Rumour: Apple dropping Qualcomm as modem chip supplier

[MadSprite]

Apple had a considerably bitter legal fights with Qualcomm over royalty rights for their wireless architecture that in which caused Qualcomm to withhold software for Apple's device prototype modems.

This has lead Apple to endearingly want to drop Qualcomm's wireless chip manufacturing contractor arm as a supplier. Suppliers for Apple's mobile device modem components to just either just existing supplier intel or in junction with Mediatek.

 

Quote

Qualcomm, which has worked with Apple for a decade, stopped sharing the software after Apple filed a federal lawsuit in January accusing Qualcomm of using its market dominance unfairly to block competitors and to charge exorbitant patent royalties, this person said. Qualcomm has said Apple is mischaracterizing its practices.

Qualcomm is the biggest supplier of mobile chips, with nearly all Flagship phones in the US running Qualcomm due to its high compatibility with it's wireless standard and with the US wanting to roll out 5G.

 

Quote

Qualcomm said its “modem that could be used in the next generation iPhone has already been fully tested and released to Apple.” The chip company said it is “committed to supporting Apple’s new devices” as it does for others in the industry.
...
Apple’s plans to exclude Qualcomm chips from next year’s model could still change. People familiar with Apple’s manufacturing process said the company could change modem-chip suppliers as late as June, three months before the next iPhone is expected to ship. Still, some of the people said Apple hasn’t previously designed iPhones and iPads to exclude Qualcomm chips at a similar stage of the process.

The dispute is ongoing since that Apple has stop reimbursing manufacturers for Qualcomm royalties, which then imposes that those royalties were unpaid by Apple.

Qualcomm chips are also very refined in matching the standards set out by Qualcomm. With some phones reaching nearly 1 gigabit in download speed while both Intel and MediaTek has yet to prove to reach just as fast.

Quote

Selling chips is generally less profitable for Qualcomm than its patent business. Apple paid $2.8 billion last year in Qualcomm royalties, which accounted for nearly 30% of the chip maker’s per-share earnings, according to Macquarie Capital. In the last year, Apple has stopped reimbursing those fees to iPhone and iPad manufacturers, which in turn have stopped paying Qualcomm.

Quote

Also, Apple typically wants at least two suppliers of key iPhone components to bolster its negotiating leverage, according to people familiar with its procurement process. So it would have to add a new supplier such as MediaTek in addition to Intel to maintain that for modem chips.

A $5 billion market is about to change for manufacturers, MediaTek has lots to benefit as they have been in the low end mobile market, making cheaper models of Qualcomm's standard than competitors.

An investment pushed by Apple, as Apple normally does with manufacturers to boost quality and quantity of manufacturing, can improve MediaTek portfolio.

 

Edit: Correction for SoC for modem chips

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/on-the-outs-with-qualcomm-apple-looking-at-intel-mediatek-for-modem-silicon/
Original: https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-is-designing-iphones-ipads-that-would-drop-qualcomm-components-1509408668?mod=djemalertTECH

[PCGuy_5960]

Makes sense, especially after Qualcomm sued them for (pretty much) no reason.

[ARikozuM]

Dear Intel,

 

Qualcomm sucks SUCKS (not an acronym, neither a hyperbole). Please bring Coffee Lake to iPhones and Androids everywhere. 

 

Signed,

Qualcomm Sucks 

[MyName13]

Doesn't apple design their own SoCs?

[ARikozuM]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Doesn't apple design their own SoCs?

Design, but manufacture is done elsewhere. I believe they used Intel, Qualcomm and now they're looking at Mediatek. 

[MadSprite]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Doesn't apple design their own SoCs?

They design their own SoCs, make intel or Qualcomm manufacture the part. The architecture is based of off Qualcomm's standard and therefore Apple still requires paying a license to them.

[MyName13]

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Design, but manufacture is done elsewhere. I believe they used Intel, Qualcomm and now they're looking at Mediatek. 

 

7 minutes ago, MadSprite said:

They design their own SoCs, make intel or Qualcomm manufacture the part. The architecture is based of off Qualcomm's standard and therefore Apple still requires paying a license to them.

I thought Qualcomm is fabless.

[MartinSnow]

5 minutes ago, MadSprite said:

They design their own SoCs, make intel or Qualcomm manufacture the part. The architecture is based of off Qualcomm's standard and therefore Apple still requires paying a license to them.

Intel and Qualcomm does not produce Apple's soc's. The fight is over the licensing rights to the baseband, wireless and bluetooth part of the soc. Samsung and TSMC are usually the ones manufacturing apples designs.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I thought Qualcomm is fabless.

Qualcomm uses the fabs from TSMC and Samsung. 

 

Samsung has their hands in everything these days. 

[MartinSnow]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Samsung has their hands in everything these days. 

They even make tanks K9_Thunder

[ARikozuM]

Just now, MartinSnow said:

They even make tanks K9_Thunder

And guns from washing machine motors... 

[MyName13]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Qualcomm uses the fabs from TSMC and Samsung. 

Why does Apple need Qualcomm then?

[MadSprite]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

Why does Apple need Qualcomm then?

For their superb modems

[ARikozuM]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Why does Apple need Qualcomm then?

To be honest, they don't. Qualcomm has patents that Apple needs to use and I guess Apple is tired of paying royalties or licensing for those patents. 

[Coaxialgamer]

19 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Design, but manufacture is done elsewhere. I believe they used Intel, Qualcomm and now they're looking at Mediatek. 

Neither Quacomm nor Mediatek have fabs. TSMC is the one that manufactures chips for apple as well as those two. 

But there are other chips than the SoC.  What's more, not all IP in apple SoC's is designed by apple. For the last few generations, qualcomm (and intel) had been providing the comms and networking IP apple uses. 

[Trixanity]

7 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why does Apple need Qualcomm then?

Modems. Qualcomm is the current leader in modem technology but Intel has recently caught up to them after 5 years of flooring the gas pedal.

 

The OP really needs to be revised; it's both wrong and misleading.

 

Apple develops their own chips and their license to do so is paid to ARM. They develop the ISA used.

 

Qualcomm also doesn't manufacture any chips. They design them like Apple does. They both contract out the manufacturing.

 

Qualcomm has sold modems to Apple. That where their dispute lies. What it costs essentially: both unit cost and % of sales.

[AnonymousGuy]

MediaTek is more known as a shitty white label made-in-China chip, so I'm skeptical Apple would be too enthusiastic about using them as a supplier.

[sazrocks]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Dear Intel,

 

Qualcomm sucks SUCKS (not an acronym, neither a hyperbole). Please bring Coffee Lake to iPhones and Androids everywhere. 

 

Signed,

Qualcomm Sucks 

Bringing x86 to mobile phones is a terrible idea.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

Bringing x86 to mobile phones is a terrible idea.

Wouldn't it be better to run an x86 architecture on phones? If there could be some manner to run programs across all platforms, surely the advantage would outweigh the risk?

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

Bringing x86 to mobile phones is a terrible idea.

Almost as bad as using ARM for anything other than mobile phones and low end CPUs for servers.

[sazrocks]

30 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Wouldn't it be better to run an x86 architecture on phones? If there could be some manner to run programs across all platforms, surely the advantage would outweigh the risk?

Sure, but power consumption is a thing. x86 chips (with some exceptions, but you're talking about coffee lake) consume way more power than ARM chips, and thus output more heat. Would you really trade being able to run x86 programs on your phone for a 30 Min Battery life?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Wouldn't it be better to run an x86 architecture on phones? If there could be some manner to run programs across all platforms, surely the advantage would outweigh the risk?

If I'm not mistaken, most x86 phones (Speaking Android here) have had inferior performance and battery life than their ARM counterparts in this TDP envelope (Admittedly flagship ones, but they were comparable in price to Intel's phone processors if I'm not mistaken), though AMD's APUs (or soc if it classifies as that yet) *might* compete better than what Intel brought to the table, however ARM chips have not been sitting still. The advantage of using the same architect is really only there if you use the same frameworks/OS/applications. (If you care to point out other places then fell free too)

Edited October 31, 2017 by Guest
Added "in this TDP envelope"

[sazrocks]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Almost as bad as using ARM for anything other than mobile phones and low end CPUs for servers.

Uh, are you kidding me? ARM has LOTS of uses outside of mobile phones and low end servers. ARM chips make up a huge portion of embedded devices. Does your fridge or DVD player really need an x86 processor? What are you doing, rendering videos while filling up your drink?

[Drak3]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Does your fridge or DVD player really need an x86 processor?

Does my DVD player really need an ARM processor? Does my fridge need a modern processor in any capacity?

 

Both are better served by older, more basic designs that can do their job well, and are dirt cheap to produce. More generalized processors like those of ARM and x86 are wasted.

[sazrocks]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Does my DVD player really need an ARM processor? Does my fridge need a modern processor in any capacity?

 

Both are better served by older, more basic designs that can do their job well, and are dirt cheap to produce. More generalized processors like those of ARM and x86 are wasted.

...What? RISC architectures are designed to be configured for the specific application that they are used in. ARM is no where near "general" in the same way that x86 is, heck x86 belongs to an entirely different type of architecture, CISC. 

And as for your argument about older designs, what do you expect to run that fancy touch screen, or do the image processing found in modern Blu-ray players?