or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple will use baseband from CDMA giant for iPhone 5 and iPad 2 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple will use baseband from CDMA giant for iPhone 5 and iPad 2 - report

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
A report out of the Far East early Thursday claims that Apple has decided on its lineup of component suppliers for the fifth-generation iPhone and second-generation iPad -- both of which will reportedly obtain baseband chips from CDMA inventor Qualcomm.

Rumors that Apple would dump Infineon chipsets in future versions of the iPhone began nearly a year ago when it was reported that Apple and Qualcomm met to discuss "future cooperation." Those sentiments were echoed once again, this time just three weeks ago when the Commercial Times pointed at Qualcomm-based iPhone 5.

Known largely as the inventor of CDMA -- the cellular standard behind the wireless networks of Verizon and Sprint -- Qualcomm has said it plans to produce dual-carrier chips that would enable future phones to work on both CDMA/EVDO carriers like Verizon and Sprint, as well as rival 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile.

Though the latest report Thursday by Taipei's Economic Daily News does not insinuate that the alleged Qualcomm design win will lead to a CDMA (Verizon or Sprint) iPhone, there have been other anecdotal pieces of evidence to that end, like AppleInsider's discovery of a cryptic "iPhone developer guru" job posting on the Qualcomm website in August.

Meanwhile, that same report also claims knowledge of over a half-dozen other iPhone 5 and iPad 2 component suppliers -- many of which have remained the same. They include: CPU from Samsung, Wi-Fi chip from Marvell, Flash memory from Intel, touch screen controller by Broadcom, audio chip from Wolfson, video display interface chip from National Semiconductor/Infineon, Bluetooth from CSR and power management from TI.
post #2 of 49
I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #3 of 49
to me it shows, Apple is in the driver's seat! And that's good for all of us!

AOL, Yahoo, Google, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, MS, Palm, Nokia, Verizon and Sony had their chance and they chose to sell 'cheap' plastic, creaky, crap with crappy OS's.

Thanks, Apple and thanks to Stevo for making the nerdy engineer produce something usable and worthwhile...

This will be his greatest accomplishment. He is the ultimate liaison bwtn, albeit, gifted programmers/engineers and the end users!

Best
post #4 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.

A cynic, but funny and apropos!
post #5 of 49
Hopefully this dispels the iPhone-Verizon rumors for January 2011. The timing of the Qualcomm hire and just the re-engineering required to make the chip fit and work points to a late Spring/Summer unveiling in either the iPhone or iPad.

I AM curious though about that "video processor" from National Semi/Infineon. I thought video was handled by the PowerVR core integrated into the A4 SoC. So what is this video processor they are referring to???
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.

You call a feature that allows a single phone to work on any carrier in the world useless?

Get real! It's the Universal Phone!

And, It would not surprise me if it reduced the cost of an iPhone or iPad -- 1 SKU, Parts Inventory, production facility for all carrier solutions.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #7 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post

I AM curious though about that "video processor" from National Semi/Infineon. I thought video was handled by the PowerVR core integrated into the A4 SoC. So what is this video processor they are referring to???

I went back and re-checked the translation. This should be more accurate:

video display interface chip

Not sure if that helps.
post #8 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

AOL, Yahoo, Google, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, MS, Palm, Nokia, Verizon and Sony had their chance and they chose to sell 'cheap' plastic, creaky, crap with crappy OS's.

Thanks, Apple and thanks to Stevo for making the nerdy engineer produce something usable and worthwhile...

So, what you are saying is, people that can't afford US$700 for a phone, don't deserve to own one?
post #9 of 49
Qualcomm has to produce dual capable chip sets or they will become obsolete. Without 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile Qualcomm will slowly disappear and force Sprint and even Verizon to switch over to UMTS/HSPA+ as their solution.
post #10 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Qualcomm has to produce dual capable chip sets or they will become obsolete. Without 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile Qualcomm will slowly disappear and force Sprint and even Verizon to switch over to UMTS/HSPA+ as their solution.

Total BS.

Qualcomm makes HSPA chips because they can make a lot of money. All the OTHER companies got obsolete as Qualcomm became the largest mobile technology company in the world.

The funny thing is that most of the GSM androids got Qualcomm chipsets and most of the Verizon androids got non-Qualcomm chipsets.
post #11 of 49
Yes, I have no desire to ever visit the US and paying to have this useless functionality is not something I am interested in.

Maybe a "world edition", such as Verizon uses for some of their phones, in order to give buyers a choice, would be a good option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You call a feature that allows a single phone to work on any carrier in the world useless?

Get real! It's the Universal Phone!

And, It would not surprise me if it reduced the cost of an iPhone or iPad -- 1 SKU, Parts Inventory, production facility for all carrier solutions.

.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #12 of 49
Dual carrier chip sets make sense and probably are the way to go as far as cutting production costs. Meanwhile, nine months to go and suppliers to come and go as features in the IPHONE5 are deleted & added.
post #13 of 49
I wouldn't be surprised if iPad 2.0 gets a CDMA option in January. Verizon's CEO is going to deliver a keynote speech at CES in January, and this would be a big enough deal for him to talk about. Bigger than whatever Android tablets they might have by then.

A CDMA iPad announcement in January would be a relatively safe and sane way to introduce Verizon into the mix. No contract, only a minimal amount of lock-in. And it would help build hype for a CDMA iPhone, if it were to be released next summer.

It just seems wrong for Apple to waste time and effort to build an iPhone that uses an increasingly obsolescent technology. On the other hand, Apple could make huge short-term profits, adding new customers (and eyeballs on iAds) in the time that CDMA still has left. But can Apple work their way into the "safe haven for Android" that Verizon has become?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yes, I have no desire to ever visit the US and paying to have this useless functionality is not something I am interested in. ...

China Telecom's 75 million subscribers use a variant of CDMA. And I hear it's used in Korea and other Asian nations too. And I'm sure they're less blatantly lock-in oriented than Verizon.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

China Telecom's 75 million subscribers use a variant of CDMA. And I hear it's used in Korea and other Asian nations too. And I'm sure they're less blatantly lock-in oriented than Verizon.

Those countries also have GSM/UMTS networks, so adding CDMAone support wouldn't gain you any roaming advantage.
post #16 of 49
Well, hello, 4G iPhone and iPad!

[4G is CDMA, whether you're on Verizon or AT&T.]
post #17 of 49
I hope Intel has been kept in the loop on this, I wouldn't want there to be bad tension between these two giants
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Well, hello, 4G iPhone and iPad!

[4G is CDMA, whether you're on Verizon or AT&T.]

4G is not CDMA. You are purposely confusing things.
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You call a feature that allows a single phone to work on any carrier in the world useless?

Get real! It's the Universal Phone!

And, It would not surprise me if it reduced the cost of an iPhone or iPad -- 1 SKU, Parts Inventory, production facility for all carrier solutions.

.

It technically is already a universal phone, GSM is used on 80% of networks worldwide (99.99% in Europe) and its also faster , if a Verizon phone came over here to the UK, it would not work, theres no CDMA networks over here.

One of the disadvantages of using Verizon, you can't roam.
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Well, hello, 4G iPhone and iPad!

[4G is CDMA, whether you're on Verizon or AT&T.]

4G is not CDMA.
post #21 of 49
So the next generation iphone will still be GSM only?
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

So, what you are saying is, people that can't afford US$700 for a phone, don't deserve to own one?

....Huh?
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

....Huh?

jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).

Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.

Regs, Jarkko
post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.

Here in Norway there is a law that requires all phone ads to include the total price in addition to the subsidised price (is this what the tea party guys would call socialism? ;o). Most ads display the total in smaller letters but you'll always be able to compare. What is often hidden though is the fact that the "subsidising" contract may include a higher minute price than the cheapest contracts, so there are still some calculation to do.
Off-topic: I've ordered a new iPhone4 directly from the Apple Store at 830 USD - a bit expensive but I get a very cheap contract on Tele2 (no monthly fee, 7 cents a minute. 3G data is 28 USD a month for 1 GB but free until January 2011 - and you can end the contract or remove the 3G data anytime you want, no termination fee).

BTW the Sony Ericssson Experia X10 mini still sells with Android 1.6. The entry price (15 cents) + contract is 270 USD, and this for a year-old operating system and only 128 MB of memory. Of course, you get what you pay for...
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Known largely as the inventor of CDMA -- the cellular standard behind the wireless networks of Verizon and Sprint

Qualcomm didn't invent CDMA, the US military did. Qualcomm developed a wireless "standard" on-top of CDMA called IS-95.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

4G is not CDMA. You are purposely confusing things.

LTE and WiMAX both use a CDMA air interface.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

LTE and WiMAX both use a CDMA air interface.

No they don't. LTE uses OFDMA in the downlink and SC-FDMA uplink. Quite different from CDMA.

WIMAX uses OFDMA in both directions

Regs, Jarkko
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yes, I have no desire to ever visit the US and paying to have this useless functionality is not something I am interested in.

Maybe a "world edition", such as Verizon uses for some of their phones, in order to give buyers a choice, would be a good option.

Last I checked, the world consisted of more countries than the US and wherever you're from.

And, how can it be useless if it allows Apple to reduce the cost to you, the end user?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A report out of the Far East early Thursday claims that Apple has decided on its lineup of component suppliers for the fifth-generation iPhone and second-generation iPad -- both of which will reportedly obtain baseband chips from CDMA inventor Qualcomm.

How would Far East know what Far West decides?

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #29 of 49
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499.

Apple's pricing is quite competitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).

Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.

Regs, Jarkko
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).

Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.

Regs, Jarkko

Is anyone confused?

We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.

A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.

C.
post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

No they don't. LTE uses OFDMA in the downlink and SC-FDMA uplink. Quite different from CDMA.

WIMAX uses OFDMA in both directionso

Thanks for the correction. You're right.
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Is anyone confused?

We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.

A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.

C.

Well judging from the ...huh? from one poster when jfanning mentioned that not everyone can afford a 700USD iPhone - Yes. Some are confused. Since you in the UK do have price transparency for the iPhone it is natural that you are not confused with the real price of the iPhone.

In countries where you cannot buy a device outright without subsidies, you'll have to look harder to see the real costs. This leads to confusion as is apparent in many of the threads on this forum when it comes to iPhone pricing.

Regs, Jarkko
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499.

Apple's pricing is quite competitive.

That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.

Following the original point, these users wouldn't afford the Galaxy S or N8 either, but they could possibly afford the "plasticky Nokia" 5230 (Nuron in the US) touch smartphone for example. Or the even cheaper non-touch phones.

The 700USD phones are nice for us priviledged, not so nice for the rest. Hundreds of millions of people are very thankful for the creaky plasticky phone's. That has nothing to do with competitive pricing, but a lot more with the target markets and the reasons why plasticky phones exist alongside metal and glass phones.

Regs, Jarkko
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.

I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.

Thompson
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.

Good point. For the original: Sorry in advance if I misinterpreted the huh?-response. I guess we all see text with our own preconceptions. And naturally all of this has everything to do with the CDMA iPhone

Regs, Jarkko
post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.

Assuming you're serious (and you might not be), I will say that it's unlikely that a CDMA/GSM iPhone will be sold to GSM-based carriers. It's unlikely that any economies of scale will offset the CDMA royalty fees in every dual-band iPhone. Also, any extra costs would probably be paid mostly by the carriers, not Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post

Hopefully this dispels the iPhone-Verizon rumors for January 2011. The timing of the Qualcomm hire and just the re-engineering required to make the chip fit and work points to a late Spring/Summer unveiling in either the iPhone or iPad.

There have been numerous reports on AI about a CDMA-based iPhone 4 coming in early 2011. Any Qualcomm hires may be to develop a small enough LTE-CDMA-UMTS "world" baseband, that it can fit in an iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Qualcomm has to produce dual capable chip sets or they will become obsolete. Without 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile Qualcomm will slowly disappear and force Sprint and even Verizon to switch over to UMTS/HSPA+ as their solution.

Not true, on three counts:

1. Verizon and Sprint aren't going to HSPA, but so-called "4G" technology. The CDMA carriers who went HSPA have sailed earlier; later adopters are doing 4G now.
2. Qualcomm has long made HSPA basebands, as noted earlier.
3. I can't think of a single country that has CDMA, but no GSM or UMTS. A CDMA/GSM iPhone is unnecessary with every single GSM carrier. The GSM capability makes it a "world" phone, in of itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

China Telecom's 75 million subscribers use a variant of CDMA. And I hear it's used in Korea and other Asian nations too. And I'm sure they're less blatantly lock-in oriented than Verizon.

Those countries also have GSM/UMTS networks, so adding CDMAone support wouldn't gain you any roaming advantage.

Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.

As for roaming: Sure, there are some people who could travel to multiple countries worldwide, but most people in the Americas and Asia will usually travel within their own continent. Most countries in each of those continents have CDMA, especially in North America. So those who buy a CDMA iPhone, and know what they're doing, won't regret their purchase when it's time to travel.
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.

Thompson

What severe interpretation?

They said

Quote:
o me it shows, Apple is in the driver's seat! And that's good for all of us!

AOL, Yahoo, Google, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, MS, Palm, Nokia, Verizon and Sony had their chance and they chose to sell 'cheap' plastic, creaky, crap with crappy OS's.

Thanks, Apple and thanks to Stevo for making the nerdy engineer produce something usable and worthwhile...

This will be his greatest accomplishment. He is the ultimate liaison bwtn, albeit, gifted programmers/engineers and the end users!

Best

My interpretation is still correct. The majority of the worlds population cannot afford an iPhone, or Galaxy, or N8, or what every other US$700 priced phone you want to list. If it wasn't for these cheaper phones then these users wouldn't have any cellphones. So why should these people thank "Stevo" for making something worthwhile when it (and the others in the same price range) are useless to them?
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.

In a couple of countries, sure, but Apple doesn't seem to be having any issues selling a GSM/UMTS based unit in those countries now.
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499.

Apple's pricing is quite competitive.

As usual you are off on the wrong track. But why do strange comparisions like that, you start quoting pounds, then move to another country for euro. Different countries, different pricing.

I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.

Since today, the 16GB iPhone 4 is 589 (800USD) unlocked wihtout contract. 32GB is 689 (the 936USD). Competitiveness depends on the individual's criterias for what fueature's and functionalities they value and by how muchI guess.

Regs, Jarkko
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple will use baseband from CDMA giant for iPhone 5 and iPad 2 - report
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple will use baseband from CDMA giant for iPhone 5 and iPad 2 - report