it still baffles me i can buy a 100 euro phone with speedy internet connectivity , but laptops and tablets it is still a "premium feature" or "tether/connect with your phone/usb dongle" . So congrats Intel of 3 decades of almost not offering anything.
The PC space is far too cut throat in pricing that any extra features like that fall into a premium category and priced as such. This also ignores software support in both the OS and end user applications. The obvious case for a GPS in a laptop would be 'find my laptop' if it is stolen, but beyond that, what would be the killer app for GPS in a laptop? Is the layer of theft recovery worth the higher price to consumers and development costs for hardware/software makers?
The phone market has had GPS as a standard feature as there is a far more clear use-case for it.
And yet Apple offers cellular for both watch and iPad... Even though those customers mostly own iPhones...
The statements above strike me as the usual excuses for Intel — no matter what happens, Intel can do no wrong! Yes there are obviously some cost sensitive PC customers. But there are also customers willing to pay for quality/convenience (eg Surface) IF they have the option. But that requires Intel to have some vision.
I'm guessing not enough demand for cell modems in laptops. How many people really want to spend the money on the additional phone line and data costs? And if you do, then it's simple to add a USB modem.
Or in Apple-land, MacBooks tether effortlessly to an iPhone. Not all that much harder for other laptops.
Also of note, I am not going to pay for another data plan, especially not for my laptop. I had a plan for my iPad for several years, but could never really justify it, especially given how I never leave my phone far behind.
Finally, when am I going to really get a chance to actually benefit from a LTE modem in a laptop? Unless if it was a work laptop with a separate account (that I don't pay for), I'd never option that in. It's more cost for a basically redundant feature.
I ride the train 2 * ~45min each day, and am mobile at work. I'm typing this message on the train. I still cannot justify the cost of a new data plan + modem, when it brings nearly nothing over tethering.
Smartphones have better wi-fi, screens and bluetooth than most notebooks. Bluetooth is a bizarre case, with many notebooks still in 4.1 with no support for aptx, LDAC and such.
A lot of that has to do with the Bluetooth module being part of the Wifi module, and most laptops have historically has bottom barrel Wifi modules from Realtek, Atheros, Qualcomm (which by no coincidence has one of the best Bluetooth stacks) with Intel NICs and modules being a rare inclusion on sub-$500 laptops and PC's...which means nothing in the grand scheme of things because the only notable feature Intel offers over the competition is compatibility. This dates back to Centrino being a platform model and they never really deviated from that model by integrating as many Intel components as possible.
The unfortunate reality is Intel Wifi modules have dated Bluetooth specifications. The support is good, but it's generally Bluetooth 4.0 EDR at best until the 8xxx\9xxx modules started offering 4.1\4.2
Long story short, it's a lot easier to push advanced modems, GPS, Wifi and Bluetooth when it's all integrated into an SoC, for obvious reasons.
I have ordered not long ago intel wifi 6 AX 200 with 802.11ax and BT 5 for less than 17$ I will test how well it would work (claims of up to 2.4Gbps) but certainly their cards tech are not outdated on the contrary considering how new wifi 6 is they are on track with new technology specs.
WiFi shows similar lack of vision. Has Intel (or ANY PC vendor) ever offered better than 2x2 MIMO? Apple’s the only vendor I know that offered 3x3. WiFi to me kinda validates Apple’s “own all the HW” strategy, because the chips offered seem to be so unambitious compared to the spec — they ship the day the spec is ratified, then don’t get improved for the next five years.
Considering Intel has no 5G tech whatsoever, if Apple plans to have 5G in an iOS device they either license it from Qualcomm or get hella busy working on it because they've already committed to a 2020.
In the long term, I agree, Apple has clear intentions to use this patent portfolio and underlying tech to get a head start on developing their own modems. They want to be as vertically integrated as possible, like Samsung, allowing them to potentially compete with Samsung on price.
Well, their high end models are priced about the same as Samsung’s, and Huawei, and others. And these companies folding jokes, I mean phones are priced well above what Apple is pricing their top models. They just don’t compete on the lower end. That’s not the same thing.
If you count low volume products like Galaxy Fold and Huawei Mate X, you should also include gold and diamond iPhones which cost 10x more than those 2.
Are you serious, really? Or are you just being silly here? I hope it’s the latter.
Yes, most of us know about those jewelry companies that buy iPhones and remove the cases, and either embellish them, or replace them with gold or platinum ones, sometimes with precious stones. And yes, we know they can sell for a couple hundred thousand.
We also know that Apple has nothing to do with it, and that they only seok in very small numbers to very wealthy people as bling.
What any of that has to do with these phones we’re discussing here, I don’t know. Huawei, Samsung, Xiaomi and possibly others, are trying to sell hundreds of thousands of these phones initially, and hopefully, millions in later generations. That’s something we should all know.
There is no way these companies are aiming at the dozens, or hundreds of sales a year these jewelry companies manage for their blinged out iPhone models.
If you want to talk about a phone manufacturer selling very high priced phones, you should instead talk about the recently defunct Vertu, previously part of Nokia, whose phones started at about $3,000, and went to the high tens of thousands. These were production models that sold in at least, the low tens of thousands a year for what was at heart, a $300 Nokia Android phone.
That’s not true. They do, but it’s not where Qualcomm’s is. It takes years. Qualcomm has had a head start. But Apple has also had a R&D program for this, just smaller, until now.
They want to have zero reliance on outside IP, to the matter of fact after Qualcomm forced their draconian terms including paying royalties for every phone Apple sold, I can't blame them. For now they would play along with Qualcomm under convinient terms for the next coming years but after that they gonna get rid of them and use their in house IP for modems and considering that they do not have to start from scratch it will be quite fast process.
The fact that there are 17k patents on wireless only shows how ridiculous the patent system is. Out of the 17k, at least 12k are probably vague and redundant stuff.
I think this is the sanest deal in a long time. It makes perfect sense for both companies. Intel can focus on their CPUs / PC tech and Apple gets modem IP relativley cheap.
I am surprised they are so late. All big phone companies have modem IP; Samsung has its modem, Huawei too, same the SOC suppler Mediatek, obviously the SOC supplier Qualcomm too.
Bet Intel, with the Apple contract active, could have retained the division. Still 5G modems apparently are too hot on available silicon, and Apple was unhappy of the Thermals. Still even the last and the best Qualcomm modem is pretty hot and absolutely useless in Summer with thermal throttling all the way under fast connection (Extremetech article).
So i think Intel was bored of the weird situation dropping the activities suddenly.
IMO Apple must to realize how difficoult is to realize a reilable mobile 5G modem with these so so fine processes, that are dense yes!!, but they do not give huge power advantages anymore.
Remember Intel is in a crazy situation OF ITS OWN MAKING. They’re committed to using an x86 for the modems (and what DSP? some Intel designed horror?) AND Intel process (the elusive, mythical, Intel 10nm)...
I think we can be pretty sure that TODAY’S meeting of Johny Srouji with the head of the modem team has as first order of business: - OK, enough with this x86 crap. What performance do you need from the controller core and the DSP? OK, which of Apple’s cores (or an ARM core) does the job? For DSP we use a scaled up version of whatever is doing the job already in the W3. - OK, how tightly integrated are you to Intel 10nm? Your tools team’s first job is translate the highest level abstractions you are working with to inter operate with Apple’s design flow, and to compile down to TSMC (or maybe SS, or even GF 12FDX for the RF front end).
Well, a lot of people doubted Apple could do an SoC at all, but for years, they’ve had, by far, the best one out there. It’s possible they can do a better job with this than expected.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
plopke - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
it still baffles me i can buy a 100 euro phone with speedy internet connectivity , but laptops and tablets it is still a "premium feature" or "tether/connect with your phone/usb dongle" . So congrats Intel of 3 decades of almost not offering anything.privater - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Yeah, same with GPS, it's a thing on smartphone for decades, but for laptop? never heard of that.Kevin G - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
The PC space is far too cut throat in pricing that any extra features like that fall into a premium category and priced as such. This also ignores software support in both the OS and end user applications. The obvious case for a GPS in a laptop would be 'find my laptop' if it is stolen, but beyond that, what would be the killer app for GPS in a laptop? Is the layer of theft recovery worth the higher price to consumers and development costs for hardware/software makers?The phone market has had GPS as a standard feature as there is a far more clear use-case for it.
beginner99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Agree. There isn't really a huge use.case for either in a laptop, Need internet on the go? just connect via your smartphone.name99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
And yet Apple offers cellular for both watch and iPad... Even though those customers mostly own iPhones...The statements above strike me as the usual excuses for Intel — no matter what happens, Intel can do no wrong!
Yes there are obviously some cost sensitive PC customers. But there are also customers willing to pay for quality/convenience (eg Surface) IF they have the option. But that requires Intel to have some vision.
willis936 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Your laptop clock would be a stratum 1. :Dsorten - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
I'm guessing not enough demand for cell modems in laptops. How many people really want to spend the money on the additional phone line and data costs? And if you do, then it's simple to add a USB modem.jeremyshaw - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Or in Apple-land, MacBooks tether effortlessly to an iPhone. Not all that much harder for other laptops.Also of note, I am not going to pay for another data plan, especially not for my laptop. I had a plan for my iPad for several years, but could never really justify it, especially given how I never leave my phone far behind.
Finally, when am I going to really get a chance to actually benefit from a LTE modem in a laptop? Unless if it was a work laptop with a separate account (that I don't pay for), I'd never option that in. It's more cost for a basically redundant feature.
I ride the train 2 * ~45min each day, and am mobile at work. I'm typing this message on the train. I still cannot justify the cost of a new data plan + modem, when it brings nearly nothing over tethering.
sorten - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Exactly. I've used my iPhone as a hotspot for my Surface when my internet service was down. There are many options.AshlayW - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
"3 decades of almost not offering anything"That does sound like Intel, doesn't it? :)
Vitor - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Smartphones have better wi-fi, screens and bluetooth than most notebooks. Bluetooth is a bizarre case, with many notebooks still in 4.1 with no support for aptx, LDAC and such.Samus - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
A lot of that has to do with the Bluetooth module being part of the Wifi module, and most laptops have historically has bottom barrel Wifi modules from Realtek, Atheros, Qualcomm (which by no coincidence has one of the best Bluetooth stacks) with Intel NICs and modules being a rare inclusion on sub-$500 laptops and PC's...which means nothing in the grand scheme of things because the only notable feature Intel offers over the competition is compatibility. This dates back to Centrino being a platform model and they never really deviated from that model by integrating as many Intel components as possible.The unfortunate reality is Intel Wifi modules have dated Bluetooth specifications. The support is good, but it's generally Bluetooth 4.0 EDR at best until the 8xxx\9xxx modules started offering 4.1\4.2
Long story short, it's a lot easier to push advanced modems, GPS, Wifi and Bluetooth when it's all integrated into an SoC, for obvious reasons.
yeeeeman - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Intel 9xxx supports bt 5.0Eliadbu - Sunday, July 28, 2019 - link
I have ordered not long ago intel wifi 6 AX 200 with 802.11ax and BT 5 for less than 17$ I will test how well it would work (claims of up to 2.4Gbps) but certainly their cards tech are not outdated on the contrary considering how new wifi 6 is they are on track with new technology specs.name99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
WiFi shows similar lack of vision. Has Intel (or ANY PC vendor) ever offered better than 2x2 MIMO? Apple’s the only vendor I know that offered 3x3.WiFi to me kinda validates Apple’s “own all the HW” strategy, because the chips offered seem to be so unambitious compared to the spec — they ship the day the spec is ratified, then don’t get improved for the next five years.
sorten - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Smart move for Apple and it's loose change costs for them. I'm guessing their Qualcomm commitment doesn't extend into 5G.Samus - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Considering Intel has no 5G tech whatsoever, if Apple plans to have 5G in an iOS device they either license it from Qualcomm or get hella busy working on it because they've already committed to a 2020.In the long term, I agree, Apple has clear intentions to use this patent portfolio and underlying tech to get a head start on developing their own modems. They want to be as vertically integrated as possible, like Samsung, allowing them to potentially compete with Samsung on price.
vladx - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Apple compete on price? I want some of what you're smoking.melgross - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Well, their high end models are priced about the same as Samsung’s, and Huawei, and others. And these companies folding jokes, I mean phones are priced well above what Apple is pricing their top models. They just don’t compete on the lower end. That’s not the same thing.vladx - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
If you count low volume products like Galaxy Fold and Huawei Mate X, you should also include gold and diamond iPhones which cost 10x more than those 2.name99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
WTF are you talking about? Gold and diamond iPhones?vladx - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Stuff like this:https://www.goldgenie.com/product/gold-iphone-10-d...
melgross - Saturday, July 27, 2019 - link
Are you serious, really? Or are you just being silly here? I hope it’s the latter.Yes, most of us know about those jewelry companies that buy iPhones and remove the cases, and either embellish them, or replace them with gold or platinum ones, sometimes with precious stones. And yes, we know they can sell for a couple hundred thousand.
We also know that Apple has nothing to do with it, and that they only seok in very small numbers to very wealthy people as bling.
What any of that has to do with these phones we’re discussing here, I don’t know. Huawei, Samsung, Xiaomi and possibly others, are trying to sell hundreds of thousands of these phones initially, and hopefully, millions in later generations. That’s something we should all know.
There is no way these companies are aiming at the dozens, or hundreds of sales a year these jewelry companies manage for their blinged out iPhone models.
If you want to talk about a phone manufacturer selling very high priced phones, you should instead talk about the recently defunct Vertu, previously part of Nokia, whose phones started at about $3,000, and went to the high tens of thousands. These were production models that sold in at least, the low tens of thousands a year for what was at heart, a $300 Nokia Android phone.
melgross - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
That’s not true. They do, but it’s not where Qualcomm’s is. It takes years. Qualcomm has had a head start. But Apple has also had a R&D program for this, just smaller, until now.Eliadbu - Sunday, July 28, 2019 - link
They want to have zero reliance on outside IP, to the matter of fact after Qualcomm forced their draconian terms including paying royalties for every phone Apple sold, I can't blame them. For now they would play along with Qualcomm under convinient terms for the next coming years but after that they gonna get rid of them and use their in house IP for modems and considering that they do not have to start from scratch it will be quite fast process.Vitor - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
The fact that there are 17k patents on wireless only shows how ridiculous the patent system is. Out of the 17k, at least 12k are probably vague and redundant stuff.Samus - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
That's why this 1 billion deal is a match made in heaven for both companies.Lord of the Bored - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Someday I'm going to stop joking about filing a patent for "a system of representing numbers using discrete electrical states" and actually DO it.beginner99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
I think this is the sanest deal in a long time. It makes perfect sense for both companies. Intel can focus on their CPUs / PC tech and Apple gets modem IP relativley cheap.Gondalf - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
I am surprised they are so late. All big phone companies have modem IP; Samsung has its modem, Huawei too, same the SOC suppler Mediatek, obviously the SOC supplier Qualcomm too.Bet Intel, with the Apple contract active, could have retained the division. Still 5G modems apparently are too hot on available silicon, and Apple was unhappy of the Thermals.
Still even the last and the best Qualcomm modem is pretty hot and absolutely useless in Summer with thermal throttling all the way under fast connection (Extremetech article).
So i think Intel was bored of the weird situation dropping the activities suddenly.
IMO Apple must to realize how difficoult is to realize a reilable mobile 5G modem with these so so fine processes, that are dense yes!!, but they do not give huge power advantages anymore.
Now they have the IP, good luck.
name99 - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Remember Intel is in a crazy situation OF ITS OWN MAKING.They’re committed to using an x86 for the modems (and what DSP? some Intel designed horror?) AND Intel process (the elusive, mythical, Intel 10nm)...
I think we can be pretty sure that TODAY’S meeting of Johny Srouji with the head of the modem team has as first order of business:
- OK, enough with this x86 crap. What performance do you need from the controller core and the DSP? OK, which of Apple’s cores (or an ARM core) does the job? For DSP we use a scaled up version of whatever is doing the job already in the W3.
- OK, how tightly integrated are you to Intel 10nm? Your tools team’s first job is translate the highest level abstractions you are working with to inter operate with Apple’s design flow, and to compile down to TSMC (or maybe SS, or even GF 12FDX for the RF front end).
melgross - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link
Well, a lot of people doubted Apple could do an SoC at all, but for years, they’ve had, by far, the best one out there. It’s possible they can do a better job with this than expected.eastcoast_pete - Sunday, July 28, 2019 - link
I wonder if that agreement also includes a commitment by Apple to continue using Intel's CPUs in the next generation of laptops and iMacs?