FCC iPhone 16e Schematics oops........  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:26:58 pm
content: PDF link the reddit thread....https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1ntc1gt/the_fcc_has_leaked_the_schematics_for_the_iphone/So much for:Quote

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 01:59:10 am
content: I don't even know why they provided that information. Usually people just submit public user manual and some system block diagram. This is really on Apple.But also, the schematic is quite boring, it is 160+ pages of boxes connected by net labels. And 25+ pages are just net ties.I'm sure repair people will appreciate this.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 02:18:33 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on October 02, 2025, 01:59:10 amWhat, do people actually repair smartphones? I thought they were pretty much FRUs.I remember way back in ~2014 or so my neighbor actually ran a little business repairing phones, but it was pretty much just replacing glass and such. I don't think he actually did anything that would be considered an electronic repair.The most I can think could be done would be replacing a hard drive, or some other discrete module. Otherwise, throw the fucking thing away and get a new one.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 02:18:51 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on October 02, 2025, 01:59:10 amFCC requires it.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 03:36:44 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 02, 2025, 02:18:33 amI don't know if people repair them for functionality, but they absolutely do for data recovery. It is a repair that needs to hold just enough to extract the data, but still a repair.

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 06:25:45 am
content: Honestly, the iPhone schematics are extremely difficult to read.

author: indeterminate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 06:42:39 am
content: USB chips are only $10replace the connector & ic in ~ 1 hourand you turn a ded phone into sumthing that is worth 500>1k $

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:03:45 pm
content: PDF link:https://documents.cdn.ifixit.com/K2TUNWhonIPAXjbE.pdfIn some ways its not hard to read, they have functions grouped together on a single page, quite clear. But then if you try to tie that to the rest of the board it gets very complicated.Constraints are also difficult to interpret, but normally you don't see that on the schematic.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:13:24 pm
content: Anyone recognise the CAD software? Curious what Apple use.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:20:07 pm
content: Allegro. It is in the PDF properties.Also, does anyone know what "UF" resistors are that are just shorted to ground on both ends? ROOM=DFM, so to aid manufacturing?

author: fzabkar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:46:36 pm
content: I found this leak months ago. :-)I suspect that there was some confusion regarding the confidentiality letters because Apple wanted to prevent people from seeing their internal photos. Serves them right.BTW, a little birdie told iFixit. ;-)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:54:08 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on October 02, 2025, 01:59:10 amI don't mean this to be mean or rude, but do you haveanyclue how stupid that sounds? Apple isfamouslyone of the most secretive companies out there. There isabsolutely no waythey'd share that information if it weren't required.

author: fzabkar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:59:28 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 02, 2025, 07:54:08 pmI have read hundreds of FCC filings and there are plenty of case where schematics were not submitted, yet this did not invalidate the grant.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 08:03:22 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 02, 2025, 07:54:08 pmThere is a chance that they are under higher scrutiny. They may also expected that confidentiality request to work. But for general small gadgets FCC does not need schematics. It may be required, but I have not seem them reject the application if schematics are not provided.They absolutely could have edited them down to RF parts. Nobody at FCC would know what they are looking at anyway.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 08:08:28 pm
content: Quote from: fzabkar on October 02, 2025, 07:59:28 pmother peoples fillings, where schematic might have been submitted, but you weren't told because you were not allowed to see them?

author: fzabkar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 08:18:08 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 02, 2025, 08:08:28 pmAll submitted documents are listed. Confidential documents are unlinked and not downloadable.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 09:18:05 pm
content: I think the passthrough symbols are test points, or controlled impedance? Some say "NO_TEST=TRUE" so maybe they exist on the board but not used in any board test.Quote from: ataradov on October 02, 2025, 07:20:07 pmThey are real 1005 resistors and most are fitted. Odd to not just use a fake blank component whatever it is.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 09:31:17 pm
content: I think those pass though symbols are just net ties / aliases. They are not a physical component.

author: fzabkar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 10:35:38 pm
content: Some of the documents are throwing 520 errors, but they're still available elsewhere. :-)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 02:39:55 pm
content: Quote from: fzabkar on October 02, 2025, 07:59:28 pmQuote from: ataradov on October 02, 2025, 08:03:22 pmGuys… I checked multiple sources. They all make very clear that for “intentional radiators” (i.e. radio transmitters), the schematics are required under47 CFR Part §2.1033. Now, I would interpret the wording “A schematic diagram and a description of all circuitry and devices provided for determining and stabilizing frequency, for suppression of spurious radiation, for limiting modulation, and for limiting power.” as not requiring disclosure of all schematics, but given how much is under software control, it may be hard to determine exactly where the delineation is.So yeah, you may have seen devices submitted for FCC approval without schematicsbecause they weren’t radio transmitters.Those devices must only demonstrate that they don’t generate interference.And I am absolutely sure that the FCC does have engineers on staff to evaluate things.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 02:56:53 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 04, 2025, 02:39:55 pmI would take that to mean the entire radio block, and all power supplies and signals connecting to it. Considering the degree of integration and the sheer number of different radio interfaces in a modern phone.. you may as well just give them the whole schematic. It just isn't worth the time to sanitize it - it's not as if there's really any trickery outside the ICs these days.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:01:36 pm
content: Here is what Google submitted for my current phone (Pixel 6a) -https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/A4RGB62ZThere is a confidentiality letter that asks to keep schematic secret, but no schematics of any sort are attached. They just dumped a ton of screenshots from spectrum analyzers. I checked, this site does show names if the secret documents if they were provided.Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify with FCC directly, since US government is dysfunctional and the database is down. But multiple scrappers show the same result.And just to be clear - I'm not disputing that schematics are required. The way I read that statement above also says that they are requited. All I'm saying is that you can absolutely get away with not submitting them. And of all companies, Apple could have figured it out.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 06:08:22 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on October 04, 2025, 03:01:36 pmObviously Apple knows every possible step required here, and every possible way to keep as much as possible confidential. To believe or claim otherwise isbeyondinsane.If Apple submitted schematics, it’s because they had to.I would not take the lack of references to confidential schematics on other devices as evidence that there’s a way around the schematics requirement; it is likely an artifact of the way the application was filed or stored or scraped.

author: u666sa
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 06:27:58 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 02, 2025, 02:18:33 amOn component level, it's a multi thousand dollar per day business. Display and rear glass replacement, it's still good, but not as high as low level microscope work.How often does it happened to you? You paying 0.99 cents for Apple Cloud, and you getting e-mails that your phone can not be backed up, because you are over the limit. Clean up your phone or upgrade your iCloud subscription settings.Well, it happens all the time to people. Then some manage to drop their phone, and there you go, they end up paying you $180 or so for repair or data recovery.Then there are crowds who paid $1500 for a brand new phone, only to brake it couple of months later. I don't know how they do it, my 14 pro max don't even have a scratch on it two years in. But they manage to do it. There are a lot of people like that. They'd send it to Apple, but they'd lose their data, so they send it to you.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 06:55:19 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 05, 2025, 06:08:22 pmOr they just messed up and did not expect FCC to mess up. This god-like attribution for Apple is fascinating. They leak stuff all the time.It looks like Samsung also does not submit schematics. Apple just got played here.We'll see if they submit them for the next phone.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 08:02:56 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on October 05, 2025, 06:55:19 pmIt’s not god-like attribution, it’s recognition of Apple’s standard operating procedures, for which there are ample reliable sources. Not only does Apple keep information highly siloed within the company, but everything that goes out is vetted by marcom (the marketing & communication department, known for being Apple’sstasi) and/or the legal department. When I worked at Apple (just as a salesperson at a store, never mind someone with valuable inside knowledge) we literally were not allowed to let a customer see anything we printed out or wrote ourselves. All printed matter had to be marcom-approved in advance. Only store managers were allowed to send written correspondence.Apple itself doesn’t “leak stuff all the time”. It is consistently Apple’spartnersthat do, the companies (like accessory makers and suppliers, who by definition require advance access to confidential information) and organizations (like government agencies) that are leaky.And regardless, you missed my other point, which is that we don’t actually KNOW that Samsung didn’t submit schematics. The law suggests that they had to, and the absence of links to confidential documents does not prove their nonexistence.