You must log in or register to comment.

ReallyBrainDead t1_j3obz3y wrote

Know they've been working on that for a while. Interviewed with an Apple division that used to be a Wi-Fi startup like 8 years ago. It's all about trying to expand the footprint of their silicon, trying to kick Broadcom and Qualcomm out in favor of something they can get margin on.


ReallyBrainDead t1_j3owy5j wrote

No spies, just obvious. Next largest and most expensive piece of silicon in there that they don't make. Plus, know what it's like to be working on a chip they designed out, I was interviewing because that happened in my prior job.


[deleted] t1_j3qqtby wrote



holydamien t1_j3rkxty wrote

They do invest with fabs to have their own exclusive production lines.

Besides that's like saying a writer didn't write the book just because they needed someone to print it.


orincoro t1_j3sucsu wrote

Yeah. The important thing is that they are getting the lion’s share of the margin on it. If you’re paying $300 for the chip as a part of the product, they’re keeping $250 instead of 150.


Leprecon t1_j3q5kxx wrote

To be fair, Broadcom and Qualcomm have pretty high licensing fees. It makes sense to want to cut them out.


nicuramar t1_j3qs0ms wrote

Also because the way can put it on their SoC.


PlankOfWoood t1_j3otgp0 wrote

>trying to kick Broadcom and Qualcomm out in favor of something they can get margin on.

CCP: lol we have spies at Apple.


OCGHand t1_j3rbz31 wrote

Some of them are sleeper agents?


edvek t1_j3rl4st wrote

No they're very awake and aware of what they're doing. They were sent there for the expressed purpose of corporate espionage.


fuckmedallas t1_j3pu1l7 wrote

CPC, not CCP. K thanks


psnanda t1_j3rk4hb wrote

The in-house cellular modem part was pretty well known years back. In fact Apple had started poaching heavily from Qualcomm back in 2017 IIRC.

In 2016, many Qualcomm Modem folks moved over to Intel Modem Division in San Diego with higher pay packages and then became Apple employees once it got acquired.

The poaching continues to this day because, as you know it, Apple has very very deep pockets . Apple also recently established thier offices in SD, including a big campus in Rancho Bernardo area - thereby signifying that they are investing heavily in talent in the San Diego region - which has traditionally been seen as Qualcomm’s backyard.


murdok03 t1_j3sjrwo wrote

They also bought Intel's 4G division a few years ago.


Academic-Plastic-468 t1_j3q14rt wrote

R.I.P. to whomever has to code the Bluetooth portion of that chip. Lol


twigboy t1_j3q9lta wrote

Tim Apple: Only apple products, nothing else.

Dev: but sir, the standar-

Tim Apple: Nothing. Else.


these_three_things t1_j3rbsnm wrote


But I am very curious as to why the Bluetooth portion would be harder than the others?


hms11 t1_j3rfqnl wrote

I've always heard that the Bluetooth stack is annoying period. Add in whatever bullshittery Apple decides to bring the the game and here you are.


9nein t1_j3vkfgm wrote

Bullshittery is right… 😂


AkirIkasu t1_j3sa9lm wrote

While both bluetooth and Wifi are technically standards the truth of the matter is that each generation is made up of innovations coming from across the industry, things aren't really well documented at all, and there's nothing approaching a standard reference design that companies can use to base their products on.


kentuckycc t1_j3ril5e wrote

I think it is actually whomever in this case. “Whom” is the objective case and in this sentence it serves as the object of the preposition “to.”


these_three_things t1_j3rrl9l wrote

I understand why it would seem that way, but in this case you are incorrect. In this sentence, the entire phrase serves as the object of the preposition.

"Whoever" is actually the subject of the verb "has to code," so the sentence would actually read like this:

> R.I.P. to [whoever has to code the Bluetooth portion of that chip].

Using the substitution method, you can confirm this. Instead of trying to substitute a he/him pronoun for the "to," try substituting pronouns for the "has to code" phrase. It must take a subjective case because that entire phrase requires a subject. And that entire phrase, lengthy though it may be, serves as the object of the initial preposition.

Source: I know grammar good.


1minatur t1_j3rute4 wrote

This is the way I'd understand it as well, and you explained it very clearly imo.


kentuckycc t1_j3ruil4 wrote

I still don’t agree. In the sentence we are referencing, “to code” is not the verb. “to rest” is the verb.

It’s like the sentence “Give the recipe to whomever has to cook the meal.” In this sentence “to give” is the verb and “to whomever has to cook the meal” is the prepositional phrase, not the subject. So you would not use the subjective case.


these_three_things t1_j3s01jb wrote

"Rest in peace" does not function as a verb in this sentence. It's simply a sentiment, like "hello" or "my thanks." Regardless, that does not affect the state of the object phrase.

You are correct that the example sentence is a clear parallel for the one we are discussing, but you are still making the same mistake in it. That sentence would read as follows:

> Give the recipe to [whoever has to cook the meal].

If you look at the bracketed phrase, it is clear that the subject of the phrase must be in the subjective case. You can't say "him has to cook the meal." If you put the pronoun in the objective case to satisfy the preposition, you are robbing the following phrase of its subject. If you give the "has to cook" phrase its subject, then the entire phrase works, and in its whole functions as the object.

The reason that looks strange is because in this construction, we are actually omitting a word. The proper way to say this sentence would be like so:

> Give the recipe to [the person] who has to cook the meal.

When it is worded as such, you can see that "the person" functions as the object of the initial phrase, and "who" functions as the subject of the second phrase. That second phrase is actually a dependent clause, so it requires a subject.

However, when you omit the object ("the person") of the first phrase, then the entire second clause becomes the object. It still, however, remains a complete clause with its own subject—and a pronoun in objective case cannot function as a subject.

This link does a good job of explaining our dilemma, using examples like the initial sentence, and the one you provided.


Emphasises_Words t1_j3roko1 wrote

Yup, using the substituting he/him method:

> R.I.P. to him


> R.I.P. to he


bfuker t1_j3s5yvv wrote

If you are not sure whether to use who or whom, just use who. The only reason to use whom is to show the world how smart you are, so don’t be wrong.


Just_Exam_590 t1_j3oahh8 wrote

*Comes out in 2037


NuclearLunchDectcted t1_j3r2t4p wrote

There's nothing wrong with planning for the future. Some of the big issues we have today are companies prioritizing short term profits at the sacrifice of long term prospects. CEOs love to come to a company, cancel a bunch of stuff that would take a long time to come to fruition in the name of saving money, then jump ship with their contractual bonus before the negative waves hit.


DonkeyKongsVet t1_j3oub7f wrote

Google will do it first

  • Sent from my iphone 😂

markusalkemus66 t1_j3rgqxv wrote

And then cancel it after 2 years


Just_Exam_590 t1_j3rsa2v wrote

Or create 5 different modems, all do kinda the same thing. No can figure out which to use and when. And there will still be a Qualcomm modem on board because.


aminy23 t1_j3rkahn wrote

I would wager that's patent expiry and not a technical hurdle.

Microsoft bought Nokia for cellular patents then spun the brand off.

Google bought Motorola for cellular patents then sold the brand to Lenovo.

Qualcomm and Broadcom are the other big cellular innovators.

Apple negotiated a percentage royalty with Qualcomm.

When the iPhone was $300, the royalties were cheap.

When the iPhone became $1,000+, the royalties tripled and Apple didn't want to pay up.

If Apple buys another cellular company, it would be detrimental to their brand image as they want to present as innovators creating their own phone. No flipping a Siemens, Ericsson, Nokia, or Motorola device as their own.

Even though they rely heavily of Foxconn, Samsung, Qualcomm, Arm, and TSMC for almost everything.

And even with software, iOS is derived from BSD.


Just_Exam_590 t1_j3rq7h0 wrote

They purchased their 5G business from Intel a few years ago. Many companies have Wifi patents. I think the hurdles are technical. They tried using their own 5G modem but it wasn't even close to as good as Qualcomm's.


HaydenRenegade t1_j3psu3e wrote

And comes with a footprint that isn't compatible with other branded circuit boards


nicuramar t1_j3qs2y1 wrote

There is no such thing as a standard footprint for this.


zoyolin t1_j3o8512 wrote

How crazy?! Apple really does hype up the current technology to make it sound astonishing!!! Whao

(So bluetooth and wifi are already on the same frequency band and devices do make them cohabit on the same antenna. Cellular has a different rf need, therefore a different antenna and also tries to be located at the other side of the device. So a different modem to drive the antenna makes sense.)


unskilledplay t1_j3oqglc wrote

It is kind of crazy.

There's good reason there isn't an all-radio chip on the market. They are hard to make and even harder to make without patent infringement and opening yourself up to billions in liability. If your all-in-one chip isn't good at the "all" part then it's worthless.

Radio is hard. Apple wasted a ton of money into building a cellular chip only to continue to buy from Qualcomm. Oh, and they also lost big in court too! Apple had originally planned on using their own cellular chips half a decade ago. I wouldn't venture to guess how much money they've already pissed away on this venture with nothing to show for it yet.

It only makes sense to even attempt this if you have an unlimited development budget, have a legal team that can tiptoe around the field of IP landmines, can wait years on end before going to market and even then only if you are confident you can sell a billion of these.

It's pretty much something that doesn't make sense for anyone on the planet but Apple or Huawei to attempt.

It's not going to let Apple make better gadgets. It's that Apple is at a scale where they find themselves tired of paying tens of billions of dollars for Qualcomm and Broadcom stuff. For other companies, a risky multi-billion dollar bet and a bunch of high profile IP lawsuits just to make a single component that isn't related to your core competency for one of your products instead of just buying it from a vendor is a terrible idea.


TheCriticalAmerican t1_j3pz36e wrote

> Apple had originally planned on using their own cellular chips half a decade ago.

This is one of the reasons Apple bought Intel's modem division. That was only in 2019, though.

>It's that Apple is at a scale where they find themselves tired of paying tens of billions of dollars for Qualcomm and Broadcom stuff.

This is the point. Apple is at a point where it actually does make sense to spend the tens of billions of dollars in their own All-in-One Wireless Chip because - if they can do it - then they can save tens of billions of dollars a year. It's a simple ROI Calculation.


[deleted] t1_j3o9fs6 wrote



Corporateart t1_j3oi4bv wrote

Yes, the price Apple pays to produce these will go down.

Will we see the savings as consumers is another question.


anon2282 t1_j3ptfzr wrote

Prices are rarely, if ever connected to costs. The only thing that brings prices down is competition/availability of alternatives.


Leprecon t1_j3q6g78 wrote

People should get this in their heads:

  1. Manufacture cost should always be as low as possible without dropping in quality.
  2. Sales price should always be set to whatever price will make the most money. Too high and people will buy something else. Too low and you’re missing out on profit.

Sales price is separate from manufacture cost.

As a consumer you have the choice to buy or not to buy. People complaining about the high price of iPhones just seem crazy to me. Nobody is forcing you to buy the latest iPhone. Smartphones are cheaper than ever and you can get phones that are good enough for <200.


Iintl t1_j3qsbsh wrote

Exactly. So many people whining about how "GPU prices are going up, XXX card being too expensive, XX60-class card being sold for XX80 class money", and I'm just like, you can choose to not buy them? Nobody is forcing gamers to buy the latest GPUs


Wise_Control t1_j3r8j2b wrote

This is the reason I bought a 2060. Couldn’t be happier! I don’t always need the newest of the newest.


LolindirLink t1_j3rg9zx wrote

Our budget allows for a ~€300,- GPU that we hope will last 5 years. I don't like spending half the budget on a GPU, gamer or not the price ratio just always seemed off to me. CPU, Mobo, RAM and storage is also very important and the costs add up quickly.


macnar t1_j3r1bc7 wrote

Why are you acting like only one can be true? They are both true.


the_first_brovenger t1_j3ra7q5 wrote

If there one thing I've come to accept it's that yes, my generation (millennial) is extremely entitled. Like christ we're honestly as bad as the boomers, just different.

The latest iPhone, the greatest GPU, multiple consoles, all online services should be free, etc etc etc.

For instance I got so much shit for pointing out if you don't like ads on YouTube just pay for it. It's cheap as hell compared to what you get for it.



Capitalism works a little more tolerably for the middle class when consumers advocate strongly for themselves. Choosing not to consume when prices are too high is how prices get lowered. Want us to suck it up and pay? Take it to /r/HailCorporate.


edvek t1_j3rv0s6 wrote

I refuse to listen to ads. I will always and forever use ad blockers. I have YouTube Vance on my phone which I mirror to my TV. If I don't feel like getting up I'll suffer through ads from Hulu on the TV but ad blockers still work on the computer for Hulu. Fuck tiers of ads/no ads.

Also people can complain and the complaint can be valid and not be entitled. YouTube has gotten more aggressive with ads and unskipable ads. People say "well that's how they make money and if they dont have ads/paid they will close." That is untrue and YouTube will die when Google dies. It's too big of a platform for them to close and they would run it at a loss for 100 years before think of closing it.

Also gpu prices are out of control this is well documented and well known.

Your points are bad and you should feel bad.


Activedarth t1_j3sdot6 wrote

I will never ever pay to remove ads on any service. Hell, I just want YT for free without ads and I’m adamant about it. Ad blockers forever!


the_first_brovenger t1_j3sfcjb wrote

Case in point.

I use ad blocker myself. Everywhere.

But be honest, you're an entitled little shit expecting everything online for free.


anon2282 t1_j3r1bmf wrote

I couldn't agree more. There is significant competition in the smartphone device space. If the iphone is too expensive, have a look at the 100+ other phones from 10+ other manufacturers.


eriverside t1_j3rkmmh wrote

There are more than 1 pricing strategies and they depend on the market. You can have standard/set markups (nominal or %), small margins but high volume (tightly coupled to cost), set prices based on features/brand/luxury (decoupled from costs)...

I think most people would rather sell their goods with a defined profit margin (1), because if they can drop manufacturing costs, their prices will come down but they'll likely sell more.

2 is fine for monopolies (from a sales perspective).

3 is better suited to luxury goods.


cman674 t1_j3s269o wrote

I've commented this before, but the original iPhone retailed for $599 when it released in 2007. That equates to around $850 in 2022 accounting for inflation. The base model iPhone 14 retails for $799.


Jimothy_Tomathan t1_j3qm82m wrote

And there lies the beauty of the closed ecosystem. Especially when they tout technology like this as being an Apple innovation....when it's not. Prices will never come down.


Stingray88 t1_j3q2pe2 wrote

>Will we see the savings as consumers is another question.

Narrator: “They won’t.”


lexshotit t1_j3q7ffg wrote

They'll probably bump up the price a little


PlankOfWoood t1_j3otudd wrote

>Will we see the savings as consumers is another question.

Steve Wozniak: I bought the newest Ipohone at half the price without trading in a different phone. Do I care if apple doesn't treat its customers the same way? No.


KingCreeper7777 t1_j3pufdl wrote

Until I reread and saw Steve i thought this was about scott the woz


Fillmore43 t1_j3qgi5n wrote

Armani was presented with Chinese knock off Armani watches that were so good, he went to the factory and bought into it. His watches were no longer made in Europe and he enjoyed the increase in margins. I bet TC raises prices to celebrate the innovation


yomerol t1_j3r5i7h wrote

Of course not, this is to keep their margins AND not having to keep increasing the price. That's the usual with Apple hardware for a few years.

For example, the iPhone 4 in 2010 was $649 and the iPhone 8 in 2017 was $699. Is all advances on tech, manufacture, etc, to keep the price and of course their margins, as similar as possible.


Narrator2012 t1_j3qriti wrote

Yes , the price will come down. It simply requires a small short-term investment in roof nets at Foxconn to keep the slaves alive


gold_rush_doom t1_j3r7rq0 wrote

Not of the product, but your total bill will be less because your wifi router will barely talk to it because it will be buggy as hell for the 1st version.


tomistruth t1_j3om0ap wrote

We have seen what happens when Apple developed their own butterfly keyboard because they didn't want to continue paying keyboard patents. What could go wrong? Expect the next series to have aweful connectivity.


unskilledplay t1_j3ovj20 wrote

This shouldn't be downvoted. Intellectual property constraints are the reason this effort has yielded nothing over the last several (maybe 10?) years.

It's also why no other company outside of Huawei (who don't have the same legal hurdles) would even consider doing this.


turbo_nudist t1_j3prj8l wrote

sure, just like how the switch away from intel was just awful


0r0B0t0 t1_j449tbp wrote

I think that was solely Jony Ive overruling all the engineers. He doesn’t call the shots anymore, see the MacBook Pro that got thicker and added ports


[deleted] t1_j3x7cj8 wrote

> We have seen what happens when Apple developed their own butterfly keyboard because they didn't want to continue paying keyboard patents.

Source? Pretty sure this is entirely made up. They just switched to the butterfly switch because it was thinner.


jaceapoc t1_j3p7vhl wrote

Damn that’s a good point right there


FartFragrance t1_j3pbcmd wrote

This is not new news as Apple has been working on this for years.


MyNameIsVigil t1_j3pkivg wrote

Kudos to Apple if they manage to pull it off. I can’t think of another company that could even attempt it; nobody else has an effectively limitless development budget. But considering the amount of money that Apple pays to these vendors, I guess I get it. Legitimately revolutionary technology if they can do it.


[deleted] t1_j3rk2nz wrote



Activedarth t1_j3sfjo0 wrote

Try AirPods. They work flawlessly with Macs. If you don’t like AirPods, the newer Beats work great too!


Togodooders t1_j3r45x8 wrote

Screw you Apple.

Sent from my iPhone.


56kul t1_j3rlkec wrote

It’s cool and all, but how will we benefit from it?


D3RLord t1_j3ssfd4 wrote

This isn't already a thing?!


positivcheg t1_j3sxnu4 wrote

Personally, I wouldn’t buy the first iPhone models with apple own chip. Better wait for the next one.


grahaman27 t1_j3rhb7k wrote

Lol all in one? Nobody calls it that. It's the cellular modem


OTTER887 t1_j3probk wrote



bolteon593 t1_j3ppmcz wrote

Everyone missing why this is being done.


shinjinrui t1_j3qkc79 wrote

More profit, sure, but also less reliance on other companies. It's what Apple has always done.


philodendrin t1_j3qz1xx wrote

So they can take three open standards and close them to exploit the market.


Sandpaper_Pants t1_j3pnret wrote

What they're "really" working on is how to make it proprietary in some really fucked up way to screw customers.


DearChoice t1_j3qlsjx wrote

I'm assuming AirPods will now only work with iDevices.


ifoundit1 t1_j3odk8e wrote

I'm sure so is everyone else in the market.


unskilledplay t1_j3ou0l7 wrote

Read my other post in this thread. Qualcomm and Broadcom have monopolies in their respective domains. Breaking a monopoly is hard.

Nobody else has the budget, patience, legal power and scale needed for this to be a sane thing to try to do. For everyone else but Apple and Huawei, just paying the price Qualcomm demands is the right choice.


SecretRecipe t1_j3pgmbx wrote

Awesome, Single point of failure to brick every feature needed for your phone to be usable.


Stingray88 t1_j3q3jiw wrote

I mean, your phone is already full of single points of failure. If almost any other chip dies it won’t even boot.


Leprecon t1_j3q6xoj wrote

I think the most important ones for iPhones are the lightning port, wifi, and cellular. You can technically reset or manage an iPhone with those 3. I don’t really see how putting wifi, bluetooth, and cellular on one chip is that much of a risk.

Cellular is pretty useless already for updating or restoring backups. It is technically possible but not really that big a deal.


Leprecon t1_j3q6qwe wrote

Are people using bluetooth to reset iPhones with broken wifi chips?


NewDad907 t1_j3pii9d wrote


Apple Frequency, Cellular and Bluetooth? Maybe? I never start things, did I start a thing?


SpectralMagic t1_j3q4agj wrote

So they can sell wifi capability to you instead of being an out of box feature 🤣🤮


MrGeekman t1_j3obox0 wrote

It thought they did that like ten years ago.


other_goblin t1_j3o9db5 wrote

Wow that's not already a thing


its_coo_baby t1_j3o5zhw wrote

Who gives a fuck! I want the 3mm headphone jack back. Edit: it's 3.5mm I'm sorry


TawnyTeaTowel t1_j3o70am wrote

Have fun fitting your 3.5mm headphone plug into that!


its_coo_baby t1_j3oagpd wrote

Oh God, you know what I mean.


youtheotube2 t1_j3ogvsl wrote

I don’t know a single person that still uses wired headphones with their phone.


dandroid126 t1_j3psklo wrote

Oh, well this guy doesn't know anyone that uses it, so I guess no one uses it.

I bought an adapter for mine personally.


youtheotube2 t1_j3pt45p wrote

Yeah, if out of the hundreds of people I know, none of them use 3.5mm headphones with their phone, then smartphones probably shouldn’t have 3.5mm jacks. Who would they be catering to? Clearly not the average user.


dandroid126 t1_j3pvmb2 wrote

Lmao, I seriously doubt you study each and every person you know during every waking hour of their day. Also, nice super duper subtle brag about how many people you know.

And even if I believed you, which I don't, maybe people don't use the 3.5mm jack because they don't have them? Hard to use something you don't have. Just a thought.


its_coo_baby t1_j3olrj9 wrote

I do, I even ordered a stupid adapter so I can use the 3.5mm!! Headphone jack, but now I can't charge my phone.