or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung testing 5G wireless technology that can download entire movies in seconds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung testing 5G wireless technology that can download entire movies in seconds - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

And how many tens of years will it be before this is implemented in a wide scale. There are many areas of the US still not connected with 3G, let alone 5G depending on what carrier you have. While the technology sounds great, if its expensive as hell then I don't see anyone using it anytime soon. Where I live, if you have anything other than Verizon you're stuck on 2G and I don't live out in the boondocks either. 

In my opinion, the US STILL is not ready for high-bandwidth data. Its a challenge to stream videos sometimes on AppleTV. Yes, some of it may be Apple, but it can't always be Apple or some other service. The network bandwidth just isn't there in the US yet. With this 3D thing going on, I'd like to see people stream 3D movies on the fly...see how that works out. I bet it will be a major flop!

Those areas might leap frog to 5G. Some countries go from being vastly behind to superior service.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

OK think about it like this. Some day you will hit a brick wall in terms of bandwidth usage, because your eye does not have infinite resolution.

 

All services now, and all services that may be thought up in the future, will all require that they be presented to the eye (the eye being the greater bandwidth user of all the senses). 

 

Stream at 'retina' quality and you can present ANY service you will ever think of.


Edited by monstrosity - 5/13/13 at 7:48am
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmobius View Post

 

Without an upgrade to infrastructure, technology stagnates. 

 

You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."

 

No one's going to develop consumer technologies that require 100mbps Internet connections if those 100mbps connections show no promise of high adoption.

Oh jog on.

post #44 of 100

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/24/13 at 10:48am
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

 

I was just thinking the same thing.  Wireless service needs a new business model: one which isn't funded (extorted) by bandwidth caps and roaming fees, but also not by personal information harvesting and targeted advertising.  Perhaps by hardware sales...

How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I recall musing on AI a year or two ago that one day the internet will be so fast we will cease even thinking about download speeds just as we didn't when watching an analog TV show in the past, it was 'just there'. We are getting closer.

 

I hope you're right. At the moment mobile still faces an obstacle greater than speed: coverage. Even within big cities there are dead spots (not to mention subways that inexplicably don't have repeaters), and once you're outside a major metropolitan area there's only old, slow technology.

 

So, like you say, maybe some day, but it'll take more than a Samsung or Qualcomm developing faster transmission/reception methods. We'll need infrastructure to support it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

[...] Adequate speed to stream in high res video is all that most will care for.

 

I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!

post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


gibiBIT for the tech v. gibiBYTE for how how iSP charges you, so you'd need to get 80 seconds of unwanted video for your scenario.

Yes, Okay, I am guilty of giving an approximation.  I admit I was off. But not as far off as you...

 

From the AI story:

"Samsung says has achieved download and upload speeds of tens of gigabits per second (Gbps)"

 

From Verizon Wireless's website:

"Data overage is $15 per 1GB of data if you go over your plan allowance."

 

(10Gb/s) / 8 = 1.25 GB/s.

(1.25 GB/s) x 10 s = 12.5 GB.

($15/GB) x 12.5 = $187.5

 

So that ten-second mistake will actually cost over $185.

post #48 of 100
4G is almost completely useless since you can exhaust your monthly data plan in less than one minute at full speed.

Similarly, 5G will be entirely useless unless a method is devised to force cell carriers to give customers enough bandwidth to actually use it. Downloading HD movies? Don't make me laugh. You can't even download a SINGLE movie in HD with current cell data plans, even the expensive plans.

And yes, the carriers will have to be forced. They certainly have shown zero signs of offering more data on their own.
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. Perhaps real-time apps that do the heavy lifting in the cloud. Improved navigation through both faster map updates and real-time crowd-sourcing would be welcome. Or just sufficient bandwidth to be able to use data while you're on the phone!

 

Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless. 

 

I can see a need for landline bandwidth having a need for much greater improvements though. As bandwidth beyond your immediate human usage will be required. For instance with high res wallpaper, your room could change at a click of a finger so a serene video stream of a forest or a beach. But once your average sized room (or house) can be filled with retina video, again we will hit a wall, beyond which further bandwidth will rarely be needed.


Edited by monstrosity - 5/13/13 at 8:20am
post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Yes, Okay, I am guilty of giving an approximation.  I admit I was off. But not as far off as you...

In what way am I off? As you note in your follow up post this article states bits and Verizon use bytes. I never made any statement about cost; i referred to that as "your scenario."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Those areas might leap frog to 5G. Some countries go from being vastly behind to superior service.

Considering the fact that 3G and now 4G has been out for some time and there still aren't any upgrades in site I'm not holding my breath. Its the ole thinking of well it will cost more than they'll get back in revenue to do it so until they're forced to do it, you'll never see it. I think this is why you see large gaps in coverage in many areas around the US. 

 

I'd like to see data caps either eliminated, or at least increased to a respectable amount. The bottom line plan shouldn't be what it is today. It should be far far above that, especially if were going to see gigabits/second. 


Edited by macxpress - 5/13/13 at 8:21am

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

 

Sure, by my point really is, that there will become a time that further bandwidth is not required because your brain can only process a certain bandwidth of information. And I do understand that 5G and further will be needed to achieve this (I'm no luddite). But I truly believe that we are nearing the end of what is required from bandwidth, and the average consumer will demand less vigorous bandwidth upgrades from here (streaming HD) onwards, eventually hitting a brick wall beyond which it is nigh on pointless. 

Until we reach a point where we reach a seamless integration of the Internet in our lives, we'll arguably need more. Presently, even with 4G, there is a noticeable delay with acquiring driving directions, viewing a restaurant's online menu, or downloading a report from my dropbox at a remote location. At some point we'll reach a level (somewhat google glass-esque) where any information we want is instantly available at our fingertips (or retinas). It's not about raw throughput, its about quick access to small bits of data at the same time.

 

Will we eventually hit a user-limited bottleneck where the user cant process enough information and you're talking differences in download speeds in terms of a couple nanoseconds? Sure. But I think we're all a fair ways off from that just yet.

post #53 of 100
Wouldn't the 28GHz waveband be of little use unless at short range and in clear view?
post #54 of 100

One thing for sure when 5G speeds hit the market, AT&T will be several years late to the party like they are with LTE. 

post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I imagine that the availability of greater speed will lead to the development of uses we don't have today. ...

 

Yep, although full predictions can be difficult.  The devil is in the details.  

 

Back in the mid-1990s, I and some others were contracted by a major carrier to predict what would be possible if people had ubiquitous broadband access.

 

One of the things we got right was that there would be cloud storage for things like documents, photos and videos. Instead of emailing lots of copies to everyone, users would upload their info only one time, and then simply send links to others to download / view the info if they wished.  Sure enough, this has happened.

 

What we got dead wrong was to assume that people would have to rent this cloud storage from the carriers.  Everyone thought it obvious that "only carriers could afford such huge amounts of storage".   It never occurred to us that cloud storage websites (especially for photos and videos) would spring up all over the place, paid for mostly by advertisements.  That is, we did not foresee the dot com boom and "free" sites like Flickr or YouTube.

post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.

 

There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy.  The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges.  Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.

Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.

post #57 of 100

The largest things you can currently download onto your phone are films. There is a cap on app size on 3G.

So the question is, who needs to be able to download an entire film faster than you could actually watch it?

 

4G is fine for streaming even the best resolution on a mobile screen.

 

Personally I'd rather stream it just in time to make sure it's the film I want, in the right language, in a decent quality. I'd hate to use a gig of data in seconds to find out it's not the film I wanted or it was unwatchable.

 

5G is just another one of those things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.

post #58 of 100

Sheeze guys.  You act like we'll never need more bandwidth.  Of course we're going to need these types of speeds within a few years.  If nothing else, this would allow one to drop landlines for everything and connect entirely over the air.  All TVs and computers in the house running off a single WiFi 5G router.  And 10 years after that, that will seem quaint.

 

And besides teleportation takes a LOT more bandwidth than HD movies.

post #59 of 100

1. More bandwidth should lead to larger (or cheaper) data plans.

2. Improving bandwidth should lead to additional use-case scenarios for cloud based storage.

 

For the first, we obviously won't gain as much as possible because the telecoms will be greedy, but that's business (and to be expected); in the long run, it will still be a net positive for consumers.  The second is really quite nebulous, as prophecies generally are, but it's a nice thought that (for example) fast wifi will someday be ubiquitous and local hard drives will become nothing but RAM (as they nearly already are in terms of performance relative to the end user).

post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

So the question is, who needs to be able to download an entire film faster than you could actually watch it?

That leaves downloading it slower than you can actually watch it. I'd rather the video download happens faster than I'm able to watch it so it doesn't continually pause itself and cache before letting me continue watching. This also affects the ability to jump ahead in the video if it's being downloaded in order, like with iTS media, and being able to copy something quickly so you can take it to an area that doesn't have a fast or any internet connection.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #61 of 100
Attention grab.

Other companies working on same thing.

Samsungs version currently uses 20 antennas, couldn't fit in a tablet, much less a cell phone, and isn't even projected to be viable until 2020.

Not news.

And since when does ai tout Samsung dreams and promises?
Curious.
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.

Actually no, at least not literally.

 

Up until now it just meant the licensor was supposed to have a valid reason if one licensee's terms were differently than anothers. A valid reason *might* simply be the volume of products shipped, or perhaps the value the licensee gets from a license to your technology. All things being equal then different companies should be treated the same and pay the same amounts. All things are not always equal.

 

What would clearly be discriminatory is if companies were treated differently only because one is a direct competitor while another is not.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/13/13 at 10:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

But again, it's all about the video. Video is and will alway be the number one bandwidth hog. 

 

"Beam me up Scotty."

 

"Sorry Captain, I'm working as fast as I can but we only have 5G speed right now" 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #64 of 100
Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilution View Post


The term 5G is just another one of those marketing things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.

 

Fixed.  Unless, of course, you're legitimately trying to tell us that we no longer need to improve wifi for the rest of forever because there are no possible applications of practical use for anyone ever.  If that were the case, there's no quick fix for your point of view.

post #65 of 100
I'm still completely satisfied with 3G (HSPA ) speeds, is there something fucking wrong with me? I guess it's because I don't torrent HD movies on my phone?

I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.
post #66 of 100
I hate Samsung, for what they have been doing with regards to Apple. But this I will have to admit that Samsung is in the driver seat and Apple is now the follower.... oh boy that is so sad!
post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm View Post

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

Bill Gates denies the common rumor that in 1981 he stated that 640kB was enough for everybody. In 1979  I upgraded my first computer from 4kB to 8kB, memory cost me $10/kB.

post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

I'm still completely satisfied with 3G (HSPA ) speeds, is there something fucking wrong with me? I guess it's because I don't torrent HD movies on my phone?

I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.

There is also the matter of uplink speed which is really slow on HSPA. If 4G is fast enough for everyone why do you think that home WiFi speeds are so much faster than LTE? I think it is because people know the difference and prefer the faster data speeds. Latency is also a big issue which has more to do with server requests, routers and switches than actual network speed... but faster is always better.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

. . . With this 3D thing going on, I'd like to see people stream 3D movies on the fly...see how that works out. I bet it will be a major flop!

Correct use case, wrong conclusion, unless you're joking.

Live 3D video communication is obviously the future. Not necessarily person-to-person so much, but place-to-place. Think live streams to your iGlasses from around the world. What's been missing from webcams is enough bandwidth for clarity, decent frame rate, and stereo picture. Beneficial mass hypnosis awaits. ADD problem solved
post #70 of 100
It's not about the speed of individual files (although faster servers would be nice). It's about sending lots of data to multiple locations simultaneously. The internet we live in is very one-sided%u2014there's a lot more consumption of data than generation, at least from the user's perspective.

Imagine fitness monitors being able to send gigabytes of information about you up to servers that can perform instant, 99.99% accurate diagnoses based on all the data it has. Or hosting a town-hall style meeting, or teaching a classroom, over direct video interaction at a smooth 30%u201360fps.

It's about breaking down the world we live in into more bits and more fidelity and sending that data between many endpoints.
post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.

There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy.  The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges.  Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.

That's fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory?
post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.

 

There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy.  The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges.  Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.

What else would a resident troll say?

 

Oh the irony of "burning bridges". There are many companies working on 5G so we don't even know which patents will become part of the standard when it's finally settled. It's more like Samsung has burned bridges by continuing to abuse SEP's in court (and getting the smackdown for it). What standards body is going to want to trust a corrupt licensee like Samsung when there are other choices out there from companies who don't abuse patents?

 

Samsung is the one who needs to tread carefully, not Apple.

 

Edited: Forgot to add. Standards bodies currently do not get involved in these battles over SEP's nor do they have any firm guidelines. You can bet that in the future these standards bodies are going to make companies like Samsung follow stricter rules to prevent abuse. So these types of court cases will probably cease to exist as the agreements made with SSO's will be far more specific in terms of what you can and cannot do.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #73 of 100

It's just a logical progression.  I hope that Samsung doesn't try to gouge everyone on the costs involved, but knowing Samsung, they will.

post #74 of 100
shhh dont tell anyone , promise

I am testing 12G on a smartphone for use exclusively on Mars
post #75 of 100
Which reminds me -- will iPhone 5S have 802.11ac?!
post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?

 

Uh, I'm not quite sure how AI entered the debate over building high-speed data networks...

 

Anyways, my thinking was that higher speed and capacity data networks would be built/funded by people buying hardware (phones, tablets, etc) which makes use of it (which they'd be buying anyways).  Hinting that companies like Apple and Samsung would get into the "data pipe" industry (the point of this article).  Which would allow for the elimination of bandwidth caps and the like.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #77 of 100

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/24/13 at 10:47am
post #78 of 100
Quote:

You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."

 

What Gates actually said, was they thought that going from 64K to 640K should be good enough to last the needs of computer users for another ten years.

 

Many years later at a college speech, he poked fun at himself about this prediction, noting that they had been wrong by about five years.

 

He brought it up as a warning to anyone else who might fall into the same trap, of thinking they could so easily predict future needs.

 

(I remember when I got my first 5MB hard drive for $800.  I was sure that much storage would last me for years.)

post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Well, according to some, this is the best way of going forward.

 

Limiting people's use of something is better than building more of something.

 

… M~hmm.

 

By that logic, we should still be doing time sharing on computers which are limited to use in laboratories.  Or using pay phones.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Is it possible for you to go even just one week without name-calling?

 

 

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are in a very, very small group of people who get "called names" by me on AI.

 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, am I not allowed to call it a duck?

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung testing 5G wireless technology that can download entire movies in seconds