4 ms·

They all know how to design a phone already, and don't have access to the proprietary Apple chipsets. Everything else is just industry standard electronic engin

They all know how to design a phone already, and don't have access to the proprietary Apple chipsets. Everything else is just industry standard electronic engineering. What would they gain? The specifics of how some power supply is connected?

Kirby64 1y ago
Not sure why you would think the specifics of how one of the largest company’s in the world designs their phones wouldn’t be useful. There are entire companies that exist solely to generate their own schematics from teardowns because they’re so valuable to certain consumers.
- mikestew 1y ago
  Not sure why you would think the specifics… Because the FCC didn’t publish specifics. I think one would get better, more specific information from a teardown. It’s even in TFA: ”Competitors could simply buy a handset and open it up to get to this information…”
  - Kirby64 1y ago
    Did you read what FCC published at all? They published the BOM, with specific part numbers and alternatives, the full schematics, and block diagrams of where the chips are laid out. Any teardown org would be absolutely salivating at this info.
    - mikestew 1y ago
      Did you read what FCC published at all? Most of it, yeah. Any teardown org would be absolutely salivating at this info. I'll disagree and say that any teardown org would be able to figure this out on their own in an afternoon, and end up with more information than the PDF in the process. You vastly over-estimate the value of schematics showing wire traces from one black box to another.
      - Kirby64 1y ago
        No teardown org will know what the models of passives are, nor would they be able to figure out all the traces between various parts “in an afternoon”. This stuff takes days or weeks depending on the depth of understanding you want.
    - rs186 1y ago
      A random vendor in Huaqiangbei likely can tell you more about what parts iPhone uses than this pdf file. You talk as if that's some secret.
      - Kirby64 1y ago
        Hard to beat “every single part used” from this document. You talk as if the electronics market vendors have some ability to identify what capacitor models are used.
        Liftyee 1y ago
        Generally the specific model of capacitor used only matters in terms of its engineering specifications (value, tolerance, dielectric, etc.), all of which affect its functionality in some measurable way. The specifications chosen for a given purpose are also often predictable - so if a reverse engineer knows this is a power filtering capacitor (for example), they might guess 0.1uF X7R ceramic... and confirm with measurements. Common "jellybean" passive components like resistors, capacitors, inductors... are designed to be standardized and interchangeable with any other component of the same specifications. The remaining factor might be cost and manufacturer (their quality control), but knowing which makes of capacitor are consistently reliable is hardly trade secret knowledge.
        Kirby64 1y ago
        > Common "jellybean" passive components like resistors, capacitors, inductors... are designed to be standardized and interchangeable with any other component of the same specifications. The remaining factor might be cost and manufacturer (their quality control), but knowing which makes of capacitor are consistently reliable is hardly trade secret knowledge. Not even close to true for capacitors and inductors. True for resistors mostly, but inductors and capacitors have wildly different specifications depending on their intrinsic parameters. The derating curves (AC, DC, etc) vary wildly depending on the individual part selection. One capacitor may have double or triple the capacitance of another for the same size, nominal rating, and type at a specific voltage condition. Sure you can overbuild and not worry too much, but given the wildly small size of phones don’t be shocked if the individual components selected are very critical.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  Because Chinese companies make the iPhone in China.
- Liftyee 1y ago
  The specifics that enable Apple's proprietary functionality are contained in the proprietary silicon, software, etc. not the schematics. Granted, there are some specifics that could be interesting from a design analysis perspective like the bill of materials (BoM) cost, or the specific choices made in the design (e.g. using a buck regulator IC to improve efficiency, tradeoffs between cost and redundancy, etc...). I maintain that most of the specifics contained in the schematic aren't useful for an engineer designing another phone. An experienced electronic engineer facing the same design problems would make similar decisions regarding which components to use, based on known principles - but that's only if they could access Apple's proprietary chips in the first place. Everything we can see in the schematic could have been generated from a teardown as you mentioned. Not sure what "certain consumers" you're referring to - I imagine the schematics would help repair shops most in knowing what test points to diagnose and what components are involved. Huawei, Xiaomi, et al. don't need Apple's schematics. They have plenty of design engineers of their own, and can't access Apple's chips anyway. The parts that do use market-available chips don't have any critical details that might take away Apple's edge.

Kirby64 1y ago

Not sure why you would think the specifics of how one of the largest company’s in the world designs their phones wouldn’t be useful. There are entire companies that exist solely to generate their own schematics from teardowns because they’re so valuable to certain consumers.

mikestew 1y ago
Not sure why you would think the specifics… Because the FCC didn’t publish specifics. I think one would get better, more specific information from a teardown. It’s even in TFA: ”Competitors could simply buy a handset and open it up to get to this information…”
- Kirby64 1y ago
  Did you read what FCC published at all? They published the BOM, with specific part numbers and alternatives, the full schematics, and block diagrams of where the chips are laid out. Any teardown org would be absolutely salivating at this info.
  - mikestew 1y ago
    Did you read what FCC published at all? Most of it, yeah. Any teardown org would be absolutely salivating at this info. I'll disagree and say that any teardown org would be able to figure this out on their own in an afternoon, and end up with more information than the PDF in the process. You vastly over-estimate the value of schematics showing wire traces from one black box to another.
    - Kirby64 1y ago
      No teardown org will know what the models of passives are, nor would they be able to figure out all the traces between various parts “in an afternoon”. This stuff takes days or weeks depending on the depth of understanding you want.
  - rs186 1y ago
    A random vendor in Huaqiangbei likely can tell you more about what parts iPhone uses than this pdf file. You talk as if that's some secret.
    - Kirby64 1y ago
      Hard to beat “every single part used” from this document. You talk as if the electronics market vendors have some ability to identify what capacitor models are used.
      - Liftyee 1y ago
        Generally the specific model of capacitor used only matters in terms of its engineering specifications (value, tolerance, dielectric, etc.), all of which affect its functionality in some measurable way. The specifications chosen for a given purpose are also often predictable - so if a reverse engineer knows this is a power filtering capacitor (for example), they might guess 0.1uF X7R ceramic... and confirm with measurements. Common "jellybean" passive components like resistors, capacitors, inductors... are designed to be standardized and interchangeable with any other component of the same specifications. The remaining factor might be cost and manufacturer (their quality control), but knowing which makes of capacitor are consistently reliable is hardly trade secret knowledge.
        Kirby64 1y ago
        > Common "jellybean" passive components like resistors, capacitors, inductors... are designed to be standardized and interchangeable with any other component of the same specifications. The remaining factor might be cost and manufacturer (their quality control), but knowing which makes of capacitor are consistently reliable is hardly trade secret knowledge. Not even close to true for capacitors and inductors. True for resistors mostly, but inductors and capacitors have wildly different specifications depending on their intrinsic parameters. The derating curves (AC, DC, etc) vary wildly depending on the individual part selection. One capacitor may have double or triple the capacitance of another for the same size, nominal rating, and type at a specific voltage condition. Sure you can overbuild and not worry too much, but given the wildly small size of phones don’t be shocked if the individual components selected are very critical.
WillPostForFood 1y ago
Because Chinese companies make the iPhone in China.
Liftyee 1y ago
The specifics that enable Apple's proprietary functionality are contained in the proprietary silicon, software, etc. not the schematics. Granted, there are some specifics that could be interesting from a design analysis perspective like the bill of materials (BoM) cost, or the specific choices made in the design (e.g. using a buck regulator IC to improve efficiency, tradeoffs between cost and redundancy, etc...). I maintain that most of the specifics contained in the schematic aren't useful for an engineer designing another phone. An experienced electronic engineer facing the same design problems would make similar decisions regarding which components to use, based on known principles - but that's only if they could access Apple's proprietary chips in the first place. Everything we can see in the schematic could have been generated from a teardown as you mentioned. Not sure what "certain consumers" you're referring to - I imagine the schematics would help repair shops most in knowing what test points to diagnose and what components are involved. Huawei, Xiaomi, et al. don't need Apple's schematics. They have plenty of design engineers of their own, and can't access Apple's chips anyway. The parts that do use market-available chips don't have any critical details that might take away Apple's edge.