, at least, uplinks are easily controlled at the user device (phone), which is what I was mostly measuring.

      And how does that fix the monumental amount of equipment that results in buffer bloat between your phone and the target you're accessing?

      The user is not in control in this in the slightest. All they can do is not make it worse than the many hops already in the system. Apple won't fix your buffer bloat. They can't. All you can ask them to do is not make it worse.

    4. Re:I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by mtaht · · Score: 1

      bufferbloat only occurs at the slowest bottleneck link. This is usually the phone on the uplink and the e-node-b or vpn backhaul on the downlink. It can certainly happen elsewhere in the network but that's the vast majority of cases.

    5. Re:I hope Apple fixes bufferbloat in LTE & 5G by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't, it occurs on any bottlenecked link including the backhaul. It doesn't need to be the slowest link in the chain.

  10. let me guess 5Gi - a new standard! by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    To avoid licensing they will create a new standard which is bad for everyone.

  11. So what this really means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple will copy and steal that cast majority of Qualcomms patents and then drag Qualcomm through patent court for years.
    Sounds about right for apple.

  12. 'Bout time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Apple come out with a 56K modem.

  13. RAND by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The whole point of the RAND patent pool around standards for things like wireless modems, is exactly so there will not be a minefield - just a tollbooth of relatively known quantity.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. This is not the same as Apple and its A-series SoC by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not the same as Apple and its A-series SoCs. Apple purchased licenses from ARM Holdings to produce their own ARM-based CPUs. There is no one single company Apple can go to to license the technology to produce its own baseband chipsets. Additionally, Apple is in a very public battle with Qualcomm about the very patents and licenses that underpin 3G/4G/5G baseband technology.

    The patent licensing aside, one of the other Qualcomm lawsuits involves the violation of NDAs and Apple violating Qualcomm's baseband technology trade secrets. In order to integrate Qualcomm's chipsets into the iPhone, Apple entered into NDAs with Qualcomm for detailed technical information. Qualcomm alleges that Apple shared these secrets with Intel after Apple dumped Qualcomm chipsets. Even if Qualcomm cannot prove that Apple did this, it is going to be impossible for Apple to prove that they somehow did not use this same information to produce their own baseband chipsets. I believe this is a much bigger issue for Apple than the patent licensing issue. Undoubtedly there will be direct non-compete clauses in these NDAs.

    Short of actually purchasing Qualcomm, or some other baseband chipset manufacturer, it will be impossible for Apple to show that they have come up with their own cleanroom implementation of baseband chipsets that is unencumbered by some kind of patent or licensing issue or NDA contractual issue.

  15. Evolution by ErstO · · Score: 1

    This particular chip or sub chip is not really high end anymore, it’s easy to make a modem in house thats still faster then the network it’s connected to.

    A simple cost saving equation, keep the simple stuff in house.

    1. Re:Evolution by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly, Apple would have their own chips already running in a lab somewhere. They can make all the chips they want in-house, as long as they are for internal use only in their labs, but the moment they incorporate those chips into a commercial device then they immediately become subject to patents and licensing issues. Even if Apple could somehow claim they have come up with a completely clean room implementation (which is rather impossible given their past technical collaboration with Qualcomm, and now with Intel) there are still standards essential patents that Apple will need to license. Some of these patents are at the heart of one of the many lawsuits between Apple and Qualcomm.

      Apple is clearly trying to take advantage of the Federal Court ruling that Qualcomm must license its standards essential patents to competing chipmakers (previously Qualcomm only offered those licenses to smartphone manufacturers). The problem is that that case is likely to be under appeal, and the court didn't rule on how much Qualcomm can charge. It also doesn't force other chipmakers to license their patents. Of course, given the timing of this 'leak' this could be a ruse to put pressure on Qualcomm to settle.

  16. Apple is not going to make money on modems by postmortem · · Score: 1

    It will come at huge cost, increasing price of phones (gotta absorb R&D and production cost). Only companies specializing in modems make money from their production.
    And good luck with entering that market and not infringing on some patents.
    They'd be better off with making a joint venture with Intel.

    You have successful platform (iOS), that you make obscene money off. So gotta let your suppliers profit too. I get that Broadcom wanted big piece of pie, but thet's where competition come into picture.

    It is going to end up like their self driving car. All money in the world does not make you best in everything.

  17. Apple copying other's innovation again? by ReneR · · Score: 1

    It is not that wireless networking comes with decades of innovation and all the fundamental technology research and such. And now Apple just comes and copycats their wireless tech? Get the popcorn ready for even more patent lawsuits. What a stupid move. They should focus on their tech that is only going downhill and is full with: https://twitter.com/search?q=p...

  18. Decouple GPS from modem and put GPS into WIFI only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Apple stops the practice of putting GPS only in Cellular iPads while it is redesigning the modems.

    Most Android tablets that are WIFI only have GPS.

  19. Re: Tim Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Likely. Nomen est omen ?