Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Apple’s failure to build a key part for its new iPhones
https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-iphone-modem-chip-failure-6fe33d19
175 comments
http://archive.today/X2u4w
Every time a new MacBook Pro is released, I check to see if they have figured out how to put a modem in it like they manage to with watches, phones, and tablets. This is an obvious example where the market is failing.
The best explanation I heard is that the Apple deal with Qualcomm pays Qualcomm a royalty as a function of the price of the device and Apple does not want to give that much money to Qualcomm and/or raise the price of a MacBook Pro that much. Does anyone have any evidence on this topic?
The best explanation I heard is that the Apple deal with Qualcomm pays Qualcomm a royalty as a function of the price of the device and Apple does not want to give that much money to Qualcomm and/or raise the price of a MacBook Pro that much. Does anyone have any evidence on this topic?
They literally have one click pairing to the Wifi hotspot on an iPhone or iPad logged in to the same iCloud account. Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?
I use this a lot. It burns two batteries instead of one, is unreliable, and adds latency. I would very much like to buy a laptop from Apple that has a modem builtin like I can get from Dell. Furthermore, I would like a modem in the laptop that is always on and ready, just like in the iPad (zero click).
I wonder how it will work if you attach an iPhone 15 Pro to your laptop with a short USB/Thunderbolt cable. Presumably it will at least save on rebroadcasting the internet connection.
I often do this with my iPhone 11 Pro. It is dumb and works better than having no connection. It is a ridiculous thing to do at a time when watches have LTE modems.
I have the same phone and the performance never seems any better than when using bluetooth PAN. I mentioned the iPhone 15 Pro, because it will be the first one with more than 480mbps over USB. At 10gbps the wired connection should have enough bandwidth to handle anything even 5g will offer for a while.
I am scheduled to pick up an iPhone 15 Pro today. I will see how well that works and report back.
Of course, it connects over usb. It works on windows as well (the easiest way to install the drivers is to install iTunes).
This logic doesn't hold - the same is true of an iPad. To quote you, "Everyone has a phone. Why increase the BOM?" - if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.
the thing is, historically, if you already make laptops (and they 20 years ago had a pcmcia slot in which a verizon, etc, cellular modem could fit...i had one), and you already later make iPhones, then it's a short jump from iPhone logic board to iPad.
it's a longer jump to get a cellular capable antenna complex in an all metal (think semi faraday cage) aluminium unibody.
point is, it's historical artifact originally.
now, a decade later, perhaps the BOM thing is just enough motivation to not do it, or the ubiquity of "hotspots" via cellular lessens the appeal at scale.
it's a longer jump to get a cellular capable antenna complex in an all metal (think semi faraday cage) aluminium unibody.
point is, it's historical artifact originally.
now, a decade later, perhaps the BOM thing is just enough motivation to not do it, or the ubiquity of "hotspots" via cellular lessens the appeal at scale.
> then it's a short jump from iPhone logic board to iPad.
Its arguably an even shorter jump between iPad and MacBook Pro today - the architecture of both products is incredibly similar now.
> it's a longer jump to get a cellular capable antenna complex in an all metal (think semi faraday cage) aluminium unibody.
You mean just like the aluminium bodies already present on the cellular iPads? Or several generations of iPhone? This excuse doesn't hold either.
Its arguably an even shorter jump between iPad and MacBook Pro today - the architecture of both products is incredibly similar now.
> it's a longer jump to get a cellular capable antenna complex in an all metal (think semi faraday cage) aluminium unibody.
You mean just like the aluminium bodies already present on the cellular iPads? Or several generations of iPhone? This excuse doesn't hold either.
cellular ipads have an RF transparent band on their edges.
ipad and iphone also have antenna designs integrated with the body design, which currently is only true for wifi and bluetooth in the above mentioned laptops.
are you wanting a plastic band atop the laptop closing screen, to get a cellular capable antenna in an otherwise metal body? perhaps that's just not a priority with enough customers.
ipad and iphone also have antenna designs integrated with the body design, which currently is only true for wifi and bluetooth in the above mentioned laptops.
are you wanting a plastic band atop the laptop closing screen, to get a cellular capable antenna in an otherwise metal body? perhaps that's just not a priority with enough customers.
> are you wanting a plastic band atop the laptop closing screen, to get a cellular capable antenna in an otherwise metal body?
I'm almost certain Apple's world class hardware team can integrate a cellular antenna to an aluminum laptop in a way that is visually pleasing, yes. This isn't some insurmountable problem we are positing here.
I'm almost certain Apple's world class hardware team can integrate a cellular antenna to an aluminum laptop in a way that is visually pleasing, yes. This isn't some insurmountable problem we are positing here.
I mean, that same hardware team designed a fundamentally flawed keyboard to shave like a millimeter from the laptop height.
that's the industrial design group, which was entirely distinct from the rf hardware world.
it probably would help if you'd listen to a person from the world class hardware team in question who worked in exactly this world for years, spanning all the devices discussed. that person might have strongly insinuated the law of nature challenges constraining propagation of RF at widely varying frequencies as they are paired with the esthetics challenges from a different group, if you noticed.
The iPad itself and competing MacBook/MacBook Pro-like aluminum laptops from other vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) are existence proofs.
You didn’t read the discussion of the cellular ipad having the plastic band, or that prioritizing no plastic band is a problem if you want antennas capable for useful cellular reliability
No, the cellular iPad and other devices are indeed proof positive. The exact same cellular window solution could be applied in a redesign of the MacBook. No one is disputing aluminium blocks radio waves - the dispute is your constant argument it can’t be done because it would require a giant RF window - there is no reason a future design can’t neatly incorporate an antenna system, just like it has been done on many other aluminium devices - including iPads, iPhones and Apple Watches.
Having built 5G systems for hobbyist computer boards (Pi etc), the antenna required is not so very large either.
A MacBook is not and has never been a seamless block of aluminium - there are plenty of design choices to be made to help hide or minimise any antennas.
Having built 5G systems for hobbyist computer boards (Pi etc), the antenna required is not so very large either.
A MacBook is not and has never been a seamless block of aluminium - there are plenty of design choices to be made to help hide or minimise any antennas.
Yes it’s possible IF the case is changed. Bear in mind different bands (as cellular ios devices support) can force a different antenna geometry than a single band (regardless of coding schemes).
Your “plastic band” argument- indeed, most of your arguments on this- fails to acknowledge the pleasant reality of the ipad pro’s.
My 2020 ipad pro 11” does not have that unsightly plastic band, nor the iphone 15 pro.
As far as aesthetic elements, these enclosures appear essentially as metal and glass, an appearance not markedly different than existing macbook appearances.
Even the iphone mini 13 manages to fit effective cellular arrays in its compact form sans the big plastic bands on those ipads you mention. And despite its diminutive size, the mini 13 can still manage a reliable call over cellular for hours at a time. With the greater real estate offered by the macBook form factor, there are broader options for effective antenna arrays and also their power supply versus phones and tablets.
My 2020 ipad pro 11” does not have that unsightly plastic band, nor the iphone 15 pro.
As far as aesthetic elements, these enclosures appear essentially as metal and glass, an appearance not markedly different than existing macbook appearances.
Even the iphone mini 13 manages to fit effective cellular arrays in its compact form sans the big plastic bands on those ipads you mention. And despite its diminutive size, the mini 13 can still manage a reliable call over cellular for hours at a time. With the greater real estate offered by the macBook form factor, there are broader options for effective antenna arrays and also their power supply versus phones and tablets.
[deleted]
> are you wanting a plastic band atop the laptop closing screen, to get a cellular capable antenna in an otherwise metal body?
Is this why the LTE capable Apple Watch has a red ring on the crown? I assumed it was just a status cue.
Regardless, I would be completely happy with Apple having to make a compromise on the case like they do with the iPad.
Is this why the LTE capable Apple Watch has a red ring on the crown? I assumed it was just a status cue.
Regardless, I would be completely happy with Apple having to make a compromise on the case like they do with the iPad.
Are these cellular antennas really that much different from the wifi antennas that are already found in Apple laptops?
Yes.
it's a huge topic, antennas are tuned in physical geometries for wavelengths, etc.
this is a fun rabbithole
https://antenna-theory.com/
it's a huge topic, antennas are tuned in physical geometries for wavelengths, etc.
this is a fun rabbithole
https://antenna-theory.com/
> if it's ok to include cost of a modem for an iPad, it's ok for a MacBook Pro too.
This exactly.
The iPad is already like a smaller MacBook without a built-in keyboard that runs iPadOS.
This exactly.
The iPad is already like a smaller MacBook without a built-in keyboard that runs iPadOS.
[deleted]
I don’t think the BOM is the issue. It’s a huge cost to have different variations for different regions, and a huge cost to go through certification for various regions. It’s obviously worth it for iPhone and watch, apparently worth it for iPad although most people I know buy the wifi only models. For MacBooks, even though they now share a lot of design with iPhones, I can’t see it being worth it for the few percent of customers that will pay extra for it on a MacBook.
I specifically said MacBook Pro. I agree it is probably not worthwhile for MacBook. I use my MacBook Pro for work travel. I realize other use cases can do without connectivity.
By that logic, iPads wouldn’t need a cellular variant either.
This is correct.
Tethering is flaky. I was trying to tether my iPad to my iPhone just last night, eventually gave up and just read my book on my iPhone instead. If I depended on tethering for actually getting my work done I'd have an aneurism.
Tethering is flaky. I was trying to tether my iPad to my iPhone just last night, eventually gave up and just read my book on my iPhone instead. If I depended on tethering for actually getting my work done I'd have an aneurism.
As someone who has, and still does attempt work via iOS tethering it is in fact a complete dumpster fire. Frequent disconnects which force me to constantly revisit the Settings app to disable & reenable is a nightmare. At this point, after many years of the same level behavior, I suspect the disfunction is on purpose (probably a back room deal with cell phone providers)
If you pull down to open Control Centre and then long-press on the WiFi button, you can toggle the hotspot off and on without having to deal with the Settings app. Not sure if you’re having the same problem but that works well for me.
to be fair, they don't.
Because hotspot data is always limited compared to a dedicated line. T-mobile's hotspot is all but useless.
I am amused by some of the responses to this. I am traveling right now and needed to stop at a rest area and deal with some email. I just tried to tether my MacBook Pro to my iPhone and once again got “Failed to enable Personal Hotspot”. Those who keep defending Apple’s choices because tethering is “flawless” seem to live in a different universe.
It might feel less "magic" that what Apple promises, but doing regular hotspot through wifi might work better. I do it a lot with a pixel phone and it's pretty reliable.
I am unsure of the distinction you are making. In the case I described, I was trying to connect my MacBook Pro to my iPhone 11 Pro via WiFi. After I wrote the above comment, I tried a couple more times and it eventually connected.
For me by default the MacBook would bridge the phone connection through bluetooth. And I think there's still some custom stuff happening when choosing the phone in the wi-fi dropdown when the mac identifies that the phone is on the same account and connects without password prompt.
In the iPhone days I "force" connected to the phone hotspot through the standard password required procedure and it did better than the other more convenient options.
In the iPhone days I "force" connected to the phone hotspot through the standard password required procedure and it did better than the other more convenient options.
Apple really really really wants to make more money from software subscriptions rather than hardware.
They have a much better chance to do this in their walled garden environment of iPhones and iPads rather than on OSX where they face competition from other vendors.
They have no incentive to make it easier to be mobile on your macbook when they would much rather you be on your iPhone and iPad instead.
Someday they would really love for macbooks to go away and for everyone to use iOS for everything as they will own the entire environment and competition is much less.
They have a much better chance to do this in their walled garden environment of iPhones and iPads rather than on OSX where they face competition from other vendors.
They have no incentive to make it easier to be mobile on your macbook when they would much rather you be on your iPhone and iPad instead.
Someday they would really love for macbooks to go away and for everyone to use iOS for everything as they will own the entire environment and competition is much less.
Somehow I doubt it. If that were the case, we'd see a lot more effort to make the iPads true productivity devices, and a lot less effort to modernize Mac hardware.
They make almost all their profits from hardware, and use good software as a strategy to sell more hardware.
Apple's gross margin percentage for its services segment (App Store, Apple Music, AppleCare, Apple Pay, iCloud storage services, AppleCare warranties, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple TV+, and the Apple Card) is almost twice that of the products segment.
In 2021, the gross margin percentage for the services segment was nearly 70% as compared to the 35% gross margin percentage from the products segment.
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology-media-an...
In 2021, the gross margin percentage for the services segment was nearly 70% as compared to the 35% gross margin percentage from the products segment.
https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology-media-an...
Yes but it's a small fraction of the profit they make from their hardware sales.
There have been leaked prototypes with integrated cellular, FWIW:
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/14/photos-of-a-prototype-m...
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/14/photos-of-a-prototype-m...
Wow. That this is from 2011 is telling.
I have to imagine part of this is how expensive data in US still is - 5g infra could likely support this but there's no way AT&T or Verizon will give a reasonable amount of data for $25/month which is the most I'd imagine somebody would want to pay for a device specific data plan
I think this is the answer. Mobile OSes have been designed from the ground up to conserve data. Desktop OSes are a free for all.
When a user takes the active step of tethering, they know what they are getting into.
If mobile data was built right into the computer you’d probably see headlines like “MacBook causes $2000 in data overages”
When a user takes the active step of tethering, they know what they are getting into.
If mobile data was built right into the computer you’d probably see headlines like “MacBook causes $2000 in data overages”
I currently pay a lot for data services for my devices. I am willing to pay a lot more for better connectivity. I travel a lot. Just yesterday I was in a situation where tethering to my phone was a hassle.
When you put a modem in a device, it becomes something completely different in the eyes of the taxman in some countries and taxes increase drastically.
It’s an option on iPads, surely Apple has the ability to work out a way of making this work?
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Sure, they can have multiple versions. However, having multiple versions means multiple designs and production lines and paperwork and regulation complience etc. so Apple probably decided that it's not worth the investment.
It's very unlikely that they were not able to, they could have done it the same we they did with other Apple devices that have a modem.
It's very unlikely that they were not able to, they could have done it the same we they did with other Apple devices that have a modem.
Also import taxes. And, above all, cost savings.
The absence of a modem in MacBook Pros does not mean the market is failing.
No matter how much I am willing to pay, I cannot buy what I want. That is a market failure.
From one specific company though, you just don't want one from Dell
The choices are Windows with a modem or macOS without.
That is not what a market failure is.
Well it’s not a success, so what it is?
One person does not a market failure make.
In order to be a market failure, a whole shitload of people have to want the feature in question, and yet although it could easily be made to happen, the feature is still not delivered. That's a market failure.
Give us a reasoned and researched piece of evidence as to how large this potential market is. Like, how many people would actually buy it, as opposed to all the people who say they'd buy it but then don't actually put up the cash when the feature is delivered.
In order to be a market failure, a whole shitload of people have to want the feature in question, and yet although it could easily be made to happen, the feature is still not delivered. That's a market failure.
Give us a reasoned and researched piece of evidence as to how large this potential market is. Like, how many people would actually buy it, as opposed to all the people who say they'd buy it but then don't actually put up the cash when the feature is delivered.
A market does not require a “shitload”. I am certain that I am not the only person who would buy a MacBook Pro with the connectivity of a Dell.
Can you prove how many people would actually do so? Not the ones who say they would but in the end wouldn't cough up the money, but would actually carry through?
If you can't prove that market is large enough, then it doesn't make sense for Apple to go to that expense.
For example, how many people would pay enough extra to make it profitable for Apple to include a 192GB memory option for the M2 Max laptops and desktops? The current top end model maxes out at 96GB. How many people would pay enough extra to make it worth Apple's time to double that top end RAM value? I'm sure Apple can do it, it's just a matter of including the next level of higher capacity RAM modules.
What is your provable Total Addressable Market? Startups do this kind of evaluation all the time, and they try to wheedle VCs out of money with those numbers. And VCs poke holes in those evaluations all the time. So, let's do the same thing here.
If you can't prove that market is large enough, then it doesn't make sense for Apple to go to that expense.
For example, how many people would pay enough extra to make it profitable for Apple to include a 192GB memory option for the M2 Max laptops and desktops? The current top end model maxes out at 96GB. How many people would pay enough extra to make it worth Apple's time to double that top end RAM value? I'm sure Apple can do it, it's just a matter of including the next level of higher capacity RAM modules.
What is your provable Total Addressable Market? Startups do this kind of evaluation all the time, and they try to wheedle VCs out of money with those numbers. And VCs poke holes in those evaluations all the time. So, let's do the same thing here.
Why do you think Dell bothers to put LTE modems in laptops? I asked about evidence regarding the patent and royalty situation that prevents Apple from delivering a similar product.
I am on my fifth MacBook Pro. My first Mac was the 12” PowerBook G4. I bought many more for my employees. I would like to upgrade right now, but it would only be a marginal improvement. If Apple shipped a MacBook Pro today with an LTE modem, I would buy it today, as it would help me with my constant travel.
I would like to open the lid on my MacBook Pro and immediately reply to the email I need to reply to instead of starting up the hotspot and waiting on it to download. iPad and iPhone can do this. That the laptop cannot is ridiculous.
I am on my fifth MacBook Pro. My first Mac was the 12” PowerBook G4. I bought many more for my employees. I would like to upgrade right now, but it would only be a marginal improvement. If Apple shipped a MacBook Pro today with an LTE modem, I would buy it today, as it would help me with my constant travel.
I would like to open the lid on my MacBook Pro and immediately reply to the email I need to reply to instead of starting up the hotspot and waiting on it to download. iPad and iPhone can do this. That the laptop cannot is ridiculous.
> Why do you think Dell bothers to put LTE modems in laptops?
If I had to guess, more enterprise clients that want it.
Seriously doubt it's individuals buying up enough to make it worth it. I mean you won't even buy one right.
If I had to guess, more enterprise clients that want it.
Seriously doubt it's individuals buying up enough to make it worth it. I mean you won't even buy one right.
It has nothing to do with patents or royalties. It's all about the total addressable market and whether or not Apple thinks they could make enough profit from adding such a feature.
Obviously, Apple has decided not.
Obviously, Apple has decided not.
It is not obvious to me.
If Apple had decided there was enough profit to be made, then you would already have the device in your hands. The fact that you do not have said device is proof that Apple has decided there's not enough profit to be made.
The irony is that I agree with you one the point that I'd like to see a MacBook Pro with an integrated SIM or e-SIM card, so that I wouldn't need to tether. Where we disagree is on what process Apple has gone through and what conclusions they have reached on whether they can make enough profit off that function.
The irony is that I agree with you one the point that I'd like to see a MacBook Pro with an integrated SIM or e-SIM card, so that I wouldn't need to tether. Where we disagree is on what process Apple has gone through and what conclusions they have reached on whether they can make enough profit off that function.
You're certainly not the only person, but who are you to say that there's enough of you to offset the cost? They might very well have determined that they won't make enough money to do it, in which case the market is working perfectly well.
I remain unconvinced that this was a free market decision. This is why I asked about any evidence in the patent and royalty situation.
It might very well be a success if most people don't care about modems and/or it would be cost prohibitive to provide the option.
Yes, my theory is that the Qualcomm monopoly makes it cost prohibitive. The question I asked is if anyone has evidence for this.
Im sure they can, but then you start getting into product fragmentation.
“Apple had planned to have its modem chip ready to use in the new iPhone models. But tests late last year found the chip was too slow and prone to overheating. Its circuit board was so big it would take up half an iPhone, making it unusable.”
How is this even possible? I mean I get it’s hard but a 3 inch modem chip? lol
How is this even possible? I mean I get it’s hard but a 3 inch modem chip? lol
Wait, they needed testing late last year to figure out the chip was physically too big to be used in an iPhone?
You're kidding right? Management didn't know until late last year?
I call BS.
You're kidding right? Management didn't know until late last year?
I call BS.
> Wait, they needed testing late last year to figure out the chip was physically too big to be used in an iPhone?
The area that a chip takes up is the physical size of the part, any passives it needs, and the space to route the traces to connect them all and meet noise/emf specs.
It can take a very long time to figure out if a part is "too big" because it requires iterative design/redesign time by engineers, and it's not knowable before they begin working with the part.
The area that a chip takes up is the physical size of the part, any passives it needs, and the space to route the traces to connect them all and meet noise/emf specs.
It can take a very long time to figure out if a part is "too big" because it requires iterative design/redesign time by engineers, and it's not knowable before they begin working with the part.
More likely that they wanted to get it working first, within power budget second, and shrinking the board to the needed physical sizes third, but they didn't get to second base.
The chip might be small. The required board to use it can be big due to placements constraints, required extra components to make it work, space required for routing antenna traces, heat dissipation, etc.
While at those engineering levels you can emulate and foresee all that, sometimes shit simply happens.
While at those engineering levels you can emulate and foresee all that, sometimes shit simply happens.
Sounds like an aneccode from a layperson who saw or heard about a bring up board (or protoboard) and went away with the wrong insight.
> I mean I get it’s hard but a 3 inch modem chip? lol
It's hard to work around all the patents from Qualcomm etc otherwise you'd get sued.
It's hard to work around all the patents from Qualcomm etc otherwise you'd get sued.
What’s the fundamental reason why SOTA modems are more challenging than microprocessors for Apple? Intuitively I would’ve guessed the opposite was true.
A long time ago i used to work at a company that made mobile phones. This was in the days before smartphones, and 3G was a shiny new toy. Back then, many companies would implement the protocols in the phone firmware, as opposed to today where chips usually offload a large part of this.
Despite doing our best to implement the GSM Standards[1], the thing at the time was 19,000 pages long, and one of our biggest issues was that our protocol stack would work well with most cell towers, there would always be some carriers that had configured their network just a tiny bit different, and we had to tweak our software to match that.
At the time, there were 5 major vendors of GSM cells, and none of them had intepreted the standards identically, so we would also have tweaks to allow for different vendors.
I don't remember exactly how many people we employed in our protocol division, but it was more than 100.
I do remember that implementing the first version of bluetooth took 19 people almost 2 years, and that, at the time, was a much simpler protocol (it probably still is). I can only imagine the "horrors" that have gone into 4G and 5G since then.
These days, all of the above problems are "solved" by simply installing a chip. Qualcomm handles any vendor hardware communication issues, and they're probably "big enough" to also have an impact in the opposite direction, making for a more streamlined protocol landscape.
[1]: https://www.etsi.org/standards/get-standards#page=1&search=&...
Despite doing our best to implement the GSM Standards[1], the thing at the time was 19,000 pages long, and one of our biggest issues was that our protocol stack would work well with most cell towers, there would always be some carriers that had configured their network just a tiny bit different, and we had to tweak our software to match that.
At the time, there were 5 major vendors of GSM cells, and none of them had intepreted the standards identically, so we would also have tweaks to allow for different vendors.
I don't remember exactly how many people we employed in our protocol division, but it was more than 100.
I do remember that implementing the first version of bluetooth took 19 people almost 2 years, and that, at the time, was a much simpler protocol (it probably still is). I can only imagine the "horrors" that have gone into 4G and 5G since then.
These days, all of the above problems are "solved" by simply installing a chip. Qualcomm handles any vendor hardware communication issues, and they're probably "big enough" to also have an impact in the opposite direction, making for a more streamlined protocol landscape.
[1]: https://www.etsi.org/standards/get-standards#page=1&search=&...
This. The standard is also truly horrible to read. It's not really designed to be read, as much as it is an after-the-fact description of what somebody has already done.
To the point that testing against a very wide variety of base-stations (and the multitudinous variety of configuration options in those base-stations) is mandatory.
To the point that testing against a very wide variety of base-stations (and the multitudinous variety of configuration options in those base-stations) is mandatory.
Which is presumably hard to impossible without flying around the world with test chips and physically being in those places, as I guess only a handful of carriers can and will reveal all their config settings and software stacks in practice.
The more I think about this modem development problem the harder it seems to get. No wonder Apple have struggled and nobody else even seems to try. The amount of tribal knowledge and random hotfixes in the Qualcomm firmware alone must be irreplaceable.
The more I think about this modem development problem the harder it seems to get. No wonder Apple have struggled and nobody else even seems to try. The amount of tribal knowledge and random hotfixes in the Qualcomm firmware alone must be irreplaceable.
> Which is presumably hard to impossible without flying around the world with test chips and physically being in those places
We had people driving around with our phones logging to a laptop. They basically drove all over the country, trying to cover as much land as possible, and the phone(s) would then attempt to connect to different base stations.
The logs from this would be sent back to the developers to investigate failures, and somewhat often a bug would only manifest itself on a single cell tower.
Qualcomm has presuably done this work for most of the world, and has subsequently become the benchmark that telcoms calibrate against before deploying cell towers, leading to a more uniform protocol landscape.
If Apple hopes to create a new in-house modem chip, they will either need to calibrate it against Qualcomm, or do the gruntwork of travelling the world. In either case, i'm betting that just using Qualcomm chips regardless of the price will be better from an economic perspective.
Furthermore, everything GSM is covered by patents of the "big 5" (Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, I forgot the 5th), which at least at the time had free use of the others patents regarding GSM, but *everybody* else implementing GSM hardware and/or software must pay license fees. Qualcomm and Nokia had a big fight over this 3-4 years ago.
We had people driving around with our phones logging to a laptop. They basically drove all over the country, trying to cover as much land as possible, and the phone(s) would then attempt to connect to different base stations.
The logs from this would be sent back to the developers to investigate failures, and somewhat often a bug would only manifest itself on a single cell tower.
Qualcomm has presuably done this work for most of the world, and has subsequently become the benchmark that telcoms calibrate against before deploying cell towers, leading to a more uniform protocol landscape.
If Apple hopes to create a new in-house modem chip, they will either need to calibrate it against Qualcomm, or do the gruntwork of travelling the world. In either case, i'm betting that just using Qualcomm chips regardless of the price will be better from an economic perspective.
Furthermore, everything GSM is covered by patents of the "big 5" (Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, I forgot the 5th), which at least at the time had free use of the others patents regarding GSM, but *everybody* else implementing GSM hardware and/or software must pay license fees. Qualcomm and Nokia had a big fight over this 3-4 years ago.
>>We had people driving around with our phones logging to a laptop. They basically drove all over the country, trying to cover as much land as possible, and the phone(s) would then attempt to connect to different base stations.
Mobile carriers still do this type whether via contractors or their own staff. Unfortunately, there's nothing that beat boots-on-the-ground field testing with actual devices (plural), which is already notoriously unreliable and prone to noise.
It's especially tough in countries with a large landmass (e.g. Canada, USA, Australia, Russia, China, Brazil, etc.).
Mobile carriers still do this type whether via contractors or their own staff. Unfortunately, there's nothing that beat boots-on-the-ground field testing with actual devices (plural), which is already notoriously unreliable and prone to noise.
It's especially tough in countries with a large landmass (e.g. Canada, USA, Australia, Russia, China, Brazil, etc.).
I had assumed it was a lot less these days.
One good thing that came out of it was the low power “GPS” on early smart phones, the ones that would triangulate the phones position from what cell towers it could “see”. That would not have been possible without someone driving around “everywhere” and recording GPS location alongside cell signal strength.
As far as i know it is less frequently used today than it was a decade ago, but i could be wrong. GPS in smartphones have moved from technology[1] to something you just use without thinking about how it works.
[1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/343497
One good thing that came out of it was the low power “GPS” on early smart phones, the ones that would triangulate the phones position from what cell towers it could “see”. That would not have been possible without someone driving around “everywhere” and recording GPS location alongside cell signal strength.
As far as i know it is less frequently used today than it was a decade ago, but i could be wrong. GPS in smartphones have moved from technology[1] to something you just use without thinking about how it works.
[1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/343497
> We had people driving around with our phones logging to a laptop. They basically drove all over the country, trying to cover as much land as possible, and the phone(s) would then attempt to connect to different base stations.
Sounds like Apple needs to put test phones inside the cars doing “street view” as well as have Apple Store employees test them.
Sounds like Apple needs to put test phones inside the cars doing “street view” as well as have Apple Store employees test them.
> and somewhat often a bug would only manifest itself on a single cell tower.
I can easily understand different brands/products/generations having their quirks, but I'm struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower.
Is it a huge variety of config options, that certain combinations of settings turn out to be rare? Or is it literally just something broken like malfunctioning hardware?
I can easily understand different brands/products/generations having their quirks, but I'm struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower.
Is it a huge variety of config options, that certain combinations of settings turn out to be rare? Or is it literally just something broken like malfunctioning hardware?
> but I’m struggling to imagine what the source of uniqueness could be for a single cell tower.
GSM is/was a complex beast. Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls (the old 2G/3G multiplexed ones, not modern VoIP), so in crowded areas they’re usually configured with a very short range. Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters (<30 ft).
Furthermore, like WiFi, bandwidth is limited, so base stations are deployed in a “beehive like pattern”, like a triangle with a base station radiating out from each leg, and broadcasting at different frequencies to it’s neighbors.
That alone leaves a lot of room for configuration errors on each individual base stations, but when i say “a single cell tower”, i meant on that drive. The bug might be with a specific firmware version of that base station manufacturer, or that particular hardware revision, or simply a configuration error, or maybe it was a bug in our software and/or radio firmware. There are a lot of “moving parts” that needs to be investigated, but from a developer perspective, the error only occurred on one base station.
It could of course also turn out to be a “broken” base station, and often enough we would fail to find the error, and had to contact the network operator to get them to help trace down the error.
GSM is/was a complex beast. Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls (the old 2G/3G multiplexed ones, not modern VoIP), so in crowded areas they’re usually configured with a very short range. Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters (<30 ft).
Furthermore, like WiFi, bandwidth is limited, so base stations are deployed in a “beehive like pattern”, like a triangle with a base station radiating out from each leg, and broadcasting at different frequencies to it’s neighbors.
That alone leaves a lot of room for configuration errors on each individual base stations, but when i say “a single cell tower”, i meant on that drive. The bug might be with a specific firmware version of that base station manufacturer, or that particular hardware revision, or simply a configuration error, or maybe it was a bug in our software and/or radio firmware. There are a lot of “moving parts” that needs to be investigated, but from a developer perspective, the error only occurred on one base station.
It could of course also turn out to be a “broken” base station, and often enough we would fail to find the error, and had to contact the network operator to get them to help trace down the error.
> Each base station can only handle 8 simultaneous phone calls
Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity, but most cells and specifically the BTS in GSM parlance, especially any in a well populated area have/had way more than one transceiver. 30-40 was not unheard of in later equipment, though 10 or so was more typical. Late in GSM's life there was another technique to squeeze more channels, OSC.
Furthermore those 8 TDMA slots could be split in 1/2 or 1/4 with lower rate codecs, so it was more than 8 per TRX as well.
anything bigger than a picocell would carry way more than 8 simultaneous calls.
> Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters (<30 ft)
Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.
Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity, but most cells and specifically the BTS in GSM parlance, especially any in a well populated area have/had way more than one transceiver. 30-40 was not unheard of in later equipment, though 10 or so was more typical. Late in GSM's life there was another technique to squeeze more channels, OSC.
Furthermore those 8 TDMA slots could be split in 1/2 or 1/4 with lower rate codecs, so it was more than 8 per TRX as well.
anything bigger than a picocell would carry way more than 8 simultaneous calls.
> Some large conferences have had base stations with their range measured in single digit meters (<30 ft)
Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.
> Perhaps you are confusing that each GSM transceiver (TRX) provides 8 time-division channels with call capacity
I was talking 2G/3G. It has been 20 years since i wrote software for mobile phones :) But i should probably have been more specific and said you can have 8 active calls per channel. And i have no doubt today with 4G/5G and a shift to VoIP that you can have way more than that.
> Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.
I was attempting to refer to the scalability/complexity of the network, which scales from 10s of kilometers to 10s of meters, or even more/less.
But as i said, i wrote software for the phones. My understanding of the network side of things was/is limited to the rudimentary knowledge needed to write that, and i'm happy to be corrected.
I was talking 2G/3G. It has been 20 years since i wrote software for mobile phones :) But i should probably have been more specific and said you can have 8 active calls per channel. And i have no doubt today with 4G/5G and a shift to VoIP that you can have way more than that.
> Femtocells are still a thing today. Not so much to do with frequency capacity.
I was attempting to refer to the scalability/complexity of the network, which scales from 10s of kilometers to 10s of meters, or even more/less.
But as i said, i wrote software for the phones. My understanding of the network side of things was/is limited to the rudimentary knowledge needed to write that, and i'm happy to be corrected.
Cellular base stations have lots of configurables. There's a lot of timing related settings in cellular radios. So you've got a thousand places to introduce a 500 Mile Email problem[0]. Some timing settings can run up against timing consts in the client firmware.
For instance towers around an airport might have some bands running with reduced power or disabled. This reduces cell size/overlap on those towers requiring more frequent handoffs between those towers. A client firmware might have a bug or unrealistic const set that fails in that frequent handoff situation. So it's a bug that only happens on some 5G bands near an airport but only during the summer because the more arid conditions increase microwave propagation by 1dB.
[0] https://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
For instance towers around an airport might have some bands running with reduced power or disabled. This reduces cell size/overlap on those towers requiring more frequent handoffs between those towers. A client firmware might have a bug or unrealistic const set that fails in that frequent handoff situation. So it's a bug that only happens on some 5G bands near an airport but only during the summer because the more arid conditions increase microwave propagation by 1dB.
[0] https://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
Well Huawei seems to have succeeded
Huawei invented most of 5G technology and could tailor the 5G standards to their implementations. Which is also why they were first to market with carrier equipment [1] and had the first CPU with an on-chip 5G modem [2].
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-break...
[2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/Kirin_990
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-break...
[2] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/Kirin_990
No they didn’t. This is utter garbage. I have worked in cellular testing since 1997. The first to market with pre-5G were NTT DoCoMo and Verizon. Huawuei were late to the game. My source is the companies we sold to and I supported personally.
If I ran a company where someone tried to release a 19K page spec I'd keep firing people until someone could produce a spec that I could actually review and sign off on, that could also still be reproduced in working technology. How does this kind of thing fly at all?
The thing is, GSM is not a single specification. It is layered like the OSI model, and each layer has multiple specifications for different subsystems.
When GSM was originally specified, there was serious doubt if it would work at all on the hardware available at the time.
A GSM call has a 3.62us send window, a 3x3.62us waiting period, and a 3.62us receive slot. That’s probably hard enough to achieve on a single cell, but factor in distance to the tower as well, and the handset has to do a lot of calculations.
Once you start considering handoff between cells things get even more interesting. The handset continuously reports a list of cell towers it can “see” along with the strength of their signals from the handsets position.
Once the cell tower decides that the handset is moving out of range, it propagates a handoff message to its upstream node, which repeats this process until a suitable downstream node is found, and each cell tower is then alerted that the handset with an ongoing call is switching from/to that cell, and finally the handset is informed. The handset has no say in this process other than the list of cell towers.
All of this took place in the late 1980s, it was finalized in 1987, and modern processors at the time would be the Intel 386DX running at 12 to 40 MHz. Obviously not handsets came with a 386 processor, and when I worked on mobile phones in the early 2000s, the norm would be something like an 8 to 12 MHz 16bit platform.
Since then the specification has been revised hundreds of times. In the original specification, messaging (SMS) was an afterthought, and a way of utilizing otherwise unused bandwidth, which was normally reserved for command and control. Turns out messaging was a hit with GenX, so many changes were made to that subsequently, like EMS[1], MMS[2] and RCS[3].
Likewise focus shifted from phone calls to data, which was 4G, and to IoT and always on devices, which is what 5G is about. 4G and 5G also has increased the number of active devices possible.
Add to that WiFi calling and all the other little enhancements, and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the specification is closer to 50,000 pages today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Messaging_Service [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
When GSM was originally specified, there was serious doubt if it would work at all on the hardware available at the time.
A GSM call has a 3.62us send window, a 3x3.62us waiting period, and a 3.62us receive slot. That’s probably hard enough to achieve on a single cell, but factor in distance to the tower as well, and the handset has to do a lot of calculations.
Once you start considering handoff between cells things get even more interesting. The handset continuously reports a list of cell towers it can “see” along with the strength of their signals from the handsets position.
Once the cell tower decides that the handset is moving out of range, it propagates a handoff message to its upstream node, which repeats this process until a suitable downstream node is found, and each cell tower is then alerted that the handset with an ongoing call is switching from/to that cell, and finally the handset is informed. The handset has no say in this process other than the list of cell towers.
All of this took place in the late 1980s, it was finalized in 1987, and modern processors at the time would be the Intel 386DX running at 12 to 40 MHz. Obviously not handsets came with a 386 processor, and when I worked on mobile phones in the early 2000s, the norm would be something like an 8 to 12 MHz 16bit platform.
Since then the specification has been revised hundreds of times. In the original specification, messaging (SMS) was an afterthought, and a way of utilizing otherwise unused bandwidth, which was normally reserved for command and control. Turns out messaging was a hit with GenX, so many changes were made to that subsequently, like EMS[1], MMS[2] and RCS[3].
Likewise focus shifted from phone calls to data, which was 4G, and to IoT and always on devices, which is what 5G is about. 4G and 5G also has increased the number of active devices possible.
Add to that WiFi calling and all the other little enhancements, and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the specification is closer to 50,000 pages today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Messaging_Service [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Thanks for taking time to write such detailed replies. I realize my reply was off the cuff; it's just astonishing that that much information was able to be absorbed and operationalized. Hats off to folks that were able to make it happen at all!
Incredible reply, thank you. People like you are why I come here every day.
Analog is hard, and quite different from digital.* And then you have to work around the patent thicket in an already difficult domain.
* Nowadays clock speeds are so fast that you have a lot of analog things to worry about with all these high speed serial lines and on the chips themselves. But the domain constraints are in general simpler, with recovery and reconstruction opportunities available due to things like how you structure your protocols. The same is true in radio (came from radio, actually) but when you have a device operating at arbitrary and continually changing orientations, with all sorts of unknown environments outside you get all sorts of unpredictable multipath, loss, ringing and innumerable other problems to deal with.
* Nowadays clock speeds are so fast that you have a lot of analog things to worry about with all these high speed serial lines and on the chips themselves. But the domain constraints are in general simpler, with recovery and reconstruction opportunities available due to things like how you structure your protocols. The same is true in radio (came from radio, actually) but when you have a device operating at arbitrary and continually changing orientations, with all sorts of unknown environments outside you get all sorts of unpredictable multipath, loss, ringing and innumerable other problems to deal with.
> Analog is hard, and quite different from digital.
In the infamous words of Bob Widlar [0]: "Every idiot can count to one."
[0] For those who don't recognise the name, Widlar was a legendary analog designer - along with Jim Williams and Bob Pease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar
In the infamous words of Bob Widlar [0]: "Every idiot can count to one."
[0] For those who don't recognise the name, Widlar was a legendary analog designer - along with Jim Williams and Bob Pease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar
> Modem chips are trickier to make than processing chips because they must work seamlessly with 5G wireless networks, as well as the 2G, 3G and 4G networks used in countries around the world, each with its own technological quirks. Apple microprocessors run software programs designed solely for its iPhones and laptops.
If you have satellite comms for emergencies, maybe the requirement for supporting 2G can slowly be reduced.
I would guess lack of expertise? Apple purchased PA Semi a while ago and the team went on to work on their processors. Have they purchased a company specialized in mixed-signal circuit design? That's one of the key differences, a modem contains a lot of analog circuitry and analog is very different from digital.
> Have they purchased a company specialized in mixed-signal circuit design?
They bought Intel's modem business, which was originally part of Infineon.
Intel had working 4G modems which were only a year or two behind Qualcomm to the point where most users wouldn't notice. But they never seemed to manage to make the jump to 5G.
They bought Intel's modem business, which was originally part of Infineon.
Intel had working 4G modems which were only a year or two behind Qualcomm to the point where most users wouldn't notice. But they never seemed to manage to make the jump to 5G.
5G is overrated
It may be, but all new network capacity is being built on 5G so a phone without it will suffer more and more in performance, especially in crowded areas/events.
5G is absolutely insane. 100Mb/s for 20 USD/mo on a mobile phone in Hong Kong is absolutely mind-blowing. I suppose in low density areas like Tokyo, New York or Paris, it might be slower in some patches ?
What are you doing on a handheld device screen that would blow your mind once the novelty of seeing the big numbers on speedtest app wore off? Genuinely curious- what can you do on 5G phone that you can’t on your 4G phone?
Among other things, 5G works better in crowds. And the faster your transfer finishes, the faster you can turn the antenna off and save power.
A reasonably frequent usage of this speed is for families to switch over to mobile internet as the primary service for your home, having multiple people watch "TV" and videoconference all while someone is gaming (or dowloading a 40 Gb game) all through a single 5G modem.
Run a faster hotspot.
Upload video, sync photos, backup the phone, watch 4k movies, etc
I typically get around 300-600 Mbps on 5G, but in some areas I've seen speeds up to 1.3 Gbps (on NR, not even mmWave). This is in a Japanese city of pop 300,000
Able to get a consistent 1000Mb/s in Aus (Melbourne) outdoors. You're not wrong, it's wild to see in action!
PA Semi was 2008 or so, and Intrinsity in 2009-10. In both cases they came with (more or less) working products, an existing relationship, and coherent engineering teams with an active development pipeline. Its fair to say the intel modem folks have a lot of that individually, but Im not clear how much of the whole transferred over.
Edit: and the HwEng org already had established VLSI, SoC, and PCB groups shipping products before those acquisitions happened.
Edit: and the HwEng org already had established VLSI, SoC, and PCB groups shipping products before those acquisitions happened.
IMO cellular network protocols are remarkably challenging to understand. Then you add to that various quirks of certain network operators, optimal power consumption and throughput, security.
They probably want their design to work as well as the baseline one, and globally.
They probably want their design to work as well as the baseline one, and globally.
As someone who used to work occasionally on explaining 3GPP/2 to laypeople, I’d call “remarkably challenging” an understatement.
From the article: "Modem chips are trickier to make than processing chips because they must work seamlessly with 5G wireless networks, as well as the 2G, 3G and 4G networks used in countries around the world, each with its own technological quirks. Apple microprocessors run software programs designed solely for its iPhones and laptops."
Also: "[Apple's modem] chips were essentially three years behind Qualcomm’s best modem chip. Using them threatened to make iPhone wireless speeds slower than its competitors."
Also: "[Apple's modem] chips were essentially three years behind Qualcomm’s best modem chip. Using them threatened to make iPhone wireless speeds slower than its competitors."
I wonder what some of the regional quirks are, instances where the implementation strays from the standard, but if you don’t do it in quirks mode, you can’t connect to the cellular connection or calls will not go through etc.
A sort of woops, non-strict YAML moment, but in telecommunications.
A sort of woops, non-strict YAML moment, but in telecommunications.
Carriers are complete and utter shit.
Getting your modem "certified" with a carrier network requires an absolutely Byzantine set of testing that would stagger your imagination.
And the carriers all like it very much since it enforces their monopoly position just like the old "You must use Ma Bell phones on the Ma Bell lines."
Getting your modem "certified" with a carrier network requires an absolutely Byzantine set of testing that would stagger your imagination.
And the carriers all like it very much since it enforces their monopoly position just like the old "You must use Ma Bell phones on the Ma Bell lines."
The Apple CPU's architecture is already known (ARM). To iterate from there is probably easier than designing a modem without the basics already designed and ready to go.
Apple also has a pretty robust ability to dictate to their developers how and what they must do to run on MacOS, and they produce the compiler and toolchain as well. They seem to do a lot less shimming and other compatibility work on behalf of developers. Modem doesn't work that way, there's tons of existing, immutable hardware across the world with its own quirks and edge cases, all of which you have to support seamlessly.
>Intuitively I would’ve guessed the opposite was true.
It wouldn't be intuitive if people actually have some basic understanding of how modern wireless network works. Unfortunately even those who work on Hardware, CPU design and embedding programming dont understand that. Let alone 99.99999999% of HN.
It wouldn't be intuitive if people actually have some basic understanding of how modern wireless network works. Unfortunately even those who work on Hardware, CPU design and embedding programming dont understand that. Let alone 99.99999999% of HN.
So, what's the answer?
> So, what's the answer?
Probably a mix of things. QCM has a lot of IP/Patents in this space so there are some "intuitive" engineering solutions that ... can't be pursued w/o a license.
But even if there was no legal blockers, RF engineering is a _whole other ball game_ compared to the "routine" circuits used in CPUs. I don't just mean from a "well, the schematic sure looks different" perspective, I mean from a "how you build it in the fab" perspective as well.
TL;DR: if electricity is magic, RF is black magic.
Probably a mix of things. QCM has a lot of IP/Patents in this space so there are some "intuitive" engineering solutions that ... can't be pursued w/o a license.
But even if there was no legal blockers, RF engineering is a _whole other ball game_ compared to the "routine" circuits used in CPUs. I don't just mean from a "well, the schematic sure looks different" perspective, I mean from a "how you build it in the fab" perspective as well.
TL;DR: if electricity is magic, RF is black magic.
[deleted]
For the processors they had Jim Keller
Qualcomm patents, I suspect.
I would like to point out that creating modem chips is probably way harder than it seems. It requires knowledge not available to mere mortals. Can you design a new ARM chip with a GPU? Great, you are at most a demi-god. You probably have to be true master of the Universe to be able to design real RF chips.
Working with RF seems to be a completely different game than high frequency digital circuitry. When you work with high frequency digital signals you are kind of touching RF stuff, but it is more like you do things that "are known to work" rather than completely understanding everything that is happening.
Working with RF seems to be a completely different game than high frequency digital circuitry. When you work with high frequency digital signals you are kind of touching RF stuff, but it is more like you do things that "are known to work" rather than completely understanding everything that is happening.
Apple couldn't build a modem chip better than Qualcomm.
The top comment should always be a one line summary of the click bait title.
The top comment should always be a one line summary of the click bait title.
"Spectacular failure" is a bit hyperbolic to me. They are taking steps to move away from Qualcomm, and it seems their first real go at it resulted in a lackluster product. It's not like Apple actually shipped their phones with that lackluster chip, they decided "hey, didn't work out this go-around". I'm sure they'll get there in another year or so.
> I'm sure they'll get there in another year or so.
Unlikely, if you read the article.
Unlikely, if you read the article.
>The company scratched plans to use it in Apple’s 2023 models, and the planned rollout was moved to 2024. Eventually, Apple executives realized the company wouldn’t meet that goal either. Apple instead opened negotiations with Qualcomm to continue supplying the modem chips. Apple’s licensing deal with Qualcomm expires in April 2025, though it can be extended for another two years.
Okay, so 2-4 years?
Okay, so 2-4 years?
2-4 years on top of 4 years, plus many years before the business was acquired from Intel, which never managed to ship anything better than a noticeably worse 4G modem.
I think that counts as a pretty big failure.
I think that counts as a pretty big failure.
"Don't be snarky."
"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Spectacular and catastrophic business destroying world ending no good knee to the furniture corner poke your eye and step on a rusty nail failure I must say.
Yeah, at this rate, Apple might have to shut down in 83000000 years. They are well and truly beleaguered.
Nice to see that Apple behaves just like many of my clients.
You can be as rich as Croesus and still as clueless as <insert economic pundit>
You can be as rich as Croesus and still as clueless as <insert economic pundit>
[deleted]
Paywalled
Reminder: If you have Apple News (or get it bundled with Apple One), it includes access to the Wall Street Journal among many other paywalled sources. On iOS you can use the share sheet to open the URL in news and it will auto-open it. Otherwise you can search for the title.
I do wish this feature was better integrated, and using the share sheet to open with any app including News seems always confusing - you're never sure if you have to scroll the list of icons or scroll the list of names, or edit it to add it to both lists, and different apps seem to appear in both lists in different contexts.
But it works well when it works :D
I do wish this feature was better integrated, and using the share sheet to open with any app including News seems always confusing - you're never sure if you have to scroll the list of icons or scroll the list of names, or edit it to add it to both lists, and different apps seem to appear in both lists in different contexts.
But it works well when it works :D
Super top tip. While I have a shortcut that sends these articles to archive.today, I have Apple One and have long wanted to view them without feeling like I was stealing.
Thank you!
Thank you!
NB: Apple is pointlessly exclusionary and you can't get News or Fitness in most of the world.
Wow, I had no idea!
Great tip, thanks!
Thanks!
I ran into a little trouble where I tried to long-press the link here on HN and use that share sheet to open in News - it’s not there
I eventually got there after clicking through to the paywalled article.
I kind of wonder what’s different between the two.
I ran into a little trouble where I tried to long-press the link here on HN and use that share sheet to open in News - it’s not there
I eventually got there after clicking through to the paywalled article.
I kind of wonder what’s different between the two.
I'm reluctant to install an addon that has access to all my web browsing for this.
12ft.io