[HN Gopher] Qualcomm CEO says he's expecting Apple to use its ow...
___________________________________________________________________
Qualcomm CEO says he's expecting Apple to use its own modems in
iPhones in 2024
Author : retskrad
Score : 110 points
Date : 2023-03-01 14:47 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| malchow wrote:
| This lower power modem and the Enovix Si battery and we're
| looking at 5G for real, finally.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| What makes it so difficult to produce a cellular modem? Complex
| specification? Lots of edge cases?
| xxpor wrote:
| Regardless of the business/legal reasons, they're also just
| incredibly complex from a technical perspective. The power
| requirements, the RF side is black magic, the protocol side
| isn't easy, etc.
| threeseed wrote:
| I can't find the source.
|
| But one reason was that if you take the specification and
| implement it from scratch you end up with a significantly worse
| performing solution than simply buying it from Qualcomm.
|
| It could also explain why Apple is putting this first in their
| iPhone SE4 as their users will already expect not to own the
| fastest phone.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| and battery life.
|
| Intel did it with some firmware / microcode, and it took too
| much energy.
| mzs wrote:
| patents: https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-
| assets...
| mdasen wrote:
| Does that make it difficult to make a cellular modem or just
| expensive? Those are two different things.
|
| I'm assuming that they were asking why it's so difficult that
| so few vendors do it and why it's taking Apple so long.
|
| For example, Intel had trouble competing with Qualcomm's
| modems - they were always a generation or two behind. Apple
| bought Intel's modem business around 3.5 years ago and it
| looks like it'll take 5 years for them to come out with their
| first Apple-modem phone - and Apple wasn't starting from
| scratch. Apple was starting with a billion dollar purchase of
| Intel's modem business including all that IP, 2,200 Intel
| modem employees, 17,000 wireless patents, etc.
|
| It's gotten to the point that Qualcomm is basically the only
| game in town for high-end smartphones. Even Samsung who has
| their own modems went with Qualcomm worldwide for the Galaxy
| S23 - which they hadn't done for previous models.
|
| If it were just a matter of paying money, Apple and Intel
| would have created a competitive chip quickly.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Apple and Qualcomm have been fighting over patents for a
| decade. I presume Apple is designing their own chip that
| does not require any licensed tech from Qualcomm, which is
| what makes it harder.
| takinola wrote:
| I've a sneaking suspicion that Apple's vertical consolidation of
| the iPhone supply chain makes the company much more fragile.
| There are clearly lots of economies of scale by building custom
| silicon that's optimized for their use cases. However, if their
| sales drop, they become saddled with factories, product lines and
| lease commitments that further drag on costs and make it hard to
| react and change direction.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I don't think so, they can still have suppliers that carry much
| of the risk if they want to. They just make sure they control
| the IP.
| asdff wrote:
| I don't think that's such a problem for apple, since there is
| such a market for 3 year old products from them. iPhone 8 was
| effectively a product being sold for 5 straight years from
| apple, as the 8 and then as the second generation SE. For their
| computers, they also sell them for a few years past when they
| were cutting edge too, since there's always a market for a
| macbook that's a few hundred bucks cheaper and most consumers
| don't know what the difference between M1 or M2 might be
| anyhow.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| I tend to agree.
|
| One way to ease that pain is for apple to make itself a
| supplier to others rather than the supplier and consumer of
| it's own parts. A top of the line iPhone costs ~$500 to 1000
| bucks! why not try and go after the middle of the market by
| licencing the chipsets and other tech so that they can then
| supply mid teir companies that can compete in the android space
| with the lure of apple chipsets and hardware.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm curious what kind of cost savings this is going to provide
| Apple with per-device.
|
| Also are there other benefits like integrating onto the main chip
| or something? Or other business benefits?
| mcphage wrote:
| > I'm curious what kind of cost savings this is going to
| provide Apple with per-device
|
| My understanding is that Qualcomm charges a percentage of the
| total device cost, rather than a fixed price, so as phones get
| more expensive, that cost increases.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > Also are there other benefits like integrating onto the main
| chip or something?
|
| Yes, but the iPhone chips may be tiled by the time this
| happens, so it might not be "on chip." This is probably for the
| best, as the RF analog stuff a modem chip has to deal with
| requires certain compromises.
|
| > Or other business benefits?
|
| Just getting away from Qualcomm is a big one, lol
|
| Apple isnt the only company they started a feud with. _Intel_
| accused them of being anticompetitive in a remarkable rant back
| in 2018: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/another-attempt-
| stifle-compe...
| notafraudster wrote:
| Almost ten years ago now, Qualcomm and Apple began suing each
| other. Apple's position was Qualcomm was playing hardball with
| patents that ought have a FRAND license. Qualcomm's position
| was Apple was being mean, and then also to sue various
| downstream part contractors for not paying royalties they
| claimed were owed to them but that Apple was contesting. In
| general Apple won more of the litigation than they lost (but
| not all), and the litigation eventually ended in a large
| settlement. But Apple said at the time of the settlement, that
| it was untenable to have to source all of their LTE stuff from
| Qualcomm and they planned to secure their supply chain in the
| coming years. This is that statement now coming to fruition.
|
| So in toto, my impression is that this isn't fundamentally
| about seeking any particular cost savings or technical
| difference, so much as it Apple trying to disentangle
| themselves from external suppliers who they view as hostile or
| undependable.
| tooltalk wrote:
| First, Apple is known to squeeze every penny from their
| suppliers to improve their bottom line.
|
| Second, likewise, Apple sued every single wireless patent
| holders (eg, Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, etc) to negotiate
| better licensing terms -- but, to be fair, it's not uncommon
| for other smartphone OEMs to do so in court.
|
| Third, Apple's legal argument was always that Qualcomm's per-
| device (ie, final product) royalty basis licensing offer was
| not FRAND. Apple believes that the royalty should be based on
| the cost of Qualcomm's chips instead. But, of course, there
| is no legal basis or industry practice to support Apple's
| unfounded claim and, consequently, LOST EVERY lawsuit based
| on this claim for past 10+ years.
|
| Fourth, "... then also to sue various downstream part
| contractors ..." No, you don't sue everyone in supply-chain.
| The wireless patent holders collect their royalty only once
| and at the top of the supply-chain, ie, smartphone OEMs, to
| maximize their profit. and that's been the industry practice
| for much of the past 25+ years (possibly even longer).
|
| Fifth, "... it was untenable to have to source all of their
| LTE stuff from Qualcomm ..." Umm.. Stop, stop, stop!
|
| So in conclusion, it's all about saving Apple's margin,
| that's all. I don't blame any company for trying to minize
| their cost, but the recent event with Qualcomm, ie, FTC's
| attack on Qualcomm with Apple orchestrating behind the
| curtain, was highly unethical and abuse of their political
| power.
|
| PS. insulting languages removed
| doix wrote:
| > First, Apple is known to squeeze every penny from their
| suppliers to improve their bottom line.
|
| This is just unequivocally false. I used to work for a
| semiconductor company that was a supplier for Apple. Apple
| would pay a premium compared to other companies.
|
| The semiconductor game is kind of rigged, assuming you
| don't have your own fab, everyone knows your costs. They
| know how much a wafer costs and they know the size of your
| device, so they have a pretty good idea of what it costs
| you per device (they don't know your yield, but can guess a
| range).
|
| Everyone uses that information to keep your profit margins
| fairly low. Apple would pay a premium compared to other
| manufacturers. You could probably look at the financial
| reports of various apple suppliers and reverse engineer
| that information.
|
| Apple is extremely risk averse, them making their own
| modems is almost certainly about reducing supply chain
| risk.
|
| Profit margins will be lower down on the priority list.
| They can just increase the price of the phone to improve
| those.
|
| For the record, I am not an Apple fan, I disliked working
| for one of their suppliers and dislike their products. But
| they do pay their suppliers a premium.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > Apple believes that the royalty should be based on the
| cost of Qualcomm's chips instead
|
| Sounds great. Apple should also base their app store tax on
| the cost of hosting.
| jboydyhacker wrote:
| Solid response.
| sonofhans wrote:
| You know, you can disagree without including the insulting
| language. That will lead to more and better discussion.
| izacus wrote:
| There's nothing seriously insulting in that post. Calling
| out biased Apple defenders for their misleading claims
| isn't an insult no matter how much some would want it.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| > Third, Apple's legal argument was always that Qualcomm's
| per-device (ie, final product) royalty basis licensing
| offer was not FRAND. Apple believes that the royalty should
| be based on the cost of Qualcomm's chips instead. But, of
| course, there is no legal basis or industry practice to
| support Apple's unfounded claim and, consequently, LOST
| EVERY lawsuit based on this claim for past 10+ years.
|
| Did you check FTC v Qualcomm antitrust case? Can you stop
| your lies?
| tooltalk wrote:
| >>Can you stop your lies?
|
| When are you going to stop spreading misinformation?
| tooltalk wrote:
| >> Did you check FTC v Qualcomm antitrust case? Can you
| stop your lies?
|
| Sure, isn't that the case Qualcomm reversed and won?
| Sure, most legal analysts had expected Apple's sweetheart
| judge Lucy Koh to hand a victory to FTC as it was no
| coincidence how the case ended up on her desk in the
| first place. This was however unanimously reversed due to
| its flawed constrution of Qualcomm's monopoly in premium
| LTE market and Judge Koh's expansive interpretation (in
| favor of Apple/FTC).
|
| But wrt Apple's claim on royalty basis? Not so much.
| bombcar wrote:
| Apple has enough cash on hand to buy 1/3 to half of Qualcomm
| but the government would likely shut that down quite quickly.
|
| So they'll roll their own. They built a CPU so a modem
| shouldn't be incredibly difficult.
| nerdjon wrote:
| This isn't quite them just building their own. Or at least
| presumably.
|
| in 2019 they bought the modem business from Intel.
| tnel77 wrote:
| I feel like this is getting a little nuanced. "They
| bought a company to get a head start, thus they didn't
| actually create their own modem."
|
| It's been roughly four years since that purchase. Surely
| they've done some work since then that would justify
| labeling it as "Apple created their own modem."
|
| I feel like this would be comparable to me saying I
| cooked dinner and someone replying "you bought the food
| from Kroger and the cookbook from Barnes & Noble, so it
| doesn't count" while I stare at a pile of dirty dishes
| like "sure feels like it counts."
| nerdjon wrote:
| I agree with where you are going with that, but the
| person I responded too mentioned that they could buy a
| part part of qualcom but instead just made their own.
|
| But instead they bought part of intel. It doesn't
| diminish what Apple is building, but I think given the
| context it is important.
| bombcar wrote:
| I was more emphasizing that if Apple was willing to "go
| it alone" on their CPUs (which they did by an
| acquisition, to be sure) then they probably have no issue
| at all "going alone" on the radio/modem, and I'm actually
| a bit surprised they didn't do that _first_ - I guess
| modems are more complicated /difficult than CPUs.
| joezydeco wrote:
| The PASemi team took two years from acquisition to first
| Apple silicon. I'm guessing the Intel stuff was a lot
| messier. It's not like Intel was a streamlined company
| that excelled at embedded SoCs.
| meepmorp wrote:
| At least a couple of those years were the pandemic, so
| that might've affected some timelines.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Interesting that no one talks about the elephant in the room
| - why are technologies for supposed public standards
| patentable in the first place?
|
| IMO, all standards that are mandated to be used by a
| government or a regulatory agency should be patent and
| royalty free and accessible by everyone, alone to have a
| healthy competition space instead of (effectively) a Qualcomm
| monopoly on the vendor side.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > why are technologies for supposed public standards
| patentable in the first place
|
| Because they were developed in private by the stakeholders
| and then submitted as part of the standardization process.
| Money _did_ get spent. At the core of the situation is
| multiple private companies all contribute technology
| towards a standard that a larger group of companies can
| implement. Without the option of license fees there 's
| little incentive for companies to invest in developing
| these technologies.
|
| Part of the standardization process is making the patent
| licenses available at a "fair and reasonable" rate (FRAND).
| When the patent holders have large patent pools of their
| own they cross-license in lieu or in addition to paying
| actual license fees.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Governments could also push for these standards to be
| developed at universities or pay companies to develop
| them, to be then openly released.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Thank you! That's incredibly helpful context.
| seiferteric wrote:
| How about security? My understanding is these things have an
| entire other processor outside of iOS control that can control
| your phone and is buggy.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Battery life improvements.
|
| I have to imagine this will bring considerable battery life
| improvements since the radio will be fab on the same latest
| generation TSMC node that Apple gets access too (as opposed to
| Qualcomm fab'ing on 3+ year old nodes).
| selectodude wrote:
| Qualcomm fabs on Samsung "4nm".
| tooltalk wrote:
| Qualcomm fabs on Samsung and TSMC. Unlike Apple who put all
| their eggs in one basket, TSMC, Qualcomm always used multiple
| fabs -- usually rotate between releases -- to produce their
| chips. Qualcomm also was one of SMIC's largest customers
| before they were blacklisted.
| Varloom wrote:
| They won't manufacture something secondary such as a modem on
| cutting edge super expensive silicon.
|
| Pretty sure I've read on Macrumors that they are developing
| their modem on TSMC 6nm.
| mdasen wrote:
| I'm surprised that they aren't trying to integrated it into
| the CPU like Qualcomm does with the Snapdragon processors.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I'm surprised that they aren't trying to integrated it
| into the CPU like Qualcomm does with the Snapdragon
| processors.
|
| Sometimes it's not worth the hit to yield to put it on die.
| On package might be a better tradeoff.
| corbulo wrote:
| The thermals on that would be difficult to deal with I
| think. Snapdragon had thermal problems for a long time.
| Have they solved it? What did they end up doing?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Why would apple waste the limited high end fab space on the
| modem? They'll probably fab it on a generation or two old
| process.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| It's all SoC
| nwiswell wrote:
| Is it monolithic SoC or advanced packaging? There's no
| reason you can't have the processor at 3nm and the modem at
| 6nm with chiplets
| [deleted]
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Although logic circuits are available at every process node,
| some specialized usages like radio frequency transceivers
| aren't available on every process node from TSMC.
|
| The most recent node change from TSMC intended for use in
| cellular modems was the jump from 16nm to 6nm in 2021.
|
| > Compared with 16FFC RF, its predecessor, N6RF supports 3.2X
| logic density, 55% power reduction, and 0.38X SRAM scaling in
| terms of digital KPI. N6RF can deliver ideal RF performance and
| power efficiency for 5G and Wi-Fi 6 & 6E applications that
| demand both performance and power to enable flexibility for
| system optimization.
|
| https://rf.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/RF.h...
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16030/tsmc-updates-on-node-av...
| [deleted]
| mrkramer wrote:
| Ofc Apple can do it inhouse but I as an "economist" wonder who
| can specialise better? Apple is bigger and more powerful than
| Qualcomm but do they really have that comparative advantage to
| deliver better product. Qualcomm has years of know-how but
| looking from Apple's point of view it is better to be self-
| sufficient then to rely on the 3rd party. I guess time will show.
| euos wrote:
| Apple has the volume. Random search shows they have roughly a
| quarter of the world smartphone sales (I also would expect
| Apple users to upgrade more frequently). Apple has just several
| SoC packages with the same cores across all its products.
| Samsung (2nd is sales volumes) has many more product lines and
| uses vastly different silicon.
| rdsubhas wrote:
| It's interesting to see discussions here that are adamant that
| this is _only_ about improving profit, or _only_ about quality
| (battery), or _only_ about getting back at qualcomm.
|
| Apple has repeatedly shown that you don't have to make decisions
| on one to compromise the other. You can launch your own chip
| (M1), and improve quality (battery, perf), and improve profits,
| and get back at intel.
|
| It's the same here. Watch the iFixit teardown videos to see just
| how big the standalone qualcomm modem chip is. I knew it was big,
| but it was even bigger than I thought.
|
| Apple moving to an integrated chip can be a win in both quality
| (battery improvement and space on the SoC to put other stuff),
| cost, and getting back at qualcomm (who is getting more and more
| like Intel of mobile world, comfortable, monopolistic,
| litigative). They've proven that a vertically integrated SoC is
| better in every way.
|
| So maybe stop arguing whether it's "this or that" it's this and
| that.
| yrdmb wrote:
| > You can launch your own chip (M1), and improve quality
| (battery, perf), and improve profits, and get back at intel.
|
| It's less about "getting back at intel" and more about having
| so much money that they need somewhere to invest it or increase
| the dividend and send that profit to the shareholders. The past
| decade, investors have constantly demanded Apple to turn over
| more/all of their cash to shareholders. A defense against
| activist investors is to show shareholders you are investing
| for the future. Bringing more production in-house is a great
| way to do it since it would eliminate future expenditures and
| increase profits in the future. Of course it all depends on
| execution. If Apple keeps minting money and their in-house
| hardware stack proves a success, I wouldn't be surprised if
| they start creating an in-house app stack.
| quitit wrote:
| Also an overlooked point is diversification: Apple's chip
| aspirations have allowed functionality that isn't
| trivially/inexpensively possible with standard parts. This also
| makes copying any unique ideas much more difficult, since
| competitors can't just approach the chipmaker for the same
| part.
|
| Apple could very well bring innovations to cellular modems that
| make their products behave more seamlessly or are simpler to
| use. Additionally they may introduce features that aren't
| currently possible with Qualcomm's designs.
| scetron wrote:
| I definitely tend to agree. So many decisions, not just in
| product design or strategy, DO happen to take one option above
| all others. Increasing the overlap and moving all indicators at
| once is how you get ahead these days. Companies, products and
| strategies that focus on one thing above all else will probably
| tend to start not really cutting it when it comes to success.
| mrkramer wrote:
| I tend to think that big companies as they grow lose their
| focus and fail to adapt and further specialise. Just look at
| Google, they are imploding under their weight.
| kjreact wrote:
| It's so common to see Google bashing on HN now that it's
| become a cliche. Google has never been good at monetizing
| products beyond their search. I don't think it has anything
| to do with growing too large for its own good. Google is this
| generation's Xerox PARC.
| PHGamer wrote:
| yea but apple has also chosen to use lightning with shit xfer
| speeds just to lock in its customers. m1 might have been nice
| but not every descision they made was good (look how they
| nerfed qualcomm iphones back in the day because the intel
| models couldnt compete with it)
| ZainRiz wrote:
| First I'm hearing about nerfed iphones, but if true this
| sounds like a reasonable decision from a business
| perspective.
|
| They wouldn't want customers worrying about whether they got
| the better qualcomm iPhone X or the slower intel iPhone X.
|
| Apple could have chosen to make everything with the faster
| qualcomm chips, but they prob wanted to derisk their supply
| chain by diversifying onto two chip manufacturers (and
| perhaps play them against each other for negotiating power)
|
| Either ways, once you arrive a the result that you need to
| chip manufacturers making chips for the same phones, you need
| to make sure your customers have practically the same
| experience regardless of the underlying hardware they end up
| with
|
| Consistency is key
| unxdfa wrote:
| The reason they went with Lightning was because the other
| option was Micro-USB at the time. Lightning is so so so much
| more robust than that awful USB connector and can be inserted
| any way round. Bring on 2015 and USB-C appeared which Apple
| jumped on pretty quickly with their MacBooks.
|
| The iPhone is an outlier because due to the insane number of
| devices out there, if you change it now everyone's Lightning
| accessories are dead in the water. But it doesn't really
| matter now. Only thing Lightning gets used for most users is
| charging and it works fine for that and people have cables
| and chargers already floating around. This isn't a big deal
| really. They ship a USB-C to Lightning cable with the last 2
| iPhones I bought and all my chargers are USB-C.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > This isn't a big deal really.
|
| The USB 2.0 speeds are a big deal.
|
| If your iCloud Drive is full and your phone is full, your
| wired backup that should take 20 minutes is going to take
| 14 hours.
|
| I hope the EU forces their hand on putting USB-C in at USB
| 3 or Thunderbolt speeds.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| USB-C is a connector. USB 2.0 is one of the things that
| runs across USB-C.
|
| The EU is only forcing Apple to ship with USB-C so that
| every single mobile device uses the same connector for
| charging.
| unxdfa wrote:
| I haven't had that happen in the 10 years I've had iOS
| devices.
|
| Last time I plugged anything in other than for charging
| was an iPod. Even my DSLR talks to the phone via WiFi.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| was there a point you are making or just a natural
| language response?
|
| your use case isn't the only use case, expanding the
| possible use cases in obvious ways expands what users
| would do, such as upgrading 10 year old technology. News
| at 11.
| unxdfa wrote:
| The point is that sure you can punch yourself in the
| balls, complain it hurts then call for the regulators to
| provide a mechanism for you to stop punching yourself in
| the balls.
|
| Or you could just stop punching yourself in the balls
| i.e. use WiFi and FGS just pay $3 for some storage rather
| than coming up with a wobbly straw man.
|
| My experience is fairly vast. I use iOS for
| music/video/photography (iPad Pro), and support 11 other
| iOS devices (excluding watches, homepods) across my
| family who range from biochemical engineers to students
| to children to retirees to software engineers. That use
| case NEVER comes up these days in my experience unless
| you're hurting yourself.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| this isn't a problem I have, it is a problem I know other
| people have. solved by faster transfer speeds than what
| Wifi or any airdrop combo offers. I am completely aware
| of how to avoid the problem, I am also completely aware
| of how to make it less of a problem with faster transfer
| speeds.
|
| why are you worried about accessories? Apple absolutely
| is not worried about that, one of their favorite things
| to do is pull the rug under accessory holders.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| You know they won't. Take a look at what they did on the
| iPad lineup for what is coming on the iPhones:
|
| Basic iPads only support USB2.0 transfer rates (480
| Mbps). The iPad Pros get full Thunderbolt speeds. Expect
| the same for iPhones, I'd say.
|
| The EU mandate is about forcing a single connector type.
| It doesn't say anything about quality of service of the
| connector, because ultimately it depends on the device.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| The new iPad Mini is fun, it's got USB 2.0 client (hooked
| up to a host computer), but a USB 3.0 host controller
| (plug a USB drive into the iPad).
|
| I like comparing it to a Raspberry Pi 4 that does the
| same thing.
| metadat wrote:
| I don't see any obvious modem here:
| https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2022/10/07111353/iPhon...
|
| Is this it?
| https://fdn.gsmarena.com/imgroot/news/22/09/iphone-14-satell...
|
| (From https://m.gsmarena.com/ifixit_iphones_sos_via_satellite_f
| eat...)
|
| If so, then yes that's a shockingly large piece of the phone.
|
| Edit: @rdsubhas: Your link confirms that the modem really does
| take up a sizeable portion of the entire volume of the phone.
| Now Apple's desire to get more control of it makes a lot more
| sense. Thank you!
| rdsubhas wrote:
| This was the teardown video I was referencing, showing size
| of the modem at 3:45 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22
| 5&v=DDV0_fDJZ40&feature=yo...
| [deleted]
| jaywalk wrote:
| 2024 headline: "Qualcomm sues Apple for patent infringement"
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| There are two kinds of companies in this world: those currently
| being sued by Qualcomm and those Qualcomm is considering suing.
| eppp wrote:
| Has already happened many many times
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Nope.
|
| This was resolved back in 2019, with Apple paying $5B to
| Qualcomm
|
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/qualcomm-and-apple-ag...
| meepmorp wrote:
| ... again
| [deleted]
| jof wrote:
| Could it also be, with the advent of Satellite SOS, that Apple is
| starting to explore non-conventional mobile RF protocols, and
| that Qualcomm's product offerings are only really geared towards
| generic, standards-based mobile networks.
| roneythomas6 wrote:
| Satellite SOS is based on the same bands used by 5g. Also it is
| now part of 5G NR Release 17. Qualcomm modems since Sanapdragon
| X60 had support for these bands. Even before Qualcomm
| officially announced Snapdragon satellite with X70 modem,
| Huawei was offering satellite communication with Snapdragon X65
| in China, which is the same modem found in iPhone 14 series.
| gsich wrote:
| Good. Qualcomm can burn for their shitty driver policy. Main
| reason why Android upgrades are (it's getting better ...) such a
| clusterfuck.
| RealStickman_ wrote:
| At least they're better than Mediatek afaik
| robotnikman wrote:
| Not sure why you are getting downvoted, because its true.
| Qualcomm is one of the main things holding Android devices
| back, and their driver policy is shitty.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| If you saw the code you would thank your stars no one can see
| it.
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| I don't suppose someone could point to more info on this?
| r1ch wrote:
| It's the same reason why your home router runs an ancient
| version of Linux that can never be updated. The hardware
| requires a proprietary firmware blob that only links with a
| specific kernel. You can never update the system
| independently, you're at the mercy of Qualcomm releasing
| updated blobs.
| babypuncher wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/the-
| fairphone-2-hits...
|
| Basically Qualcomm only releases proprietary Linux drivers
| for their chips, provided as a precompiled binary blob, and
| they only offer ~2 years of support before dropping them
| all together.
|
| Because the Linux kernel does not have a stable binary
| interface for driver modules, getting an old driver to work
| with a new version of the kernel can become a hacky
| nightmare.
| spyremeown wrote:
| They're also the reason behind the shitty Arm PCs. I despise
| Qualcomm.
| mohamedattahri wrote:
| Hard to resist the extrapolation from Visual Voicemail to see
| Apple one day in the near future shipping software for carriers
| to deploy on their networks to support features E2E integrated
| with their modems.
| unxdfa wrote:
| If you have enough cash and in house engineering skills to pull
| this off it makes sense. You get full control over the baseband
| firmware, power management, supply chain, cost, integration,
| process, security surface, everything.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-01 23:02 UTC)