From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-02-24 03:03:20 +0000, badgolferman said:

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.

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.



--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.

All we know is that Apple marketing is super downplaying it's performance.
All Apple marketing is saying is that it's "efficient".

But that's meaningless marketing propaganda when we don't know the
performance, as, for example, a candle is more efficient than a torch in
terms of how much energy it consumes - but it doesn't actually do much.

What we need to keep an eye out for is the performance of this new modem.

I hope it kicks Qualcomm's butt - but - I suspect it doesn't come close
based on how Apple's (admittedly brilliant) marketing is positioning it.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-02-24 10:54, Marion wrote:

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

False. Every Apple device manufactured today uses an Apple-designed GPU
as a part of its system-on-a-chip Apple Silicon system.

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.

But in a week or so, you'll declare it "crappy" without justification.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.
--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

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.

--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 3/6/25 16:00, badgolferman wrote:

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.

They could, but it will probably take an economic contraction and for
DJT to retreat on his tariff wars before they'd really be comfortable
going back down in price. They need to support their stock price too.

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.

Indeed, that's another factor. I actually had a SE 2022 on order just
before the 16E launched to retain the smaller form factor; was probably
a week or two too late; Apple offered a 14 but I chose refund instead.

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.

I've not been tracking how the USB-C port is working out on smartphones
in real life hardware reliability, but I am concerned that eventuality.

Thought I read somewhere that some Apple Techs are doing an unauthorized
mod during port repairs to add some glue to strengthen the connection.
Sounds like YA typical Apple design failure like they had with the
original Lightning cables which fatigued away far too quickly because
they felt it was more important to save a half penny in manufacturing.


-hh

--- Synchronet 3.20c-Linux NewsLink 1.2