[HN Gopher] Apple plans to equip MacBooks with in-house cellular...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple plans to equip MacBooks with in-house cellular modems
Author : mgh2
Score : 107 points
Date : 2023-11-20 17:27 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| MacRumors should at least link to _their own article_ from 2011
| talking about the actual MacBook Pro prototype that was
| discovered in 2011 ( "Tyco"):
| https://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/14/photos-of-a-prototype-m...
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| The hybrid phone-table-laptop takes another small step. I've been
| expecting this feature for a while. Our phones are becoming
| tables. Our tables are becoming laptops. Our laptops are becoming
| mobile.
| camtarn wrote:
| s/table/tablet/ I'm assuming?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I'm picturing someone pressing their ear onto a table and
| yelling "SIRI DIAL MY MUM PLEASE"
| DANmode wrote:
| This more or less sums up how I've seen finance people use
| desk-size Surface products.
| brookst wrote:
| You really t'd them up there.
| adolph wrote:
| Apple offers tablets and watches with cell modems, why wait for
| "in-house" to add them as a laptop SKU in 5 years?
|
| What's the advantage over just attaching to one's cell phone?
|
| In 2028 is a cell modem still going to exist, or should "cell" be
| rethought as "satellite?"
| jdminhbg wrote:
| The sticking point is paying Qualcomm for the modems, because
| their terms take a % of the total device sale for each device
| sold with one. When you're talking about $5000 laptops that's a
| huge amount of money.
| tm-guimaraes wrote:
| Also, less risky to start using in house modems on the
| smaller product segment (laptops with 5g)
| whartung wrote:
| There's also a lot more room, heat, antenna routing, and
| power budget in a laptop. They can have something
| functional, but just generally less efficient (for assorted
| values of "efficiency") that will work fine in a laptop,
| but not necessarily in a cell phone form factor.
| adolph wrote:
| That doesn't seem to stop more cost sensitive manufacturers
| like Dell. Maybe other manufacturers just make an SKU for an
| NGFF module and Qualcomm's cut comes from that?
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Zopsc-Replacement-Wireless-
| DW5811e-Qu...
| secondcoming wrote:
| Are these legit? They seem quite cheap.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| It's only LTE, might be an old part.
| mdasen wrote:
| It is a very old LTE modem. It looks like it's 10 year
| old tech. People often forget how much LTE progressed in
| a decade.
| secondcoming wrote:
| yes, but the same suppliers seems to have a suspiciously
| cheap 5G card too
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C5X9ZZR9/ref=sspa_dk_detail_1
| ?ps...
| jdminhbg wrote:
| That's just a part. You can also buy a USB-C modem for a
| MacBook.
|
| And being cost-conscious is part of what makes it
| affordable to sell the integrated machine, since you're
| paying a % of the product cost. The total take for Qualcomm
| is smaller, and Dell can still make money selling device
| management solutions to its customers.
| mdasen wrote:
| Dell isn't using Qualcomm's modems.
|
| At the heart of the Apple-Qualcomm dispute was the no-
| license, no-chips policy where Qualcomm won't give you
| their chips if you don't agree to their license terms. If
| you want FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory)
| license terms, you don't get Qualcomm's modems. Apple needs
| Qualcomm's modems for their phones. Dell doesn't have a
| phone business so they can just use the Intel modems. As an
| aside, it does look like the laptops which have the modem
| as an option are $2,000+ for a laptop inferior to what
| Apple sells for $1,800 (slower processor, less hard drive
| space, same RAM, garbage 250 nit display).
|
| It's always hard to tease apart enterprise deals since
| everything is negotiable. Maybe Apple struck a deal with
| Qualcomm that they'd agree to no-license/no-chips for the
| iPhone and iPad, but it excluded other categories like
| laptops. We simply don't know.
|
| LTE/5G laptops are a small segment and data plans are still
| very expensive. Maybe a few people have gotten a nice
| unlimited deal, but carriers generally don't want people
| using lots of data at this point in time. Consumers
| generally don't want to be spending another monthly fee on
| their laptop either. It's a bit of a niche market at
| present. Maybe Apple is hoping to grow it out of a niche if
| they're able to do it cheaply. Maybe carriers are telling
| Apple that they are feeling confident about their network
| capacity in 2028 so it makes the most sense to launch then.
|
| If Apple is launching a 5G laptop, they are going to want
| to do it with carrier partners who have an easy plan ready
| for consumers. If that plan is "50GB for $50/mo and then
| you're throttled to an unusable speed," that isn't
| something that Apple is going to want to promote to their
| users. If we're talking about 2028, carriers might feel
| differently about their network capacity.
|
| Companies like Dell often target niches that Apple doesn't
| target. Apple creates a select few high-volume
| configurations. Right now, few people want a cellular modem
| in their laptop.
| bhpm wrote:
| > What's the advantage over just attaching to one's cell phone?
|
| Drains the phone battery for one.
|
| The real target of this is enterprise customers. MacBooks are
| expensive. Being able to track them (oh, while adding that many
| devices to the FindMy network) would be a win for the companies
| investing in them.
| artimaeis wrote:
| Qualcomm charges licensing fees based on the price of the
| device being sold. This has been the source of Apple's issue
| with them for years now [1].
|
| If Apple were to package their laptop line with Qualcomm
| powered cell modems, I have to imagine the prices required
| would really take people aback, hence why they're so steadfast
| in trying to create their own modem.
|
| As for why it's better than tethering, it just works without
| having to do anything. For some users who are always on the go,
| that's a huge convenience. Also, tethering eats at the cellular
| device's battery, which is usually a lot smaller than the
| battery we lug in our laptops.
|
| I don't think satellite comms are on any sort of track to
| meaningfully replace cellular ones. Everything I've seen in
| that vein is more supplementary to the existing networks,
| rather than trying to completely replace it.
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/how-qualcomm-
| sho...
| dymk wrote:
| Have any manufacturers shipped a (modern) laptop with an
| integrated modem? This seems like a feature that would have an
| outsized positive impact on UX, given how simple it sounds.
|
| Today, I can connect to a person hot-spot or coffee shop wifi,
| but that's Another Step and many wifi hotspots like to boot me if
| I close the lid, even for a short time. Having a laptop that's
| seamlessly connected at all times would be seriously cool. Harder
| to lose when always connected (Find My), too.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The problem has always been that old cellular infrastructure
| isn't designed for having multiple devices on a single line.
| That is changing with the Apple Watch (which requires such
| technology) - but it's also why Apple Watch is not available on
| almost any MVNOs.
| dave78 wrote:
| Every Thinkpad I've bought in the past 15 years has had an
| integrated modem option. I don't travel much so I've never
| bought it, but it seems to be a common option for business
| laptops. I've definitely seen others using them.
| another_bear wrote:
| The Dell Latitude line has had them for at least 15 years
| now.
| dingi wrote:
| There are plenty of laptops with an optional integrated modem.
| Most of them are top of the line models like Thinkpads,
| Elitebooks, etc.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| I think some of the surface tablets have one, although they are
| technically not a laptop
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Have any manufacturers shipped a (modern) laptop with an
| integrated modem?_
|
| Sure - just google "<vendor> 5G laptop" to find for example
| https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/sr/laptops/5g-m...
|
| It's often found on business laptops given to service engineers
| and sales people, who spend a lot of time on the road.
| ska wrote:
| > Have any manufacturers shipped a (modern) laptop with an
| integrated modem?
|
| Still pretty common in a lot of business focused models. And I
| believe some big corps with a lot of travel & security concerns
| still have custom models made for them with specific cell
| systems built in and centrally administered. Saves ever having
| to answer the question : should I connect to this network....
| numpad0 wrote:
| WWAN on laptops? Sure. It's just an M.2 card, couple lines
| wired from M.2 to SIM slot, 2-3 extra antennas, and requisite
| radio certifications. Windows supports WWAN cards natively.
|
| I think the two largest blockers to WWAN on laptops are:
| handling of SIM card, and complexity of setting up wireless
| contracts. Which aren't _that_ complex, but scary enough to
| make target demographic hesitate. Apple WWAN would use eSIM,
| and certainly an easy signup through an included assistant app
| that could change the equation.
| paxys wrote:
| With another mandatory $30/mo data plan I'm sure. You can already
| tether to your iPhone from the Mac with a single click, so I
| won't be running to buy this just yet.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| You could get 15GB for $20 on Mint, but I already don't use up
| that data on my phone so
| paxys wrote:
| 15GB would last half a day on a non-mobile OS.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| There's a low data mode which is supposed to prevent it
| from downloading unnecessary stuff until you're on an
| unmetered connection, but I have no clue how well supported
| it is, especially by third party software
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Depends on what you do. When I'm out in public on my
| laptop, I'm not browsing the internet so much as I'm
| coding, and I only really use the internet to google things
| and use ChatGPT
| tambourine_man wrote:
| That's the thing, besides the hardware, there would need to
| be a lot of work in the OS (and maybe apps to some extent).
|
| The assumption of unlimited data transfer is pervasive on
| non-mobile (we need a better name for that, something that
| encompasses desktop and laptop. PC?)
| callalex wrote:
| That work was all done around 2015 or so. MacOS has had
| the concept of a Metered Connection for many years now.
| The first party software all behaves as you would expect,
| and there are APIs that expose the information to third
| party software as well.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| In LATAM the cost will be much less. But working outside always
| requires vigilance because of thieves.
| gh02t wrote:
| For real, I'd love to have a cellular modem in my laptop/tablet
| but the hassle and high cost of adding an extra "line" to my
| already expensive cell plan for something I only want to use
| intermittently has always turned me off. I could go prepaid,
| but then I have to worry about that on top of it also being
| expensive and convoluted. Tethering to my phone is gonna win
| every time when those are my options.
| dymk wrote:
| Why do you say mandatory? You can buy an iPad with a modem and
| it doesn't have a mandatory cellular plan.
| lxgr wrote:
| Some carriers offer free additional SIM cards for devices such
| as laptops or tablets that draw from the same data allowance as
| the main SIM card.
|
| Mine doesn't, and I only work in places that have good Wi-Fi,
| but I bet there's more than enough people that feel
| differently.
|
| After all, somebody must be buying these iPads with mobile data
| modems, or Apple would have discontinued them.
| gruturo wrote:
| My iPad connects to the internet quite seamlessly via bluetooth
| tethering through my iPhone, so I could cheap out and get the Wi-
| Fi model (and not pay for an additional monthly mobile plan).
| They could make this even more transparent and seamless, easily,
| why stick a piece of hardware instead?
|
| Because their investment in acquiring Intel's modem division is
| resulting in an uncompetitive product and they need an excuse to
| pretend to use it?
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I've had a laptop with a cellular modem for almost 4 years now
| and there's zero chance I'm ever going back to a laptop without
| one. Maybe framework next time around, if my laptop had some
| GPIOs too!? Heaven.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| How much do you pay for data with it? I also just tether to my
| Samsung and use my phone's data plan
| thot_experiment wrote:
| a bit over $30/mo on tmo, real world speeds about 30mbit, 100
| on a good day, unlimited data
| smoldesu wrote:
| Are you using a socketed WWAN card? You could probably
| fanangle that into an M.2 slot (or god forbid a Framework
| expansion card) with a little bit of software tinkering.
| kccqzy wrote:
| T-Mo also reduces speed after a set amount of data
| (probably also 50GB).
| darknavi wrote:
| GoogleFi provides data only sims for free that use the same
| pool of data from your "unlimited" plan.
| mdasen wrote:
| > Users who exceed 50 GB of data usage (across all their
| devices) will have their data speeds slowed to 256 kbps for
| the remainder of their billing cycle, unless they opt out
| and choose to be charged for additional full speed data
| usage at $10 per GB.
|
| According to Google, it looks like that "unlimited" plan is
| 50 GB and then slowed to 256 kbps (basically useless). It
| isn't unlimited with lower priority after 50 GB. It's
| basically just limited to 50 GB given how useless 256 kbps
| is.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| I think this is pretty common with US carriers.
| "Unlimited" doesn't actually mean unlimited, ever
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Yeah it's true, I believe I get throttled after 1TB now
| though, haven't hit the limit in a long while.
| mdasen wrote:
| It's not common with mainstream US carriers on phone
| plans. It's common with MVNOs (virtual network
| operators).
|
| On phone plans, carriers generally let a customer use
| unlimited low-priority data. If it's 3am and no one is
| using the network or you're in a location with plenty of
| capacity, your speeds are good. If there's a lot of
| people using the network, your speeds can vary since
| others get priority over you.
|
| There's a big difference between "we prioritize other
| customers before you" and "you'll never exceed 256 kbps."
| The first kind still feels like unlimited for most
| people. It might mean getting 5 Mbps instead of 25 Mbps
| when there's a lot of network congestion, but most of the
| time you're just getting regular speeds and don't notice
| anything. I'd certainly notice 256 kbps.
|
| MVNOs often throttle connections because they're usually
| paying for data on a per-GB basis from a network.
| Carriers can give their customers as much data as they
| want when the network isn't congested because it doesn't
| really cost them anything if you're using what would
| otherwise be unused bandwidth.
| poisonborz wrote:
| Why? I had it as well and never used it. Smartphones have much
| better reception, it's always there, press of a button to share
| the connection. When no smartphone, a tiny sim modem costs
| peanuts. You also need a separate data plan, for many carriers
| not so obvious or not really worth. I don't get sim trays in
| laptops.
| shafyy wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted. I concur 100%. Everybody
| has a smarthone with a SIM card already in it and carries it
| around all the time. Connecting your Macbook to your iPhone
| is one click in your menu bar. Why do you need a SIM Card in
| your Macbook?
|
| I mean, there might be some business (niche) use cases, but
| other than that?
| thot_experiment wrote:
| It's the friction of the thing. Phones have a trash UI, I
| can just pull my laptop out of my bag and shitpost on
| hacker news whenever I want at 90wpm, you think I'm going
| to bother tethering just to reply to a HN comment on
| Caltrain? The UX of an always on the internet laptop is
| unparalleled.
| lxgr wrote:
| On macOS, I can activate tethering pretty much
| instantaneously directly from my laptop, but the battery
| drain is still a concern.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Connecting your Macbook to your iPhone is one click in
| your menu bar. Why do you need a SIM Card in your Macbook?
|
| To achieve the same result with 0 click
| kubik369 wrote:
| Must have been a problem with the particular laptop/country
| you are in. Traditionally, laptops have much more robust
| cellular than phones.
|
| You say the press of a button, but having cellular in the
| laptop is zero interactions, which is great for casual users.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| This. Zero friction, though I wouldn't say I'm a casual
| user, there's no way I'm setting up a tether on a 8 minute
| Uber. With my laptop I just pull it out of my bag and go.
| noname120 wrote:
| For this exact reason I have in my backpack an always-on
| portable Huawei 4G Wi-Fi hotspot[1] plugged to a Power
| Bank. I can't wait to get rid of it.
|
| [1] https://consumer.huawei.com/ie/routers/e5577/
| arcticbull wrote:
| Tethering on macOS is super easy, your phone is just in
| the list of WiFi access points at the top. Not any harder
| than picking a WiFi AP. Kinda prefer being in the loop
| here since cellular data is usually metered - and as
| another post said, it's also nice to have a single plan
| instead of dealing with separate billing.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Maybe your smartphone has better reception than whatever
| laptop you had with a cellular connection, but generally a
| laptop should be able to get much better cellular reception
| than a smartphone since there is so much more space, and
| potentially energy budget to work with.
| Etheryte wrote:
| For one, you don't need to have a SIM tray, many carriers
| offer eSIM and the number is only going up. Also, smartphones
| having better reception makes little sense. They're smaller
| and hence have smaller antennas, if you design a laptop with
| similar design principles in mind it will have better
| reception no questions asked simply by virtue of having a
| bigger antenna.
| Aunche wrote:
| Hotspotting absolutely devours your battery life.
| lxgr wrote:
| > When no smartphone, a tiny sim modem costs peanuts.
|
| But it's also another device I need to keep charged, packed
| in my backpack etc.
|
| I don't use one myself since I'm mostly using my laptop where
| there's Wi-Fi, so I only use my phone for tethering very
| rarely, but even then, the battery drain is somewhat
| annoying.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I've had a laptop with a cellular modem for almost 4 years
| now and there's zero chance I'm ever going back to a laptop
| without one.
|
| As others have already said, why ?
|
| For me and most other tech-savvy people, the order of
| preference for connectivity will always be: -
| Ethernet cable - WiFi - 4G/5G Hotspot
|
| WiFi will generally always be faster and less-contended than a
| hotspot because the speed of the WiFi connection is almost
| always only constrained by the speed of the local internet
| connection.
|
| However, as anyone who spent time during COVID working off a
| hotspot will tell you, mobile networks are unpredictable. Speed
| varies depending on how many people are using "your" mast. And
| then if the emergency services turn up in your area, you'll be
| automatically kicked off because their SIM cards give them
| priority over other network users and the network
| infrastructure will automatically kick off other network users
| as the emergency services demand ramps up.
|
| Finally the places where you actually _NEED_ a hotspot are
| decreasing by the day. Cafes, libraries, train stations, etc.
| etc. .... they all have WiFi these days. It is now rarer to
| _NOT_ have in-flight WiFi than it is to have acces to it. And
| in some countries (e.g. Japan) you have WiFi on all long-
| distance train services.
|
| I suppose maybe if you are a salesdroid or an engineer and
| frequently visiting third-party premises where you may or may
| not have guest access to the WiFi ... that's probably the only
| real need that will consistently remain. But even then, your
| employer probably pays for your work smartphone already, so you
| could just use the hotspot like everyone else and not require
| your employer to have a second SIM card subscription.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> As others have already said, why ?_
|
| Easy. Business people, who travel a lot and need their laptop
| to always be synced and connected 100% of the time, and not
| waste time dicking around with hotspot tethering which nukes
| you phone's battery life or looking for some shabby public
| wifi hotspot.
|
| Time is money and the zero friction and the confidence your
| machine is always online is a huge point to the suits (or
| other professions who need travel on-site like inspectors,
| engineers, architects, etc).
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Business people who travel a lot
|
| I am one of those business people.
|
| And as I said, WiFi is fast reaching the point where it is
| as ubiquitous as running water.
|
| And as for "shabby public WiFi", if you are referring to
| security then that is what VPNs were invented for (and
| 4G/5G can be monitored too). Also quality wise public WiFi
| is not as "shabby" as it used to be.
|
| As I also made clear, 4G/5G is not a magical panacea, it is
| subject to variable speeds, contention and you being
| kicked-off by the emergency services.
|
| I'm not saying I never use hotspot. I'm saying I find
| myself using it far less then I ever used to. Indeed on my
| last business trip I didn't have a need to use it at all
| because the WiFi everywhere was so good.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| You're talking from a pretty biased pov of a bubble.
|
| Public wifi is definetly not ubiquous everywhere in every
| country, and even when it is you need to have the right
| credentials or it has annoying dark patterns requiring
| you to click through various steps before you can get
| online (if it works reliably in the first place), and
| there's a niche of people for whom such friction or
| issues are unacceptable from a business standpoint and
| their company is more than happy to pay a second SIM to
| ensure their laptop is always connected the moment the
| lid is opened to save time and friction.
|
| I get it it's not for you, but it's definetly for other
| people who values it.
|
| For example on the train network in my country, there's
| free wifi but it's so overloaded that using LTE tethering
| is much faster and reliable, and having that built in the
| laptop is even better for work, and that's why many
| business people get this feature on laptops.
|
| Imagine you are late or miss your important online
| call/meeting/presentation because you were faffing about
| with flaky public wifi instead of having built-in LTE
| connectivity.
|
| YES, hot-spot from your phone is a thing, but that's an
| extra annoying friction: Do I have enough battery on my
| phone to use it for the next hours? Did my hotpsot turn
| off automatically before and I need to restart it?
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > You're talking from a pretty biased pov of a bubble.
|
| You are in danger of crossing the line into personal
| insult territory there.
|
| You don't know me. You don't know my travel patterns. You
| don't even know what my line of work is. So I suggest you
| don't accuse me of working in a biased bubble.
|
| No further comment.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> You are in danger of crossing the line into personal
| insult territory there._
|
| Oh no, anyway...
|
| _> So I suggest you don 't accuse me of working in a
| biased bubble._
|
| I wasn't accusing you of anything. Maybe don't act like
| such a sensitive princess making a big deal out of
| nothing, and look at the facts mate.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Naw, I'm just a freelancer. It's simply that convenient that
| it's worth $30/mo, I often find myself using it in places
| where there's WiFi because it provides a much more consistent
| experience than public internet, especially what's available
| on transit. I don't use it for any business reason, I just
| like the UX of a computer way more than a phone, and I find
| the internet useful, especially when accessed through a real
| computer and not the abomination that is a mobile OS in 2023
| (or any previous year).
|
| Wild takes coming out against this, like bruh, I made this
| choice and I am posting about how much it's useful. You're
| not going to facts and logic your way into me being wrong
| about my subjective experience of a product.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Wi-Fi is kind of horrible, 4G/5G is better tbh.
| wenc wrote:
| I'm in one of the techiest cities in the U.S. Public Wi-fi is
| widely available. I don't use it due to friction. Here's what
| has to happen at a cafe in my neighborhood if I wanted to use
| their Wifi:
|
| 1. Ask for the password (sometimes it's on my coffee receipt,
| sometimes not)
|
| 2. Open laptop, logon to Wifi, enter password. (if not
| already saved from last time; but every new location has a
| different password so you end up having to enter passwords
| anyway)
|
| 3. Open up Cisco VPN (because Wifi is not safe, especially
| those open ones without passwords).
|
| 4. Start browsing (and discover that Wifi is pretty slow in
| some shops because they misconfigured their router or there
| are too many people on Wifi. Public Wifi is iffy in many
| places like on Amtrak trains or in US airports).
|
| What I actually do today: (anywhere, car, coffee shop, random
| location in middle of nowhere with cell signal)
|
| 1. Open laptop, click connect to iPhone (unlimited plan), get
| 5G speeds, no VPN needed. I would need to carry a phone
| charger or battery pack because tethering mode drains my
| phone quickly.
|
| If I had a cell modem on my laptop:
|
| 1. Open laptop.
| kelnos wrote:
| A neat idea for a Framework expansion module would be a little
| cell modem with SIM tray. Not sure how to do the antenna,
| though, since the area is mostly surrounded by metal. Certainly
| could have the module stick out or have a detachable antenna,
| but that's ugly and annoying.
| jchw wrote:
| It is extremely sad how few laptops and mobile computers in
| general have modems. I'm hoping that Apple doing this in their
| laptops will push more PC laptop manufacturers to do it, since
| they have a penchant for copying Apple for some reason.
|
| P.S.: Dear Apple, please make sure the audio routing works too,
| so it can make phone calls. That's the part that people _really_
| need to copy.
| callalex wrote:
| It's probably because most laptops are designed by North
| Americans, and cellular data is extremely expensive in North
| America.
| NetBeck wrote:
| Schools could buy these for students instead of parking buses
| outside to act as WiFi hotspots.
| jjice wrote:
| Buying MacBooks for each student instead of using a separate
| hotspot? Also, is this a common thing for schools to do these
| days?
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Given schoolwork is now done so ubiquitously on a
| computer/online, and especially after the pandemic, a lot of
| districts/schools have had to present solutions for
| connectivity for families, because of financial need and
| otherwise. Source: am school tech admin
| freedomben wrote:
| Isn't buying each student a connected macbook and data plan
| kind of pricey? Most school already suffer from poor
| funding/low budget, this seems like it would be painful.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The closest thing I remember to this is during COVID
| lockouts, the schools would have WiFi in the parking lot so
| that kids without internet at home could be driven to school
| and work in their cars. Never made good sense to me, if a
| family doesn't have internet at home how likely are they to
| have an adult with a car who can sit with a kid in the school
| parking lot all day?
| smileysteve wrote:
| But if cost is similar per sim card; then it cost increases ~
| 46x
| basisword wrote:
| Why do I want this? I can tether my phone already. Building in a
| modem just gives cell networks another chance to charge you for
| another data plan (when I already have unlimited on my phone). Am
| I missing something?
| goosedragons wrote:
| You might not want this but businesses might. Rather than have
| to reimburse an employee's phone or provide a phone they can
| provide a cellular equipped device for users that regularly
| work outside the office but still need internet support.
| basisword wrote:
| Definitely a good use case, thanks.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I think it'll be a cold day in hell, full of flying pigs
| before my employer would issue me a cellular device that
| can't take calls.
| fckgw wrote:
| There's millions of iPads deployed at businesses, for
| instance, that do just that.
| Hamuko wrote:
| How many employees are given just an iPad and no phone?
| fckgw wrote:
| My companies entire sales force, some thousand-ish so of
| them. They have laptops and iPads, but we don't issue
| phones. They just get plan reimbursement.
| iulian_r wrote:
| It's so you don't have to tether your phone. It might cost you
| another data plan, but it makes it very convenient to just open
| your laptop and start browsing the internet in the train or
| something.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Building in a modem just gives cell networks another chance
| to charge you for another data plan
|
| Google Fi, at least, doesn't charge any extra for a cell modem:
| you can get a secondary SIM card and it gets billed exactly the
| same as using data on your phone.
| javawizard wrote:
| Yeah, I'm also on Google Fi and I'd get this just for the
| convenience factor of not having to turn on tethering on my
| phone and not burning its battery down while I'm connected.
|
| (That depends on how much it adds to the purchase price
| though. $100? You bet. $300? Nah.)
| DANmode wrote:
| $225, then.
| appplication wrote:
| Last I checked (over a year ago) I think Google Fi wasn't
| fully supported with Apple devices? I can't recall the
| details, but I distinctively remember being disappointed the
| service sort of had a "for best experience, use an android
| device" component to it.
| pplante wrote:
| Their service doesn't support 5G on any Apple devices. My
| kids only have LTE on their iPads despite the modem having
| the capability.
|
| I will say that tethering on my phone works in a situation
| where LTE doesn't work well. However the convenience of not
| having to worry about connectivity is worth the extra cost
| for the cellular iPad. I never wanted to be that parent,
| but it is the path of least friction since my oldest has a
| lot of acronym mental health issues.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Yes, you're missing convenience. Tethering my phone to my
| laptop is possible, but annoying to set up, debug, etc. It also
| burns the battery of the device with the smaller battery, which
| is the opposite of how it should work.
|
| This is another one of those "Dropbox is just rsync+cron"
| takes: convenience, ease and integration are worth a lot to
| people.
| MillionOClock wrote:
| I wonder the same thing about cellular iPads sometimes because
| I have a hard time seeing a case where you'd have an iPad with
| you but not your phone to make some connection sharing. My
| supposition is that this might just for convenience: no need to
| worry about your phone battery life, for instance. I'm also
| curious about whether I'm missing something tho.
| winwang wrote:
| It really would be convenient to not have to tether + deal
| with battery life. Or, have the macbook be the mobile hotspot
| instead for whatever reason.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Most people barely understand the differences between WiFi
| and cellular, and the number that can start a hotspot and
| connect without it being a 'stressful computer problem' is a
| lot fewer than you would expect. Like, painfully fewer.
|
| Source: I work in IT
| lancesells wrote:
| Options. As long as the WIFI chip and ability for ethernet
| stays it's just another option.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > ability for ethernet
|
| Like an external separate USB-C ethernet adapter?
| lancesells wrote:
| Yeah. I have one except it's USB 3. I've used it once and
| that was only to connect to an old NAS. Guessing USB-C has
| the same capability.
| euniceee3 wrote:
| MDM access. All Pixel phones hit an MDM endpoint to determine
| if it should be provisioned.
| miohtama wrote:
| Apple can sell eSim to this device. Apple's customers will buy
| because it's Apple.
| jwells89 wrote:
| It can be nice for carriers that don't allow/support tethering
| under some circumstances. Google Fi for example says that
| tethering won't work internationally in some cases, but offers
| free data-only SIM cards which works around that nicely.
|
| It's also just nice to not need to break out a cable.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Tethering is a pain if you do it frequently. Apple tries some
| "it just works" magic to make tethering easier, but sometimes
| it doesn't "just" work.
|
| If you frequently use it when out, it would be significantly
| more convenient to just have the cellular built in.
| xnx wrote:
| You could say this about any component of the laptop. "I can
| connect a USB webcam. Why do I need a camera built-in."
| Convenience, compactness, cost, battery life, reliability, etc.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This sounds a lot like naysayers when Apple decided to ditch
| the audio port on iPhones. Why would I want bluetooth audio, I
| can connect my headphones to my phone already. Of course, there
| are people out there who still prefer that, but most people
| these days use bluetooth headphones/earbuds.
| skrause wrote:
| When Apple removed the headphone jack they took away choice.
| This however adds choice, it's not like they're taking away
| tethering.
| basisword wrote:
| I don't see the comparison here. You had bluetooth audio +
| the headphone jack. Then they took away one of your options.
| In this case they are adding an option and not taking
| anything away.
| delabel wrote:
| Latency is lower with a built in modem. IME the lag that a
| phone wifi network and an extra layer of routing adds is
| noticeable for certain things like RDP.
| Shakahs wrote:
| Tethering doesn't always work. I've experienced numerous
| failures even trying to pair a Macbook to an iPhone.
|
| Besides that:
|
| Phones will turn off tethering if they think the connection is
| idle, to save battery power. iPhones are very aggressive about
| this when the client device is not an Apple device.
|
| Some cell networks don't support simultaneous voice and data
| usage, so a phone call will kick you offline.
|
| It adds latency.
|
| Some network operators charge for it because they can
| distinguish the tethered traffic.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I got one when building my Dell Precision laptop and I regret it.
|
| - You have to unscrew the base to insert the SIM card.
|
| - You need a more expensive screen because that's where the
| antennae are.
|
| - It's 4G with no upgrade path to 5G.
|
| It works fine but tethering is just easier.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > 2028 at the earliest
|
| That is a long way away.
|
| I wonder if this is them desperately trying to make use of their
| acquisition of Intel's 5G modem buisness, which still hasn't
| shown up in phones.
| CPLX wrote:
| Finally!!
|
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36817890
|
| With that said five years seems like a hell of a long time.
| nottorp wrote:
| So why would I pay extra to my cell phone provider when I can
| just tether to my existing phone?
| freedomben wrote:
| This is not a veiled insinuation against Apple. It's just a
| question/thought.
|
| With the modem being integrated into the SoC, it's not something
| that can be easily removed. Many IoT vendors and automakers have
| been adding modems and such that keep your device "always
| connected" and in a way that bypasses your home internet (where
| people can filter, log, block ads, etc).
|
| Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for people?
| 3-cheese-sundae wrote:
| The cell modem is integrated into the SoC, but the antenna
| isn't.
|
| You might have to give up wifi and bluetooth if you cut that
| out, though.
| tantalor wrote:
| You mean even more than the phones we all carry around with us?
|
| If somebody wanted to know what you were doing on your MacBook,
| they would just attack your phone.
| wmf wrote:
| Cars are a problem but other IoT devices are not adding
| cellular because it costs a fortune. It's just a HN conspiracy
| theory.
| freedomben wrote:
| Do you have any data on the costs? I can't find it now, but I
| remember seeing an estimate at around $5 per IoT device,
| which for some devices might double the cost but for others
| could easily pay for itself in delicious, nourishing data
| that can be used or sold for other things. I'd really love
| that number to be way lower than reality though.
| wmf wrote:
| Maybe the modem costs $5 but the service will be much more.
| These costs are negotiated and the people who get good
| deals won't talk about them so it's hard to say.
| gothroach wrote:
| Depends on the type of device you're talking about. The
| company I work for installs batteries and solar on homes as
| part of its business and we were surprised to find cell
| modems starting to come installed inside the battery system
| we use most often - with no notice to us or apparent change
| in how the system operates. It's not for customer-accessible
| statistics/usage information, those still require a hardwired
| connection. We haven't been able to get a good answer from
| the company about why they started being installed.
| oneplane wrote:
| Yes and no. So on one hand you'd have to trust the vendor to
| allow you to control the connectivity (this is likely going to
| be the same model as iOS and watchOS devices -- unless you add
| a subscription it doesn't connect). On the other hand, you'd
| have to trust the vendor anyway, unless you diffuse and package
| your own silicon and write your own bring-up code and
| bootloader and OS, there are a rather lage amount of
| manufacturers you have to at least trust a little bit to get a
| functional experience.
|
| I think the big difference here is that with a Car, you're
| primarily buying a device for driving yourself from one place
| to another, and everything else is extra. With a computer, you
| buy a device to compute, and with that is practically always
| some internet-connected requirement. Buying a Car without
| internet, or radio, or infotainment is fine (if you can find
| one) because the primary reason you want the thing is still
| intact. A computer without computing and without internet isn't
| very useful.
| callalex wrote:
| I will unveil your insinuation.
|
| They currently get a pass on the "trust us, everything is end-
| to-end encrypted" without providing open access/verifiable
| toolchains. They are large and high profile enough that the
| public can trust that there are enough experts and nerds
| keeping an eye on them to hold them to their promises.
|
| Adding a data exfiltration radio has some of the same
| verifiability, in that you could put an antenna next to the
| device and verify that it does/does not send signals. However
| it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot be fully
| disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn on the
| radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our Trusted
| Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that ship
| sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users and
| cannot be trusted.
| jesseendahl wrote:
| >However it is only a matter of time before the radio cannot
| be fully disabled for some reason or another (oh we just turn
| on the radio to get guaranteed network time as part of our
| Trusted Cloud Experience that we secure you with!). Once that
| ship sails the devices will no longer be owned by the users
| and cannot be trusted.
|
| Couldn't this same concern apply to Wi-Fi chips? I fail to
| see how cellular would change much here. If any company
| (Apple or anyone else) wanted to do something nefarious like
| this, they could already do it today.
| thfuran wrote:
| But (while you're at home) you control the WiFi access
| point and so can still ultimately control the traffic. That
| isn't the case for cellular. Though I think that's
| ultimately a relatively minute difference. Once you're in
| that adversarial of a position with your hardware, you
| ought not trust it.
| WhoAmThing wrote:
| I think that's the future Apple sees and I agree with it.
| WiFi is an outdated technology with security flaws.
| Cellular is encrypted and maintained centrally. For
| indoor access all you need is an AP repeater and daisy
| chain that, unlike Wifi which needs to be configured,
| goes down, etc.
|
| Wifi is in the same boat as the 3.5mm headphone jack
| gumby wrote:
| > But (while you're at home) you control the WiFi access
| point and so can still ultimately control the traffic
|
| Most people cannot do this. Also an increasing number of
| people _don 't_ have wifi at home but just use their
| phones.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Lol from my desk i can see 68 wifi access points.
| linuxftw wrote:
| The OS could also provide geo-location for devices for
| applications (Netflix) for users that utilize a VPN.
|
| Nothing good can come from a device having internet access
| outside of your control.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Don't they already have something ~like skyhook? I think
| Location Services can already pinpoint you without
| cellular.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| I think it's possible to have an always on connection similar
| to Amazon and Kindles.
| dimmke wrote:
| I don't think this is Apple's plan. It's more that Apple has
| been developing in house modem technology for years (they
| bought Intel's modem division in 2019) because they are reliant
| on Qualcomm for them in iPhones.
|
| Once they have the capacity to build great modems and add it to
| their vertical integration/SoC process, it's another no brainer
| thing to add that makes their laptops best in class.
|
| However, if it gets picked up by other tech companies then yes,
| expect your device to be always connected, even if it's against
| your will.
| lxgr wrote:
| If that's a concern for you: Most Apple devices already do this
| to some extent today, via the "Find my" network and Bluetooth
| LE advertisements - even if your device is "turned off".
|
| There's nothing technical stopping Apple from transmitting all
| kinds of stuff over that interface, to their or somebody else's
| OTT network:
|
| Amazon's Sidewalk network (originally based on LoRa, but it now
| also seems to support Bluetooth LE) supposedly covers 90% of
| the US population [1]; there's also the blockchain-based
| similar Helium Network, and probably some more I'm not aware
| of.
|
| In other words: In my view, the ship of not having to trust a
| device vendor (or at least not as much) if it's not connected
| to the Internet has sailed.
|
| [1] https://aws.amazon.com/iot-core/sidewalk/
| freedomben wrote:
| You may be right. Sidewalk is one of the most dystopian
| things I can think of in the past few years.
| nxobject wrote:
| It's par for the course for Amazon, given how they're
| pushing Ring with law enforcement endorsements.
| lxgr wrote:
| Why do you find it more dystopian than carrier-operated IoT
| networks?
| qazxcvbnmlp wrote:
| Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $
| expensive. Both provide insulation from unwanted
| tracking.
|
| A pervasive network that can be accessed with a couple
| dollar IC with minimal power that's hidden from user
| would be much harder to escape.
| lxgr wrote:
| > Cellular operated iot networks are power hungry and $
| expensive.
|
| Power hungry? Not anymore - I believe NB-IoT is already
| within an order of magnitude of unlicensed IoT (i.e.
| LoRa, 802.15.4 etc).
|
| Expensive? That's relative, but what makes you think that
| Amazon is giving away Sidewalk for any less? AWS is not
| exactly known for their low prices.
| freedomben wrote:
| I find those roughly equally dystopian, but there is
| something grotesque to me about my devices
| (hypothetically, since I don't have any) talking mesh
| with my neighbor's devices, and using his internet
| connection to exfiltrate the data about me since I
| blocked it with my router. They're both pretty gross
| though.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Is the possibility of future surveillance a concern for
| people?
|
| For me, personally no.
|
| Of all the things I think about, the possibility of future
| surveillance is not one of them.
| duxup wrote:
| My iPhone can presumably do that already...
|
| I wouldn't argue for less privacy but I've already trusted
| Apple with a device that is with me even more than my laptop.
| steponlego wrote:
| At this point one wonders if there isn't some secret regulation
| that classifies computers as some kind of weapon and maybe
| these surveillance technologies aren't appearing in consumer
| devices, even being pushed on consumers by the media, as a
| random happenstance?
| chromakode wrote:
| I've always considered my phone getting charged while cable
| tethering to be a significant benefit.
| MichaelNolan wrote:
| There are a lot of comments saying "but you already have a
| phone", but if they (Apple) came out with a laptop that had good
| cellular service, I might just get rid of my phone. (Or maybe
| replace it with a dumb phone)
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Maybe they are targeting MacBooks as a warm up act?
|
| If the chip consumes 3x as much power as a competing chip, it's
| more likely people won't notice on a laptop than a cell phone. If
| signal isn't quite as good, again people might not notice.
|
| Only like 10% of these chips will ever get used at all, by
| anyone, if they are in laptops. Targeting laptops first seems
| like an obvious & lower risk choice.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| I use my phone mostly for tethering internet, so being able to
| connect directly to 4G from the laptop or pass calls would be
| great for me (tho not on a mac)
| brailsafe wrote:
| It's crazy that the new one costs as much as it does and doesn't
| offer this already
| jlokier wrote:
| I'll just say, I've had my laptop connecting to my phone on
| tethering 24x7 for years now, since before the pandemic, on a
| relatively low cost unlimited data contract. I use cellular for
| both my home and office internet connections, as well as when
| travelling. My Macbook knows to connect to my Android phone
| automatically.
|
| Latency isn't great, but everything else works pretty well. I've
| done a few remote jobs and contracts just fine since using this
| setup. All the usual daily video standups, meetings, Git, remote
| builds, etc. No other internet unless there's something
| convenient where I travel to. At home I terminated the ADSL I
| used previously, because its bandwidth was worse, usually, and I
| decided it wasn't worth the cost of the line. I miss the better
| latency though. At the office I tried to get ADSL (actually
| FTTC), but the providers were unable to offer above 17 Mbit/s
| despite being a town centre building, compared with 90 Mbit/s
| over cellular on a good day, so I stayed with cellular for the
| office too.
|
| Tethering is so automatic and convenient nowadays that I relate
| to the folks who don't see a point paying for a second cellular
| contract just for convenience. I never have my Macbook without my
| phone nearby, and connection is automatic. There are occasions
| when a large antenna might work better, though, if the laptop is
| well designed.
|
| Someone wrote an interesting point that phones get newer cellular
| standards more quickly than laptops in practice. This is surely
| true when using very expensive Macbooks! I can imagine having
| great cellular connectivity in a laptop when it's new, and five
| years later finding the same laptop communicates over tethering
| faster than natively. I've seen enormous variation in the
| bandwidth achieved by different devices already: ~90 Mbit/s on my
| last phone, vs ~18 Mbit/s on a dedicated 4G hotspot of the same
| era.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You make a good point about cellular tech moving quickly
| especially given how long people keep laptops (5-7 years) vs
| phones (2-3). The average laptop will be paired with 2-3
| phones.
|
| On the other hand antitheft or protection against loss is a
| useful add-on and a contract to enable it might cost apple
| little as it would see little use per unit.
| nxobject wrote:
| Two reactions: on one hand, it's nice that I don't have to tether
| and waste my phone battery - it's a good use of Apple putting
| things on-die; on the other hand, I don't need another source of
| tracking. Perhaps I'd err on the side of caution and disconnect
| the antenna.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Finally... personal hotspot is such a hit-or-miss
| gumby wrote:
| Given that Apple has struggled to get modems working (while
| avoiding qualcomm's patents) this is still pie in the sky, much
| as I would appreciate this.
| malux85 wrote:
| What about the thing that is in my iPhone and iPad, whatever
| that is, can't they just use that?
| superb_dev wrote:
| That's a Qualcomm modem, Apple wants to avoid dependence on
| Qualcomm
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Really, this is long, long overdue. In most places data plans
| are cheap and the convenience is unparalleled (as you attest
| to).
| pdx6 wrote:
| A built-in cell modem in Macbooks also means additional
| partnerships with telcos like with the iPhone, iPad, and Watch.
| Right now there's a clear line between a telco and an Apple
| laptop. With cell enabled devices, telcos can sell a lucrative
| "subsidy as a lock in" discount.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| I've been living the #vanlife for the past year and though this
| would be great for my MacBook, cellular Hotspot data plan caps
| (50GB usually) will need to be updated. I actually have two
| SIMs/phones to serve as hotspots because of this. If Apple does
| launch this feature, I would bet it comes with some special
| carrier announcements as well.
|
| 5G is truly like living in the future, but there's nothing like
| forgetting to disconnect and having your Mac think it's on real
| WiFi and happily download some massive update in the background
| using up a sizeable chunk of data, leading to the dreaded over
| the limit text message. Same for Office, Chrome and a bunch of
| other stuff I've tried to track down, but something always seems
| to slip through.
|
| Here's a pro tip: Non-hotspot cellular data on AT&T is actually
| really unlimited without slowdown after 50GB, and doesn't
| contribute to the hotspot data cap. My 5G Samsung can cast its
| screen to laptops or a Samsung tablet (which I also have). I thus
| realized when I'm streaming movies at night, I can just do it on
| my phone using cellular data and cast the result to the larger
| tablet screen in full HD (like you can to a TV) and not worry
| about the data caps.
|
| (BTW, there are Android hacks which try to get around the carrier
| hotspot flag/detection to avoid the caps, but the carriers seem
| to be packet sniffing so they don't really work.)
| garrickvanburen wrote:
| finally.
| amelius wrote:
| Making a CPU from scratch turned out to be much easier than
| making a cellular modem from scratch.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Apple acquired the team who made their in-house chips, PA Semi,
| back in 2008! Took quite a while to get good enough at it to go
| toe to toe with Intel and AMD. Even though they were able to
| license cores and designs.
|
| [edit] Similarly, they acquired the modem business from Intel
| in 2019 (along with 2200 employees) so 'from scratch' may be a
| touch strong. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/8909671/apple-
| intel-5g-sm...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-20 23:01 UTC)