I've been explaining for years that Apple's permanently flawed CPUs for iPhones had no value other than the tremendous value as a marketing gimmick for "differentiation" and now, we hear it exactly stated that way for the
new modem!
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/20/apple-says-c1-modem-is-just-the-start/
"We're going to keep improving that technology each generation, so that it becomes a platform for us that will be used to truly
differentiate this technology for our products."
Notice very clearly that the only reason for Apple to design the CPUs and modem is for their (admittedly brilliant) never-ending marketing gimmickry.
Srouji didn't say it was better, faster, cheaper, more functional, etc.
He said nothing about how it would benefit the consumer of the iPhone.
All he said was the truth.
The only reason Apple makes the CPUs and this modem is so they can use it
as marketing gimmicks for herd animals who are receptive to such tricks.
Your erudite thoughts?
I've been explaining for years that Apple's permanently flawed CPUs for iPhones had no value other than the tremendous value as a marketing gimmick for "differentiation" and now, we hear it exactly stated that way for the
new modem!
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/20/apple-says-c1-modem-is-just-the-start/
"We're going to keep improving that technology each generation,
so that it becomes a platform for us that will be used to truly
differentiate this technology for our products."
Notice very clearly that the only reason for Apple to design the CPUs and modem is for their (admittedly brilliant) never-ending marketing gimmickry.
Srouji didn't say it was better, faster, cheaper, more functional, etc.
He said nothing about how it would benefit the consumer of the iPhone.
All he said was the truth.
The only reason Apple makes the CPUs and this modem is so they can use it
as marketing gimmicks for herd animals who are receptive to such tricks.
Your erudite thoughts?
Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from Qualcomm. While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible, and lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem ever
on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery
life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including the A18 chip.
"I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said Srouji.
I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of
efficiency. But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more
efficient than what?
I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of
efficiency. But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more >>efficient than what?
"Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem ever on an iPhone"
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:36:52 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer
performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from Qualcomm.
While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible, and
lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem
ever
on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery
life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight
integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including the
A18
chip.
"I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said Srouji.
Hi badgolferman,
Thank you for trying to understand both the question and a possible answer.
When discussing any well-calculated mere "words" from Apple, we have to understand that they can't boldly lie outright and say something like "it's faster" or "it's cheaper" or "it's better" for this modem chip.
The reason is that it's not. It sucks. It sucks like you can't believe. Because it doesn't actually *do* anything useful (that's hard to do).
So what does Apple say about it?
Those are the words I'm carefully looking at, since those words have the
only clue how Apple is going to present this crappy chip to the people.
What Apple says is it's "efficient", which is kind of funny when you think
of how Apple also has always said their crappy RAM was "efficient" too.
All of a sudden, when AI shows up, Apple's crappy "efficient" RAM sucks. Fancy that. What I've said about Apple's RAM even Apple agrees with now.
Being 1% more efficient doesn't overcome being 150% less functional. Efficient is a wonderful weasel word which Apple marketing loves to use.
More efficient than what? More efficient than a modem that actually works? More efficient than a modem that is actually fast?
More efficient than a modem that is actually functional?
I hope you understand that I'd love for Qualcomm to have competition.
But Apple's never going to be the company for "leading edge" chip design.
Apple has *never* designed a best-in-class SoC in its entire history.
If they did, nobody can find it.
So back to the question of Apple admitting their modem design sucks.
The best they can say is the amorphous "efficiency" claim.
Much like the claim that a bicycle is more efficient than a car is.
It doesn't do anything useful; but it's more efficient not doing it.
That's what it seems that Apple has said about their new crappy modem.
Hey, "it sucks" but it's "more efficient" at sucking. Well... Geeze.
I guess that's "something", now isn't it.
I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of efficiency.
But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more efficient than what?
What good is being more efficient (than what?) if it doesn't do any work?
Note: We'll take Apple's "battery life" claims for another day since nobody in history has ever been able to reproduce anywhere near Apple's claims.
(In essence, nobody sensible believes Apple's claims on battery efficiency since they've not held up in real life, & the EU has the data proving it.)
.
"Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem ever on an iPhone"
That's beautiful marketing. I agree.
Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
I've been explaining for years that Apple's permanently flawed CPUs for
iPhones had no value other than the tremendous value as a marketing gimmick >> for "differentiation" and now, we hear it exactly stated that way for the
new modem!
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/20/apple-says-c1-modem-is-just-the-start/ >>
"We're going to keep improving that technology each generation,
so that it becomes a platform for us that will be used to truly
differentiate this technology for our products."
Notice very clearly that the only reason for Apple to design the CPUs and
modem is for their (admittedly brilliant) never-ending marketing gimmickry. >>
Srouji didn't say it was better, faster, cheaper, more functional, etc.
He said nothing about how it would benefit the consumer of the iPhone.
All he said was the truth.
The only reason Apple makes the CPUs and this modem is so they can use it
as marketing gimmicks for herd animals who are receptive to such tricks.
Your erudite thoughts?
Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from Qualcomm. While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible, and lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem ever
on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery
life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including the A18 chip.
"I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said Srouji.
——————-
Is he saying the C1 modem isn’t good enough? Is this the tacit admission of the inferior product you were referring to?
On 2/21/2025 10:02 AM, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:36:52 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer
performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from Qualcomm. >>> While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible, and >>> lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient modem ever >>> on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery
life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight
integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including the A18 >>> chip.
"I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said Srouji.
Hi badgolferman,
Thank you for trying to understand both the question and a possible answer. >>
When discussing any well-calculated mere "words" from Apple, we have to
understand that they can't boldly lie outright and say something like "it's >> faster" or "it's cheaper" or "it's better" for this modem chip.
The reason is that it's not. It sucks. It sucks like you can't believe.
Because it doesn't actually *do* anything useful (that's hard to do).
So what does Apple say about it?
Those are the words I'm carefully looking at, since those words have the
only clue how Apple is going to present this crappy chip to the people.
What Apple says is it's "efficient", which is kind of funny when you think >> of how Apple also has always said their crappy RAM was "efficient" too.
All of a sudden, when AI shows up, Apple's crappy "efficient" RAM sucks.
Fancy that. What I've said about Apple's RAM even Apple agrees with now.
Being 1% more efficient doesn't overcome being 150% less functional.
Efficient is a wonderful weasel word which Apple marketing loves to use.
More efficient than what? More efficient than a modem that actually works? >> More efficient than a modem that is actually fast?
More efficient than a modem that is actually functional?
I hope you understand that I'd love for Qualcomm to have competition.
But Apple's never going to be the company for "leading edge" chip design.
Apple has *never* designed a best-in-class SoC in its entire history.
If they did, nobody can find it.
So back to the question of Apple admitting their modem design sucks.
The best they can say is the amorphous "efficiency" claim.
Much like the claim that a bicycle is more efficient than a car is.
It doesn't do anything useful; but it's more efficient not doing it.
That's what it seems that Apple has said about their new crappy modem.
Hey, "it sucks" but it's "more efficient" at sucking. Well... Geeze.
I guess that's "something", now isn't it.
I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of efficiency.
But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more efficient than what? >>
What good is being more efficient (than what?) if it doesn't do any work?
Note: We'll take Apple's "battery life" claims for another day since nobody >> in history has ever been able to reproduce anywhere near Apple's claims.
(In essence, nobody sensible believes Apple's claims on battery efficiency >> since they've not held up in real life, & the EU has the data proving it.)
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product, don't
buy it. It really doesn't matter what Apple says in its marketing materials. Marketing claims are often if not usually exaggerated, and
I doubt it most people take them seriously. The bottom line is - if
you don't like the phone, don't buy it.
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
On 2/21/2025 10:02 AM, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:36:52 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
Srouji said Apple's goal with the C1 modem was not to match the sheer
performance or specifications of rival modems, like those from
Qualcomm.
While the C1 modem might not provide the fastest 5G speeds possible,
and
lacks mmWave support, Apple says it is the most power-efficient
modem ever
on an iPhone, contributing to the iPhone 16e having the longest battery >>>> life of any 6.1-inch iPhone ever. As expected, the modem has tight
integration with the iPhone 16e's software and hardware, including
the A18
chip.
"I believe we're building something truly differentiating," said
Srouji.
Hi badgolferman,
Thank you for trying to understand both the question and a possible
answer.
When discussing any well-calculated mere "words" from Apple, we have to
understand that they can't boldly lie outright and say something like
"it's
faster" or "it's cheaper" or "it's better" for this modem chip.
The reason is that it's not. It sucks. It sucks like you can't believe.
Because it doesn't actually *do* anything useful (that's hard to do).
So what does Apple say about it?
Those are the words I'm carefully looking at, since those words have the >>> only clue how Apple is going to present this crappy chip to the people.
What Apple says is it's "efficient", which is kind of funny when you
think
of how Apple also has always said their crappy RAM was "efficient" too.
All of a sudden, when AI shows up, Apple's crappy "efficient" RAM sucks. >>> Fancy that. What I've said about Apple's RAM even Apple agrees with now. >>>
Being 1% more efficient doesn't overcome being 150% less functional.
Efficient is a wonderful weasel word which Apple marketing loves to use. >>>
More efficient than what? More efficient than a modem that actually
works?
More efficient than a modem that is actually fast?
More efficient than a modem that is actually functional?
I hope you understand that I'd love for Qualcomm to have competition.
But Apple's never going to be the company for "leading edge" chip
design.
Apple has *never* designed a best-in-class SoC in its entire history.
If they did, nobody can find it.
So back to the question of Apple admitting their modem design sucks.
The best they can say is the amorphous "efficiency" claim.
Much like the claim that a bicycle is more efficient than a car is.
It doesn't do anything useful; but it's more efficient not doing it.
That's what it seems that Apple has said about their new crappy modem.
Hey, "it sucks" but it's "more efficient" at sucking. Well... Geeze.
I guess that's "something", now isn't it.
I know you won't have the answer to the burning question of efficiency.
But I will keep my eye open for Apple's claim of more efficient than
what?
What good is being more efficient (than what?) if it doesn't do any
work?
Note: We'll take Apple's "battery life" claims for another day since
nobody
in history has ever been able to reproduce anywhere near Apple's claims. >>>
(In essence, nobody sensible believes Apple's claims on battery
efficiency
since they've not held up in real life, & the EU has the data proving
it.)
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product, don't
buy it. It really doesn't matter what Apple says in its marketing
materials. Marketing claims are often if not usually exaggerated, and
I doubt it most people take them seriously. The bottom line is - if
you don't like the phone, don't buy it.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever
notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd
extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and
devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years ago
and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake of the companies making more money.
On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
...
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product, don't
buy it.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever
notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd
extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and
devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years ago
and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake of
the companies making more money.
Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have isn't anywhere NEAR universal yet.
On 2/21/25 18:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
...
There is an easy solution here.� If you don't like the product, don't buy it.
Bingo.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever
notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd
extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and
devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years ago
and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake of the >>> companies making more money.
Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have isn't
anywhere NEAR universal yet.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I looked at that design trade-off as
being a reasonably good one: the modem in question lacks the one niche cellular band that's shortest range & has limited deployment, so it
might connectivity when at a stadium concert 1x/year, but it being ~1%
more power efficient helps me every day when I leave my home's WiFi.
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the
new iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's
high chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much?
For the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
-hh
On 2025-02-22 11:38:58 +0000, -hh said:
On 2/21/25 18:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
...
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product,
don't buy it.
Bingo.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever
notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd
extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and
devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years
ago and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake
of the companies making more money.
Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have isn't
anywhere NEAR universal yet.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I looked at that design trade-off as
being a reasonably good one: the modem in question lacks the one
niche cellular band that's shortest range & has limited deployment, so
it might connectivity when at a stadium concert 1x/year, but it being
~1% more power efficient helps me every day when I leave my home's WiFi.
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the
new iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's
high chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much?
For the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
-hh
Trump the Chump's idiotic tarriffs may well be one reason, as is the on- going general price rises of almost everything, including shipping and
raw materials, but there are also a few updated specs compared to the out-going iPhone SE:
- newer / faster CPU
- more RAM (needed for the useless Apple Intelligence gimmick)
- higher resolution rear camera
- larger / OLED display
(There are of course also a few small things now missing, such as the
home button.)
It may also be partly due to where the new model is being made - India
for example may be a little more expensive than China (which of course
is becoming more and more of a "no-no" for the conspiracy nutters in
some governments).
On 2/22/25 15:57, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 11:38:58 +0000, -hh said:
On 2/21/25 18:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
...
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.
Bingo.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will ever >>>>> notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and the odd
extreme high end user that might be bothered at all. Computers and
devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+ of users years ago >>>>> and it's now become little more than annual updates for the sake of the >>>>> companies making more money.
Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have isn't
anywhere NEAR universal yet.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I looked at that design trade-off as >>> being a reasonably good one: the modem in question lacks the one
niche cellular band that's shortest range & has limited deployment, so
it might connectivity when at a stadium concert 1x/year, but it being
~1% more power efficient helps me every day when I leave my home's WiFi. >>>
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the
new iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's
high chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much?
For the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
-hh
Trump the Chump's idiotic tarriffs may well be one reason, as is the
on- going general price rises of almost everything, including shipping
and raw materials, but there are also a few updated specs compared to
the out-going iPhone SE:
�- newer / faster CPU
Silicone wafers are cheap, so once the new mask is done for the
flagship phone, the question of the manufacturing cost of the (A14 vs
A15 vs) is pragmatically close to zero...or even negative, once you've
done the manufacturing technology to improve yields (I was on one just
one such project a few years ago ... we dropped cost from just under $50/unit to $8.xx).
�- more RAM (needed for the useless Apple Intelligence gimmick)
The material's cheap and the long term trend is down. A quick Google suggests a manufacturer cost of $4 per GB, so the increase from 4GB to
8GB is all of a ~$16 manufacturing increase.
�- higher resolution rear camera
Still is just a single aperture camera.
�- larger / OLED display
From the existing parts bin, right?
(There are of course also a few small things now missing, such as the
home button.)
Sure.
It may also be partly due to where the new model is being made - India
for example may be a little more expensive than China (which of course
is becoming more and more of a "no-no" for the conspiracy nutters in
some governments).
Sure, but of what magnitude of cost per unit? Some years ago, I had a conversation on manufacturing offshoring with a Dell executive while at
a funeral; TL;DR they admitted that when Dell sent PC assembly from the
USA to China, their cost savings was around just $20/unit. A decade
ago, epi.org reported the assembly cost was ~$15 (2%), so assuming that
this cost doubled due to India, +2% on a $500 iPhone is +$10. That's
not nothing, but its also not a big smoking gun for a $140 price
increase.
-hh
On 2025-02-22 23:05:27 +0000, -hh said:
On 2/22/25 15:57, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-22 11:38:58 +0000, -hh said:
On 2/21/25 18:24, Alan wrote:
On 2025-02-21 13:08, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-02-21 15:15:28 +0000, Rick said:
...
There is an easy solution here. If you don't like the product, >>>>>>> don't buy it.
Bingo.
The fact is that nobody in the real world gives a damn nor will
ever notice any supposed slowness. It's only the tech geeks and
the odd extreme high end user that might be bothered at all.
Computers and devices reached peak speed and efficiency for 90%+
of users years ago and it's now become little more than annual
updates for the sake of the companies making more money.
Especially when one of the features Apple's modem doesn't have
isn't anywhere NEAR universal yet.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I looked at that design trade-off >>>> as being a reasonably good one: the modem in question lacks the
one niche cellular band that's shortest range & has limited
deployment, so it might connectivity when at a stadium concert 1x/
year, but it being ~1% more power efficient helps me every day when
I leave my home's WiFi.
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the
new iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay
Qualcomm's high chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up
by so much? For the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping
+40%. Tariffs?
-hh
Trump the Chump's idiotic tarriffs may well be one reason, as is the
on- going general price rises of almost everything, including
shipping and raw materials, but there are also a few updated specs
compared to the out-going iPhone SE:
- newer / faster CPU
Silicone wafers are cheap, so once the new mask is done for the
flagship phone, the question of the manufacturing cost of the (A14 vs
A15 vs) is pragmatically close to zero...or even negative, once you've
done the manufacturing technology to improve yields (I was on one just
one such project a few years ago ... we dropped cost from just under
$50/unit to $8.xx).
The actual cost is mostly irrelevant. Anything newer is usually priced
more than the old one if the old one is still being sold. That's partly
due to the necessity of recouping the R&D costs and manufacturing set-up involved, but also partly due to the perceived "worth more".
- more RAM (needed for the useless Apple Intelligence gimmick)
The material's cheap and the long term trend is down. A quick Google
suggests a manufacturer cost of $4 per GB, so the increase from 4GB to
8GB is all of a ~$16 manufacturing increase.
Manfacturing for normal RAM, yes. The price to upgrade the RAM and
storage when building-to-order Apple devices has always been rather horrendous (although not as bad as getting simple wheels for a Mac
Pro!), not helped now that the RAM is on the CPU itself.
You can't build-to-order the RAM on the iPhone (any model), but to
upgrade the storage jumps considerably. Doubling the storage from 128GB
to 256GB jumps the price by US$100. Quadruple the storage from 128GB to 512GB bumps the price by US$300.
- higher resolution rear camera
Still is just a single aperture camera.
Yes, but higher resolution. Again, newer equals higher price.
- larger / OLED display
From the existing parts bin, right?
Newer (and this case also sligthly bigger) equals higher price.
(There are of course also a few small things now missing, such as the
home button.)
Sure.
It may also be partly due to where the new model is being made -
India for example may be a little more expensive than China (which of
course is becoming more and more of a "no-no" for the conspiracy
nutters in some governments).
Sure, but of what magnitude of cost per unit? Some years ago, I had a
conversation on manufacturing offshoring with a Dell executive while
at a funeral; TL;DR they admitted that when Dell sent PC assembly from
the USA to China, their cost savings was around just $20/unit. A
decade ago, epi.org reported the [iPhone] assembly cost was ~$15 (2%),
so assuming that this cost doubled due to India, +2% on a $500 iPhone
is +$10. That's not nothing, but its also not a big smoking gun for a
$140 price increase.
-hh
The actual manufacturing costs aren't really relevant in that sense. > Simply adding up the wholesale cost (usually guessed) of the parts for
anything from any company will always be far less than the consumer pays
in the shop. The iPhone 15 was price at US$1199 in store, but reportedly only costs US$502 in parts. It will be similar for devices from Samsung, Google, Sony, Mazda, Toyota, etc., etc. (I recently had to get a new
part for my car, a tiny little rubber stopper which cost me about US$7
and probably only costs pennies to make.
As above, there will be lots of things that combine to cause the price increase - manufacturing costs, shipping costs, material costs,
advertising costs, simple inflation, currency exchange rates, salary increases (especially for managers), etc., etc.
No doubt the price increase was also part of the reason they decided
to no longer use the "iPhone SE" branding.
there's the step up in customer expectations which can demand
asking a higher price,
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
Marion wrote:
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
This is the part that makes me hesitant to proclaim Apple's success.
If they had put it in one of their flagship products that would show
their confidence, but they have stuck it in a budget product and
publicly lowered expectations by stating it won't achieve the greatest results.
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
This is the part that makes me hesitant to proclaim Apple's success.
If they had put it in one of their flagship products that would show
their confidence, but they have stuck it in a budget product and
publicly lowered expectations by stating it won't achieve the greatest results.
Marion wrote:
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
This is the part that makes me hesitant to proclaim Apple's success.
If they had put it in one of their flagship products that would show
their confidence, but they have stuck it in a budget product and
publicly lowered expectations by stating it won't achieve the greatest results.
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
This is the part that makes me hesitant to proclaim Apple's success.
If they had put it in one of their flagship products that would show
their confidence, but they have stuck it in a budget product and
publicly lowered expectations by stating it won't achieve the greatest
results.
Apple has done that before. The Apple Silicon M-series CPU chips
debuted in the low-end MacBook Air, 13in MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini,
before slowly being rolled out to the higher end models, with the
top-end Mac Pro being the very last to be swapped over from Intel CPUs.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:20:41 +1300, Your Name wrote :
Let's see, over time, what the tests show on this new Apple C1 modem.
This is the part that makes me hesitant to proclaim Apple's success.
If they had put it in one of their flagship products that would show
their confidence, but they have stuck it in a budget product and
publicly lowered expectations by stating it won't achieve the greatest
results.
Apple has done that before. The Apple Silicon M-series CPU chips
debuted in the low-end MacBook Air, 13in MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini,
before slowly being rolled out to the higher end models, with the top-
end Mac Pro being the very last to be swapped over from Intel CPUs.
I realize Apple herd animals are desperate for something (anything!) they
can claim Apple is good at in terms of SOC design, but the sad fact is that Apple failed at GPU design (and publicly gave up on it) and Apple has
failed in desktop CPUs (given they're all unpatchably flawed so far).
But more to the point, up until this week Apple had failed in 5G modem
design (so far, even teamed up with Intel) but now Apple has "success".
I don't begrudge Apple their success in 5G modem design. I love it!
I thought Apple would never build a 5G modem until QCOM's patents expired.
So Apple beat my predictions by about 3 years!
Of course, I had "assumed" Apple wouldn't release a 5G modem that was the laughingstock of the technical community - so I assumed it was competitive.
Time will tell.
None of us know (yet) whether this new C1 modem is competitive or not.
We just don't.
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the new iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's high
chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much? For
the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
On 2/22/2025 3:38 AM, -hh wrote:
<snip>
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the new
iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's high
chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much? For
the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
It's a certainty that the pricing reflected careful research of what the believed would generate optimal profit. If they are wrong, they can
lower the price to $499 or $459, or whatever.
The 16e is going to be purchased by a lot of corporations that provide iPhones to their employees, and that see the $599 price as a good deal because previously they were not forcing employees to take the SE, with
the smaller screen, and were paying more than $599 (or whatever
corporate price they negotiated). At my wife's company, a lot of her colleagues took the SE despite being allowed to take a larger screen model.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 2/22/2025 3:38 AM, -hh wrote:
<snip>
In any event, there's more things than just geekery to criticize the new >>> iPhone 16E about. Since the Apple modem is to not pay Qualcomm's high
chip licensing costs, then why did the price jump up by so much? For
the $170 increase from $429 to $599 is a whopping +40%. Tariffs?
It's a certainty that the pricing reflected careful research of what the
believed would generate optimal profit. If they are wrong, they can
lower the price to $499 or $459, or whatever.
The 16e is going to be purchased by a lot of corporations that provide
iPhones to their employees, and that see the $599 price as a good deal
because previously they were not forcing employees to take the SE, with
the smaller screen, and were paying more than $599 (or whatever
corporate price they negotiated). At my wife's company, a lot of her
colleagues took the SE despite being allowed to take a larger screen model.
I got a new corporate phone about four months ago and had the choice
between SE, 14, 15 models and all their variants. I chose the regular 14 to match my personal phone because I didn’t want two different chargers (lightning, usb-c) at home, work, car.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,030 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 92:25:08 |
| Calls: | 13,353 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| D/L today: |
19,256 files (5,324M bytes) |
| Messages: | 3,359,330 |