or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple may abandon Intel's Infineon chips in next iPhone - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may abandon Intel's Infineon chips in next iPhone - report

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
The next iPhone may forgo an Infineon baseband chip in favor of one from Qualcomm, according to an unconfirmed report.

The Commercial Times reported (Google translation) earlier this week that Infineon will not provide the baseband chip for the fifth-generation iPhone. Infineon's wireless unit was sold to Intel for $1.4 billion in August.

According to the report, the next-generation Apple smartphone, which is expected next year, will still be manufactured by the Hon Hai Group and Foxconn, and will include a Qualcomm baseband chip this time around.

A move away from Infineon would break with precedent. Infineon has supplied Apple with the baseband chip for the iPad 3G and all of the Cupertino, Calif., company's iPhone models since the smartphone was first released in 2007.

There has been little indication of trouble in the relationship between Infineon and Apple. After the Intel-Infineon deal, Intel CEO Paul Otellini told Fox Business that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was "very happy" with it.

On the other hand, relations between Apple and Intel have been tense as of late. Otellini made comments earlier this week criticizing the newly released Apple TV as a "step backward," especially when compared to the Intel-powered Google TV products set to be released this month.

A Qualcomm broadband chip would match rumors that Apple is developing a CDMA iPhone. Qualcomm invented the now widely-used CDMA technology. A cryptic "iPhone developer guru" job posting on the Qualcomm website in August claimed that respondents would work on "the most challenging product" of their lives.

Several analysts see a switch to Qualcomm by Apple as the right move. In light of the Intel-Infineon deal, "Apple may want to diversify its supplier base to reduce dependency on a single supplier," said Manikandan Raman with the Motley Fool.

With a dominant 69 percent share of the CDMA mobile phone chipset market, Qualcomm would be the "logical choice" to help Apple expand to other networks, said Barclays Capital analyst Andrew Gardiner. "Infineon's wireless unit doesn't offer chips for CDMA technology."
post #2 of 55
Steve Jobs is happy that Intel bought Infineon, but according to this unconfirmed report, apple may soon abandon Intel's Infineon chips for the next generation iphone? am i missing something?
post #3 of 55
I saw this coming. We might see Apple buy Qualcomm too.
post #4 of 55
I doubt it is one or the other. They may use Infineon for AT&T and Qualcomm for Verizon. Intel will still have the larger slice of the pie because GSM is more popular worldwide. If Qualcomm managed to make a "world" chip, things might be different though.
post #5 of 55
While the report makes it sound like Apple is leaving Infineon as a result of the Intel buyout, it was probably going to happen anyway. Qualcomm has a combo chip capable of both GSM and CDMA use. Assuming Apple doesn't want to fragment it's handset market by introducing a separate CDMA-only phone, and assuming that a two-chip solution is out of the question, AND assuming that Apple does indeed want to get into CDMA carriers, then we are left to ASSUME that they are going with Qualcomm because Qualcomm has the tech that Apple needs. Therefore, Intel's buyout of Infineon really has no significant bearing on the issue.
post #6 of 55
First off iPhone 5 has been in development for some time by now.

Second even if Apple use the qualcom hardware in iPone5 the still have other products using 3G.

Third there is no reason for Apple to create bad blood with Intel. Sure Intel has been very stupid of late with their policies but you deal with that by buying AMD chips.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I doubt it is one or the other. They may use Infineon for AT&T and Qualcomm for Verizon. Intel will still have the larger slice of the pie because GSM is more popular worldwide. If Qualcomm managed to make a "world" chip, things might be different though.

You mean like this one?

http://news.cnet.com/Qualcomm-goes-g..._3-965521.html
post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

I saw this coming. We might see Apple buy Qualcomm too.

Unlikely. Qualcomm is a conglomerate with a very complex corporate hierarchy. Apple's MO is to purchase cheaper, smaller upstarts to both save money, and reduce organizational complexity.

The only large company I can see Apple buying is Cortex-ARM, and only to prevent Intel from getting their hands on it. Why? So Intel doesn't muck up the ARM intellectual property in the same way that Microsoft bungled up the Danger OS, and some are worried that HP will bungle Palm WebOS. Large companies like Microsoft and Intel have been known to mix in their proprietary, inferior products into the lean, fast item they purchased -- and mess up the product.

Apple's all-in with the ARM processor in the mobile device market. Apple also believes that mobile devices are the future of computing. Converting to another processor type would be incredibly expensive and time-consuming. It would also require a cross-compiler in every new iPhone that would slow down apps in much the same way as Rosetta did in Intel Macs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post

Steve Jobs is happy that Intel bought Infineon, but according to this unconfirmed report, apple may soon abandon Intel's Infineon chips for the next generation iphone? am i missing something?

Qualcomm is the world sales leader in baseband chips for CDMA phones. Apple is making a CDMA version of the iPhone. Qualcomm offers economies of scale to Apple that no other CDMA baseband maker can provide.

On top of this, Qualcomm also makes very high-quality UMTS/HSPA basebands. It would be cheaper for Apple to go Qualcomm with those basebands, too, and get an even greater economy of scale than they could with Infineon for UMTS basebands, and Qualcomm for CDMA ones. It's all about the Benjamins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I doubt it is one or the other. They may use Infineon for AT&T and Qualcomm for Verizon. Intel will still have the larger slice of the pie because GSM is more popular worldwide. If Qualcomm managed to make a "world" chip, things might be different though.

In time, the world chip is possible. But from what I've heard, the first CDMA iPhone will be CDMA-only. At best, it will have basic 2100 MHz UMTS support, akin to the BlackBerry Tour. Their current multi-band UMTS-CDMA chips are too big for the iPhone, at this time.
post #9 of 55
Also, let's not forget that Qualcomm also makes LTE chips as well (they already make GSM/CDMA dual chips, such as those found in Verizon World phones) that are compatible with GSM, CDMA, and LTE networks. This is the infrastructure that Verizon Wireless is supposed to be deploying, starting late this year.
post #10 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post

Steve Jobs is happy that Intel bought Infineon, but according to this unconfirmed report, apple may soon abandon Intel's Infineon chips for the next generation iphone? am i missing something?

You missed the conversation between Otellini of Intel and Jobs:

Otellini: "Mr. Jobs, Intel is acquiring Infineon's mobil chip division"

Jobs: "muahahahahahahaha, aaaaaahahahahahaha, muahahahaha"

Otellini: "I am glad to know that you are happy about this"
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

At best, it will have basic 2100 MHz UMTS support, akin to the BlackBerry Tour. The current multi-band UMTS-CDMA chips are too big for the iPhone, at this time.

That's assuming that it had 3G on GSM networks which it may or may not have. The quad-band 2.5G chips that Qualcomm uses is actually small enough for the iPhone. You are right in that their multi-band UMTS-CDMA chips are quite large for the iPhone. But, that's assuming we're talking about what they have out that we know of. For all we know, they may have a smaller one.
post #12 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post


Qualcomm is the world sales leader in baseband chips for CDMA phones. Apple is making a CDMA version of the iPhone. Qualcomm offers economies of scale to Apple that no other CDMA baseband maker can provide.

On top of this, Qualcomm also makes very high-quality UMTS/HSPA basebands. It would be cheaper for Apple to go Qualcomm with those basebands, too, and get an even greater economy of scale than they could with Infineon for UMTS basebands, and Qualcomm for CDMA ones. It's all about the Benjamins.

i see
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

You missed the conversation between Otellini of Intel and Jobs:

Otellini: "Mr. Jobs, Intel is acquiring Infineon's mobil chip division"

Jobs: "muahahahahahahaha, aaaaaahahahahahaha, muahahahaha"

Otellini: "I am glad to know that you are happy about this"

post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezgno View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

At best, it will have basic 2100 MHz UMTS support, akin to the BlackBerry Tour. Their current multi-band UMTS-CDMA chips are too big for the iPhone, at this time.

That's assuming that it had 3G on GSM networks which it may or may not have. The quad-band 2.5G chips that Qualcomm uses is actually small enough for the iPhone. You are right in that their multi-band UMTS-CDMA chips are quite large for the iPhone. But, that's assuming we're talking about what they have out that we know of. For all we know, they may have a smaller one.

On that last point, perhaps that's what Qualcomm meant by this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A cryptic "iPhone developer guru" job posting on the Qualcomm website in August claimed that respondents would work on "the most challenging product" of their lives.

I don't believe that there is a multi-standard chipset now that can fit the needs of the iPhone. Not now. Plus there will be the need to fit LTE in there, someday. Fit multiband LTE, HSPA+, and CDMA support, all into the space of a current Infineon HSPA/UMTS baseband, with acceptable power efficiency? Sounds like a pretty challenging product.

In the meantime, there is no need for a multi-band GSM radio to get into a CDMA iPhone. No CDMA phone I know of has such support. Basic, single-band 2100 MHz UMTS support is enough to satisfy the needs of international business travelers. That band of that standard is found in practically every major city outside of the Americas (and a few in the Americas, especially in Brazil).

I figure that the next-gen iPhone will have two versions:

Version one for CDMA carriers.
Quad-band 800/850/1900/2100 MHz EVDO Rev. B and Voice over Rev. A.
2100 MHz UMTS support (perhaps)
No GSM support of any kind.

Version two for UMTS carriers.
Quad-band 800/900/1800/1900 MHz GSM/GPRS/EDGE.
Six-band 800/850/900/1700/1900/2100 MHz UMTS/HSPA+
No CDMA support of any kind.
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

You missed the conversation between Otellini of Intel and Jobs:

Otellini: "Mr. Jobs, Intel is acquiring Infineon's mobil chip division"

Jobs: "muahahahahahahaha, aaaaaahahahahahaha, muahahahaha"

Otellini: "I am glad to know that you are happy about this"

Nice one.
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

I saw this coming. We might see Apple buy Qualcomm too.

You saw nothing coming and that will never happen.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #16 of 55
If Apple change to Qualcomm it will be due to pricing or qualcomm are doing something custom for Apple that infineon won't do.
post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

In the meantime, there is no need for a multi-band GSM radio to get into a CDMA iPhone. No CDMA phone I know of has such support.

Actually, this is an incorrect statement. The Blackberry Tour, for example, is a multi-band GSM/CDMA phone (I used to own this phone). Taken directly from its specs page:

Quad-band: 850/900/1800/1900MHz GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks
Single-band: 2100MHz UMTS/HSPA networks
Dual-band: 800/1900MHz CDMA/EVDO Rev A networks

I think that what you were meaning is that there isn't a CDMA phone that contains multi-band GSM 3G.
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post

While the report makes it sound like Apple is leaving Infineon as a result of the Intel buyout, it was probably going to happen anyway. Qualcomm has a combo chip capable of both GSM and CDMA use. Assuming Apple doesn't want to fragment it's handset market by introducing a separate CDMA-only phone, and assuming that a two-chip solution is out of the question, AND assuming that Apple does indeed want to get into CDMA carriers, then we are left to ASSUME that they are going with Qualcomm because Qualcomm has the tech that Apple needs. Therefore, Intel's buyout of Infineon really has no significant bearing on the issue.

Yes, this has been the rumor for some time now. It makes me wonder whether Intel was thinking about that, or whether it didn't cross their mind.

If Jobs was asked about this deal first, as seems to be the case, it would be odd if they didn't also discuss what Apple might be doing next. I hope for Intel's sake that they didn't buy the company with the expectation that Apple would continue to be a big slice of the business, only to find they've abandoned it. And I hope that if this rumor is true, it isn't true just because Intel bought it. This would be too big a move for Apple to just be doing it out of pique.
post #19 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

First off iPhone 5 has been in development for some time by now.

Second even if Apple use the qualcom hardware in iPone5 the still have other products using 3G.

Third there is no reason for Apple to create bad blood with Intel. Sure Intel has been very stupid of late with their policies but you deal with that by buying AMD chips.

What policies of Intel have been stupid of late?
post #20 of 55
Quote:
On the other hand, relations between Apple and Intel have been tense as of late. Otellini made comments earlier this week criticizing the newly released Apple TV as a "step backward," especially when compared to the Intel-powered Google TV products set to be released this month.

So according to Intel, if they're not Inside, it's a piece of crap.
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

So according to Intel, if they're not Inside, it's a piece of crap.

Well this past year the most significant Intel thing is my Macbook 2ghz Alu. My PC desktop (in hibernation now) is a nice AMD+ATI gaming rig, I've got my iPhone 3GS, my iPad and my satellite TV box ... All these, Intel-free, of course.

Intel is far from threatened but the storm is brewing on the horizon. They missed the mobility boat. They actually missed the GPU boat but luckily Sandy Bridge will save their ass, plus GPU computing has become less critical a focus when compared to mobile/tablet computing.
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post


I figure that the next-gen iPhone will have two versions:

Version one for CDMA carriers.
Quad-band 800/850/1900/2100 MHz EVDO Rev. B and Voice over Rev. A.
2100 MHz UMTS support (perhaps)
No GSM support of any kind.

Version two for UMTS carriers.
Quad-band 800/900/1800/1900 MHz GSM/GPRS/EDGE.
Six-band 800/850/900/1700/1900/2100 MHz UMTS/HSPA+
No CDMA support of any kind.

Hopefully, Qualcomm has a firmware load for each of these modes and the SAME SKU will be able to be activated as in either mode. That would be very APPLE and keep the costs down for Apple and the consumer.
post #23 of 55
why didn't otellini simply keep his mouth shut.

the guy is in charge of a company that bats for many teams
why put your relationship with a client in jeopardy over something like this.

better to say nothing, imo.
post #24 of 55
So Steve was quite evil when he said that he was happy with the deal. I guess he was happy that intel was spending money on a dud, and would still be shut out of iPhone/iPad business even after spending some cash.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #25 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoloszynski View Post

Hopefully, Qualcomm has a firmware load for each of these modes and the SAME SKU will be able to be activated as in either mode. That would be very APPLE and keep the costs down for Apple and the consumer.

If worldmode phones were a real benefit to companies there would probably be a lot more focus on these phones, but as it stands now they are few and far between with too many cons compared to pros to discuss here.

To put simply, there are cost, size, power and frequency band hurdles to overcome, and the only one Apple an easily tackle compared to all the other mobile vendors is cost since their economy of sale on a premium smartphone model is so substanial.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #26 of 55
If Apple goes with QCOM CDMA chipset for the Verizon phones, they would have to pay an average of 5.5% royalties... about $30/phone. No royalties to the UMTS group if the phone has no 3G/UMTS features. That is a savings compared to the $40-50/phone Apple pays now to the UMTS group.

Going with a world phone would increase costs for hardware as other components would change too... plus royalties. It would sense only for the Verizon, Sprint and other CDMA carriers, in order to gain incremental $$$. Not as a global world phone... since CDMA is small market now worldwide.
post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD;

If Apple goes with QCOM CDMA chipset for the Verizon phones, they would have to pay an average of 5.5% royalties... about $30/phone. No royalties to the UMTS group if the phone has no 3G/UMTS features. That is a savings compared to the $40-50/phone Apple pays now to the UMTS group.

Going with a world phone would increase costs for hardware as other components would change too... plus royalties. It would sense only for the Verizon, Sprint and other CDMA carriers, in order to gain incremental $$$. Not as a global world phone... since CDMA is small market now worldwide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;

If worldmode phones were a real benefit to companies there would probably be a lot more focus on these phones, but as it stands now they are few and far between with too many cons compared to pros to discuss here.

To put simply, there are cost, size, power and frequency band hurdles to overcome, and the only one Apple an easily tackle compared to all the other mobile vendors is cost since their economy of sale on a premium smartphone model is so substanial.

I think too that it is unlikely there will be a super jumbo world iPhone 5. There would simply be a separate CDMA version. Or CDMA+4G(?)...
post #28 of 55
Who cares what chip powers the baseband. The goal is to make the most reliable phone, reception wise.
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Who cares what chip powers the baseband. The goal is to make the most reliable phone, reception wise.

Well Apple have already achieved that.
post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

We might see Apple buy Qualcomm too.

Sure, I always buy a cow if I want milk for my coffee too.
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You saw nothing coming and that will never happen.

Lol.

I was scrolling down really quick. Then saw Ireland and knew I had to read it.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

The only large company I can see Apple buying is Cortex-ARM, and only to prevent Intel from getting their hands on it. Why? So Intel doesn't muck up the ARM intellectual property in the same way that Microsoft bungled up the Danger OS, and some are worried that HP will.

You mean ARM Holdings? Actually Apple was part of the creation of ARM and ARM Holdings and then sold off its stock after Jobs return
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezgno View Post

........ But, that's assuming we're talking about what they have out that we know of. For all we know, they may have a smaller one.

Apple could easily build a phone to accomodate the chipset. I find it difficult to believe that they are wedded to the current form. In fact it is in Apples best interests to bring new designs to the market. Besides us older folks like bigger screens and it really doesn't take much to make a difference. If you spread the same number of pixels out over a screen that is maybe a half inch longer and 3/8" higher (whatever to maintain the current ratio) everything becomes bigger on screen without a significant drop in quality. No software mods are required.

Plus a bigger iPhone offeres up the possibilities of more flash, an SD slot or a larger battery. With careful engineering the phone would only get wider, that is bigger in the short dimension.

All this talk about chips is inyeresting but I'm very surprised that people who understand these issues would think that iPhone dimensions are set in stone.


Dave
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple could easily build a phone to accomodate the chipset. I find it difficult to believe that they are wedded to the current form. In fact it is in Apples best interests to bring new designs to the market. Besides us older folks like bigger screens and it really doesn't take much to make a difference. If you spread the same number of pixels out over a screen that is maybe a half inch longer and 3/8" higher (whatever to maintain the current ratio) everything becomes bigger on screen without a significant drop in quality. No software mods are required.

Plus a bigger iPhone offeres up the possibilities of more flash, an SD slot or a larger battery. With careful engineering the phone would only get wider, that is bigger in the short dimension.

All this talk about chips is inyeresting but I'm very surprised that people who understand these issues would think that iPhone dimensions are set in stone.

I think its unrealistic to think Apple could alter the iPhones display size and/ratio without also creating a new UI for it. This is Apple were talking about, not a vendor using Android OS.

Case in point, this is the company that created a new font for the iPhone 4s display that didnt alter the ratio or increase the display size, only increased the number of pixels. Helvetica is perfectly fine on the iPhone 4 but they wanted a new font for the display, so I cant imagine Apple being okay with everything being larger and more spread out on a larger display. Its just not what Apple does.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If worldmode phones were a real benefit to companies there would probably be a lot more focus on these phones, but as it stands now they are few and far between with too many cons compared to pros to discuss here.

For some companies or departments there of it could be huge. It would mean connectivity anywhere in the world with cell phone service. By the way, yes there are places with no service at all.

The cons are that such a phone doesn't exist right at the moment. The other thing is the need for unlocked phones and decent international plans. Even today it takes planning ahead if a company expects to have people traveling internationally.
Quote:
To put simply, there are cost, size, power and frequency band hurdles to overcome,

Absolutely correct, but remember the same technology shrinks that gave Apple their A4 chip also apply to the other chips in a cell phone. Especially when many of those chips contain embedded ARM processors to begin with. So what might have been expensive a year or two ago could be very possible today. Note expensive could mean power, $$$$ or board realestate.
Quote:
and the only one Apple an easily tackle compared to all the other mobile vendors is cost since their economy of sale on a premium smartphone model is so substanial.

Nope technology improvements will eventually move most of the baseband processing right onto the main SoC. In fact Qualcom, I believe, once had a pic on their site showing such an arraingement. The main processor in this case was a dual core chip with one core dedicated to a realtime kernel and baseband processing.

I have to believe that Apples long term goal is to pull as much technology as possible into their SoC. Especially considering that process shrinks will give them much more room than they will need even for a quad core. One must remember that ARM cores are extremely small, it would not take much effort to put one on die for baseband processing or other chores. A4 is a very good first effort, but frankly it is just a start, I'm certain that Apple is close to an even more capable processor that will simply be one step towards a very capable chip for cell phones, iPads and the like. So Apple is tackling a lot more than just volume here, they are engineering a future built on ARM technology.
post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Besides us older folks like bigger screens and it really doesn't take much to make a difference.
.......

All this talk about chips is inyeresting but I'm very surprised that people who understand these issues would think that iPhone dimensions are set in stone.

On paper, that sounds fine. However, a lot of apps and games have been designed to work specifically with the standardized 3.5" screen. Changing the screen size may mess things up for them. But who knows; if Apple makes two iPad versions (a 7" and a 9"), then who knows where my argument will go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post

You mean ARM Holdings? Actually Apple was part of the creation of ARM and ARM Holdings and then sold off its stock after Jobs return

Yes, that ARM. I can't blame Apple for dumping ARM when it did; no one could have known where the technology would have gone. It would seem stupid to the layman, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I think too that it is unlikely there will be a super jumbo world iPhone 5. There would simply be a separate CDMA version. Or CDMA+4G(?)...

If you mean Sprint 4G: WiMax is completely unrelated to LTE. Apple only wants to develop for established technology. WiMax isn't it, yet. It may never be. If you mean Verizon 4G/LTE, I figure Apple will wait until chipsets get more power-efficient than they are, now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

If Apple goes with QCOM CDMA chipset for the Verizon phones, they would have to pay an average of 5.5% royalties... about $30/phone. No royalties to the UMTS group if the phone has no 3G/UMTS features. That is a savings compared to the $40-50/phone Apple pays now to the UMTS group.

Going with a world phone would increase costs for hardware as other components would change too... plus royalties. It would sense only for the Verizon, Sprint and other CDMA carriers, in order to gain incremental $$$. Not as a global world phone... since CDMA is small market now worldwide.

The fact that UMTS+GSM is a global technology makes it understandable that no CDMA+UMTS phone would be made for UMTS carriers.

As for CDMA carriers, business travelers become a factor; they are quite the iPhone customer. The only business travelers who wouldn't have any issues with a CDMA-only device are those that stay within nations that have CDMA systems. That's basically central Asia, the Americas, some parts of eastern Europe, Israel, and a few African nations. Anywhere else, and a form of GSM becomes a necessity; 2100 MHz UMTS would be the best way to do that.

On the other hand, it's possible that demand for CDMA iPhones would be so high, every CDMA iPhone would be sold just fine to those who won't ever stray out of CDMA territory. And how many people interested in buying CDMA iPhones would regularly travel internationally, anyway? Five percent? Ten percent? So those factors, along with the royalty issues, would make it logical to not load any UMTS into a CDMA iPhone.

However, I would think that Steve would try to cover his bases here, just in case he'd need to. Or put it this way: Steve's willing to use IPS displays when he doesn't have to, and not doing it would pad profit margins. Why does he use them, then? Purely because he wants to make the user experience as good as it can be.
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think its unrealistic to think Apple could alter the iPhones display size and/ratio without also creating a new UI for it. This is Apple were talking about, not a vendor using Android OS.

I'm not talking about altering the ratio, rather just making the screen slightly bigger to accomodate more stuff inside. This in response to the idea that a world phone would not have room for the hardware. That might very well be the case for the current iPhone but i don't think that size is engraved in stone at Apple.

And no this is not a new UI and niether is a UI new if you add a new font to it. IPhone 4's UI is the same as the old phones it is just running on a higher resolution display.
Quote:

Case in point, this is the company that created a new font for the iPhone 4s display that didnt alter the ratio or increase the display size, only increased the number of pixels. Helvetica is perfectly fine on the iPhone 4 but they wanted a new font for the display, so I cant imagine Apple being okay with everything being larger and more spread out on a larger display. Its just not what Apple does.

First off; we need to discount this idea that the new font was created soley to support the new display. Apple could have had any number of reasons for including a new font.

Second; looking bigger is exactly what I want as a customer. The modest size increases we are talking about here would still leave us with very high resolution screens. In the end the text might be a few thousands of an inch bigger, pics would actually look better in my opinion and absolutely nothing would change API wise nor would any apps have to change. Frankly it would be like going from a 17" to an 18" screen on the desktop back in the day when the pixel count would have been the same. Everything is just a bit bigger.

In a nut shell if there is a need for more room, in iPhone, to accomodate a different chipset it isn't a problem. That is my point. Just make everything slightly bigger. We are only talking about fractions of an inch here to give you the area needed. The fact that some of us would like a bigger screen is just another positive.

As to what Apple does and what makes sense please look at the iPod lineup. I think your imagination runs away here, apple does what a given technology will allow them to do at any point in time. I'm sure if it was possible Apple would dispense with the screen altogether and pump the image right into our visual cortex. That tech is for tomorrow but these days screens rule.
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not talking about altering the ratio, rather just making the screen slightly bigger to accomodate more stuff inside. This in response to the idea that a world phone would not have room for the hardware. That might very well be the case for the current iPhone but i don't think that size is engraved in stone at Apple.

And no this is not a new UI and niether is a UI new if you add a new font to it. IPhone 4's UI is the same as the old phones it is just running on a higher resolution display.

First off; we need to discount this idea that the new font was created soley to support the new display. Apple could have had any number of reasons for including a new font.

Second; looking bigger is exactly what I want as a customer. The modest size increases we are talking about here would still leave us with very high resolution screens. In the end the text might be a few thousands of an inch bigger, pics would actually look better in my opinion and absolutely nothing would change API wise nor would any apps have to change. Frankly it would be like going from a 17" to an 18" screen on the desktop back in the day when the pixel count would have been the same. Everything is just a bit bigger.

In a nut shell if there is a need for more room, in iPhone, to accomodate a different chipset it isn't a problem. That is my point. Just make everything slightly bigger. We are only talking about fractions of an inch here to give you the area needed. The fact that some of us would like a bigger screen is just another positive.

As to what Apple does and what makes sense please look at the iPod lineup. I think your imagination runs away here, apple does what a given technology will allow them to do at any point in time. I'm sure if it was possible Apple would dispense with the screen altogether and pump the image right into our visual cortex. That tech is for tomorrow but these days screens rule.

There is absolutely no precedence for Apple weakening their iOS UI to accommodate those who want larger buttons, and plenty of things to point to that show Apple cares about the UI in their iOS devices. You’ve created no viable argument that they would destroy this part of their business model to copy Android phones with larger displays.

On top of that Apple could allow for more internal space by not making their devices thinner and thinner, but this is, again, is something that has plenty of precedence within Apple, and not just win iOS-based devices.

BTW, I have yet to see a real “world mode” phone. Every one that supports GSM and CDMA has been huge battery sucking device that does not support any GSM anything other than Japan and Europe. It doesn’t matter if you have CDMA/GSM/CDMA2000/WCDMA/LTE chips if you don’t support all the radio needed for the world. In other words, Apple would have add even more chips to support all the other networks they current support than Verizon’s “world mode” phones are ignoring.

Apple doesn’t have a background of making these TARDIS radio chips. Apple is just a company and they still have to work within the confined of the physical universe. They can use more money to engineer smaller devices but that also has its limits.

PS: Didn’t Helvetica Neue arrive for the iPhone 4, and isn’t it still Helvetica Neue for only the iOS 4.x devices with a Retina Display? If so, then how you can say that Helvetica Neue was not used because of the new display if it’s only used in the devices with the new display? What other reasons could there be?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

On paper, that sounds fine. However, a lot of apps and games have been designed to work specifically with the standardized 3.5" screen. Changing the screen size may mess things up for them. But who knows; if Apple makes two iPad versions (a 7" and a 9"), then who knows where my argument will go.

I thought I was pretty clear in the original post but obviously people aren't reading for content here. I said a bigger screen stuffed into a slightly large iPhone the ration and pixel count can remain the same. There is zero impact on developers this way. Unless of course developers didn't follow Apples guidelines, frankly screw them as I'm tired of hearing about developers that can't read.
Quote:
Yes, that ARM. I can't blame Apple for dumping ARM when it did; no one could have known where the technology would have gone. It would seem stupid to the layman, though.

It wasn't a case of dumping ARM but rather selling stock to help keep Apple afloat. For the most part ARM has been very successful with their approach to processor design. It likely wasn't easy for Apple to sell that stock as they where directly involved in the creation of ARM.
Quote:
If you mean Sprint 4G: WiMax is completely unrelated to LTE. Apple only wants to develop for established technology. WiMax isn't it, yet. It may never be. If you mean Verizon 4G/LTE, I figure Apple will wait until chipsets get more power-efficient than they are, now.

There is also no sense in delivering products when there is littke in the way of established services. Of course we are on the edge of that availability curve right now. Even the current 4G chips will be fine in something like iPad.
Quote:
The fact that UMTS+GSM is a global technology makes it understandable that no CDMA+UMTS phone would be made for UMTS carriers.

How is that?

GSM is no more global than CDMA. Besides that almost everybody is going to LTE. In the end the customer should really be the end user not the carrier, this unfortunately is where the industry is currently screwed up. Even worst is the need for congressional action. There is not a chance in hell of the current congress cleaning up the telecomunnications mess.
Quote:
As for CDMA carriers, business travelers become a factor; they are quite the iPhone customer. The only business travelers who wouldn't have any issues with a CDMA-only device are those that stay within nations that have CDMA systems. That's basically central Asia, the Americas, some parts of eastern Europe, Israel, and a few African nations. Anywhere else, and a form of GSM becomes a necessity; 2100 MHz UMTS would be the best way to do that.

So you are confirming the need for a flexible cell phone? Mind you the demand isn't huge but these are the same people that would be willing to pay more for that flexibility.
Quote:
On the other hand, it's possible that demand for CDMA iPhones would be so high, every CDMA iPhone would be sold just fine to those who won't ever stray out of CDMA territory.

That is silly as we all know that CDMA phones sell just fine now.
Quote:
And how many people interested in buying CDMA iPhones would regularly travel internationally, anyway? Five percent? Ten percent? So those factors, along with the royalty issues, would make it logical to not load any UMTS into a CDMA iPhone.

Nope! For the people wanting that flexibility they would gladly pay for it. So what if the phone costs $50 extra. Besides the big problem isn't the flexibility of the radio, but rather the locked nature of the phone. Unless you have a really good international calling plan, you need an unlocked phone for long term international deployment.
Quote:
However, I would think that Steve would try to cover his bases here, just in case he'd need to. Or put it this way: Steve's willing to use IPS displays when he doesn't have to, and not doing it would pad profit margins.

I have no idea what you are trying to say above.

Steve most likely went to IPS because just about every cell phone out there had outclassed the old iPhones screen. In a way by going with this screen, Apple eliminated screens as a competitive factor. After all what can the competition do, say they have higher resolution dispkays but you can't see it?
Quote:
Why does he use them, then? Purely because he wants to make the user experience as good as it can be.

More likely it wants to be able to compete on his terms. With the current iPhone 4 screen the competition can't effectively sell higher resolution screens. All Apple simply has to say is that you can't see any better and look at all these other features we have. So Apple doesn't have to worry about the screen for awhile and can direct the marketing machine at points that the competition can't quickly address.

In many ways iPhone 4 is Apple at its best, they lead in directions others have a hard time following.
post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I thought I was pretty clear in the original post but obviously people aren't reading for content here. I said a bigger screen stuffed into a slightly large iPhone the ration and pixel count can remain the same. There is zero impact on developers this way. Unless of course developers didn't follow Apples guidelines, frankly screw them as I'm tired of hearing about developers that can't read.

[…]

You’re not thinking this through from anyone’s PoV, especially not Apple’s which is the only one that really matters here.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple may abandon Intel's Infineon chips in next iPhone - report