C1 modem breaks no speed records, but is power efficient
appleinsider.com
appleinsider.com
I understand that is what the iPhone 16 uses, but that's an Apple problem they purposefully took an older generation modem from Qualcomm for their 16 series. Knowing Apple's modus operandi they probably decided to use the x71 so when they released C1 it appeared better than it really is. They did this during the Intel Modem days when they shipped that.
None the less it will be interesting to see how this modem develops further and what products it ends up in.
Bad take. Samsung sells as many phones as Apple while using the latest and greatest parts on the flagships.
Qualcomm has to sell faster and faster modems but apple can optimize for what we actually care about
Cellular models are also a common exploit vector: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/10/pixel-proactive-secu...
Depending on what their patent licensing with Qualcomm looks like, this also might free them up to embed 5G capabilities in just about any other device they have that isn't a phone. Combined with soft sims, there's no need for sim card slots even. Think laptops, vr goggles, apple tv's, watches, etc. That stuff is/was mostly blocked on licensing and Qualcomm taking a cut; and only partially on power requirements. I wouldn't be surprised to see the C1 in some future mac books. In fact I'd be surprised if that didn't happen.
Some Chinese phone companies like Huawei have been doing similar things and use their own chips rather than Qualcomm provided ones and of course the whole notion of Qualcomm enforcing their patents in China is not much of a thing.
It will be interesting to see what happens with 6G and beyond. That will be the first standard where Qualcomm has to compete with multiple competitors competing on quality and features. Apple won't wait for them to do whatever. And likewise, companies like Ericsson/Nokia might start talking directly to Apple about making sure their network infrastructure works great with IOS.
While true, at some point networks do catch up, and many people hang on to their phones for several years at this point. If that's the case, whether having a better modem makes a difference in the end depends on which dimension of "faster" you're looking at:
Just using more and more Hz of spectrum on a single device does indeed not help anything other than peak speeds in empty cells (something I personally don't care about in the slightest in a phone), but being able to deliver more bit/Hz/s (through spatial multiplexing, better beamforming etc.) does eventually benefit everyone in congested/spectrum-limited situations.
>Low signal: 0.81 watts for the iPhone 16, 0.67 watts for the iPhone 16e
For the legacy modem, why is power consumption lower in lower signal areas? I naively expected more power use, either searching for signal or amplifying more. Is the power consumption mostly a factor of data throughput?
Perhaps "high signal" means not "conditions where the phone reports high RSS" but "conditions where the phone is transmitting at high power".
Because as I understand it, transmitting a signal is the main power drain. If you transmit with less power it would mean a lesser range and lower signal quality. So Apple can't just have their phone transmit a signal with less power...
I would take stability over bandwidth (within reason) any time. I have no need for a 1Gbit down, as long as I have a decent Adblocker installed.
That said, I've noticed my iPhone 15 switching to satellite mode and sticking to it for longer, even though I'm back in a place with reception. I now have to manually cycle Airplane mode to get it to pick up the network.
If Qualcomm cared they could do the same thing. That's gigawatts of energy, over billions of cellphones, being wasted by modems because the vendor doesn't care.
The problem, of course, is the cost of that inefficiency is external to the vendor.
Maybe Qualcomm will improve their power performance in the next-next-generation.
How so? The impact of power efficiency is arguably as immediate to a mobile phone manufacturer as it gets. These things are battery powered, and many people are struggling to make it through a single day on one charge!
Of course, that's practically exactly what battery size is tuned to – making it through exactly one day for most users. Knowing Apple, they'll just make the next flagship half a millimeter thinner again rather than risking one and a half days of battery life...
5G spectrum is managed by the network, so the only thing that will happen is that each device will get shorter/narrower time/frequency slices, but there shouldn't be any unexpected cross- or same-channel interference of the type that is common for unmanaged protocols like 802.11 or Bluetooth.
My very recent Qualcomm-equipped phone sucks in every stadium, train station, shopping center, and high-rise I’ve entered in the last year.
I’m not sure if that’s Tmo or the modem but Qualcomm is not a panacea for crowded 5G in my experience.
But now that they develop the chip in house, I don't see why they wouldn't include it. In fact, given they put an Apple Watch chip and extra display in their macbooks for a few years, I don't see why they haven't done it years ago.
edit: I googled, apparently Qualcomm's licensing fees are a percentage of the whole device the chipset is installed in. I suppose it's less of a factor now that some iPhones are more expensive than Macbooks though.
Hm.