Latest iPhone 2.0 beta reveals 3G chipset - Page 2

Agreed! Thanks.

But code in the newly SDK that hints to the 3G chip being used is news.



If there were a post-of-the-month award you would surely be nominated. Excellent work!

As you note, there are two GOLD3's: one is a 3G GSM-ish solution with GSM/WCDMA/EDGE/HSDPA/etc, the other is a GSM/EDGE/CDMA solution . The later is 2.xG, but can be upgraded to also support the 3G GSM-ish standards with a second chip.

Which one of these Apple will use depends on what they want to do with the iPhone. One possibility is that they want to have high speed access, especially in Europe which is moving increasingly to HSDPA. In this case they'll use the H. Another possibility is that they want to be able to run on old-skool CDMA as well as GSM, in which case they'd use the later model. The former is definitely "futuristic" and would greatly improve the iPhone as an "always on internet" device, which I think is where Apple is positioning it. The later, on the other hand, would offer completely universal worldwide roaming. Both of these approaches has its advantages!

My money's on the 3G approach, for what it's worth.

Maury

Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site.

Maury

As a lay consumer, not literate in any of the above technical discussions (and, like most consumers, I couldn't care less about the specifications, just the real-world capabilities), I think the most exciting thing Apple could produce on a new phone, aside from 3G-speed web browsing/file transfer and all that goes with that, would be a 2nd camera to face the viewer and, thus, enable two-way video conversations. That would put us in a Dick Tracy world, and that would be as revolutionary as the affordable cell phone itself was.

Good idea! If you [winterspan] do, also upload the Excel file so it can be updated easily.

According to the SDK keynote, VoIP is only allowed to work when enable by WiFi. To make this function via the carrier adds a buttload* of data traffic and lowers sales as people will no longer require more than the bare minimum of cell minutes.

How many people use the camera on their computers for frequent video chat? I have only used it a couple times over the several years, and that was for the novelty of it. I assume that most people have a broadband connections and a fast CPU with sufficient RAM to run two-way video. An iPhone do this would be less than ideal, especially if over 3G with it's higher latency than other tech.


* Industry term

Just speculation of course...

But don't GPS features require an extra monthly payment? (correct me if I'm wrong)

So if that's the case, couldn't they throw in GPS and have it available as an add-on to the plan while those that don't want/need GPS can just use the current "quasi GPS" or whatever its called?

But then again, Apple likes to keep things simple and probably would want to include GPS on the all the plans. \

Who knows..... We shall see soon enough.

Just wanted to say thanks to winterspan and some of the others who have posted truly useful, informative stuff here. One of the best AppleInsider discussions I've ever seen. Thanks folks.

What? The next iPhone is going to be 3G? That's confirmed?

Oh, right, Steve Jobs confirmed that last September.

I do appreciate confirmation that it's using the next version of the current chipset, but the tone of the article seems overly dramatic given what we already know.

I just hope that by 3G they mean REAL BROADBAND. If you remember that video where that guy said the new iPhone will be out "in 60 days", American broadband is often subject to definition by the companies who deliver that technology and is often not up to par.

Secondly, we will have to see if the iPhone software really will hold up to the standards this chip has to offer. Therefore, I don't think we can really say what the iPhone will do based on hardware specs alone.

I also rarely video chat. That may be though because most people with PC's don't have web cams. Also text chat is a lot less noticeable to your boss at work.

The stars may be aligning on the video chat rumor though.

- Apple files a mysterious and unused patent for recording video through a screen.

- Samsung's new ARM chip supports live two way video through graphics acceleration.

- Infineon's new wireless chip supports live two way video.

1st I hope that apple uses the "H" chipset and that it will run on the Asian & EU/US 3g networks!

2nd I hope if the 2nd cam gets built into it that apple releases the iChat client for PC because the aol client isn't capable of handling high quality video nor any audio!

I agree that the "next big iPhone release" will be 3G, but that is no guarantee that the 3G version will be the next iPhone release. Who's to say there won't be a few more 2G iterations before the 3G lands? And considering how this article plays up supposed "proof" that the 3G iPhone is imminent, the fact that it could just be a switch to a newer EDGE chip is quite relevant. Much like this site's multiple announcements of the Mac Mini's demise that were recently retracted, there's no real word that 3G is even a twinkle in Apple's eye.

And it seems a bit odd this article states that the 3G is "officially scheduled" for a June launch. Did I miss an Apple press release or did Walt Mossberg become an official Apple spokesman?

So any word from AppleInsider yet on what it actually said?

What was the "Sleuthing" they did that revealed SGOLD3 did not refer to SGOLD3, but rather SGOLD3H?

(FWIW, I too believe Apple will release 3G soon. I just don't see this discovery as evidence).

I'd like to know the power usage differences between the PMB8878 using HSDPA and PMB8876 using EDGE.

don't forget the pmb8877 !!! that's the the new one without WCDMA, but it can be added with a co-processor... but i think apple will go for the integrated pmb8878... with integrated GPS!

original screenshot zibri posted on his blog, ziphone.org:

No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.

GSM does the same thing...

I at first didn't label LTE/HSOPA "4G" because although many use that label, many other times LTE/HSOPA routinely gets referred to as "pre-4G" or "post-3G", or that HSOPA is a "transitionary technology towards 4G", etc. Also, HSOPA is nicknamed "Super 3G". "3.9G" is what Japan is calling their upcoming LTE/HSOPA network to launch in 2010. I guess it's just confusing because of the abstract umbrella terms being used. But I will change it anyway.

Here is a good quote from 3GAmericas.org about this:

"Since 2006, significant progress has been made by the Radiocommunication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) in establishing an agreed and globally accepted definition of ‘4G’ wireless systems, and in 2008, the ITU-R is expected to release a full set of documentation for this definition. At that time the vision will be translated into a set of requirements by which technologies and systems can, in the near future, be determined a part of IMT-Advanced and in doing so, earn the credible right to be considered 4G.

Thus, any claim that a particular technology is a so-called ‘4G technology’ prior to that definition is in reality simply a marketing spin, creating market confusion and deflating the importance of the telecommunications industry standards. Technologies should be verified against a set of agreed-upon requirements in order to qualify as ‘4G’, and this will happen in the future when the requirements are outlined by the ITU. Only then will it be understood what is, and can be rightly and credibly called, 4G. "





Hey, thanks guys. I would love to. I don't have time to HTML it for wikipedia right now, but maybe this week -- unless someone else would like to do it I am also going to expand it to include all mobile phone technology, like older standards and the CDMA/3GPP2 track as well.


Here is a link to the excel file . its on a stupid file hosting server, so you have to click "free download" on the page.

Anyways, here is the final updated pic. There are a few changes made from the first one:







That sounds right... 14.4mbps is NOT the aggregate bandwidth for the whole cell. But of course everyone should definitely take ALL max speeds with a grain of salt. I don't know the details of it, but I do know that there are 15 HSDPA channels in every 5mhz of bandwidth.. I need to look at it closer. Anyways, bottom line is the faster the theoretical speed, the faster the real-world practical throughput SHOULD be, right? so it's always better to have faster and more advanced technology.

Also, btw, the move from UTMS/384 to ANY form of HSDPA (and HSUPA) is great not just because of the increased throughput, but because of the massively reduced latency on the connection. HSDPA return latencies are around 70-100ms versus 3-5x that or more from UMTS. And then when you add HSUPA on the uplink side, the whole round trip becomes almost similar to a home broadband connection. This will be imporant for multi-player games, VOIP, video chat, etc.


By the way, for you or anyone else who wants more info, here are some good sources I found (besides Wiki of course):

GSM/UMTS Technology Center
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/Technology%5FCenter/
"EDGE, HSPA, LTE: The Mobile Broadband Advantage"
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/white...L_09.15.06.pdf
"Mobile Broadband: The Global Evolution of UMTS/HSPA - 3GPP Release 7 and Beyond" by 3G Americas
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/pd...yond_FINAL.pdf
LTE
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/te...center/lte.cfm

UMTS uses 10Mhz total bandwidth, 5 up, 5 down. The entire bandwidth allocated for a frequency is usually between 50 and 100 Mhz in each direction, so it all depends on how many phone companies are sharing the bandwidth.

So there aren't lots of channels, maybe between one and four. CDMA has nothing to do with switching channels in this sense, its a function of UMTS. Either way, you're not going to get a whole lot of bandwidth.

I was wondering whether Steve Jobs' comments on the extra power used with 3G are still valid if the next iPhone uses the Infineon S-GOLD3H chipset. See Engadget's article at:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/08/i...chip-revealed/

NeonSeven has a quad band data module that uses the S-GOLD3H (akaPMB8878), and they describe the power consumption as follows:

Deliverables
Power consumption (average)
o Idle: 2 mA
o 2G Talk - 33dBm: 300 mA
o 3G Talk - 24 dBm: 600 mA
o 3G HSDPA - 24dBm: 650mA

The design uses the Infineon SM-Power3 for power management.

Power doubles in going from 2G to 3G. It's too bad they don't list 2.5G as well. For more details, see http://www.neonseven.com/pdf/N721.pdf.

I found this interesting, how we tout how 3g is wonderful, like anything else the telecom can cripple anything including "3g" speeds If that's the case why upgrade if you are a o2 customer, i wonder what apple says about this, since they want the service to grow and offer more market to iphone upgrades. ATT better not do this, but they do, what recourse would you have

http://www.electronista.com/articles...28kbps.3g.cap/

More fuel to add to the fire.

DO you have any power usage info of the PMB8876? Since it's an older chip the 2G mA are higher than that of the PMB8878 making the difference less severe.

Either way, I'm hoping for an OLED display with the 3G iPhone. Price is no concern so long as I have the same or better battery life as the current model.

Some possibilities regarding GPS and Bluetooth A2DP:

From a greek iPhone unlocking site. (Translated)

Does this part basically mean that video recording is definatley impossible on the current device?

Anyone know the answer to my above q?

The processor and graphics can support video recording in the current iPhone.

Here is a hacked iPhone recording video.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/i...-capabilities/

5 seconds is lousy but kudos to them doing it. Still the ones ive seen hacked recording on youtube only go up to 6 or 7 fps and nowhere near the claimd 45fps they mention on that link.

Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?

According to your query, if Apple should have already implemented something because hackers can do it then there would be no hackers because Apple would have already implemented it.

If Apple hasn't gotten video recording working adequately (i.e.: 29.97fps, not 7fps) then we won't see it implemented. Outside of software, the current HW may have been too taxing for Apple to implement.

We also won't see if Apple, in all their marketing wisdom , deems it an inappropriate time to release it; they could be holding off as a way of pushing it with a future update to keep the iPhone momentum going.

I believe that the SDK doesn't not prevent coders from accessing the camera. This could mean that they wish to leave it up to a 3rd party to create.

Regardless, I see no reason why this won't eventually be a feature

would it be due to battery life???

I woudnt have thought so but anyway im just hoping the 3G version features video capture.

doesn't seem likely... Battery life would not be impacted much if used sparingly... other cellphones don't seem to have any problem recording a few minutes of video at a time without draining the battery..

When you get up to recording at say VGA 30fps then contiuous recording for like an hour will maybe drain it a tad but generally for odd clips it should be fine. I know a lot of people on the states dont seem to have any use for video capture but you have to remember in Europe this is a whole different deal. Over the years we have had phones whos main features are video capture orientated. I suppose when you have a phone like iphone which is top notch for video playback then naturaly you expect to be able to have the capture side of things aswell. I did find it a bit amusing that Apple would go to so much trouble to get youtube to stat encoding in H264 so they could have a nice youtube app but wait a minute you cant actually upload anything yourself to youtube becasue iphone doesnt do video?

I just hope its a case of Apple not yet perfecting that feature. With all that technology in iphone I would have to seriously question the logic of Steve Jobs if he continues to ignore video capture.

I'm pretty sure video recording is at the bottom of their priority list.

The iPhone is primarily intended to be a mobile communication and media playback device. The number one use of the phone is email, number two is internet. These are before voice.

I would imagine Apple's priority is on adding and improving communications features. Video will likely come along sooner or later.

For the average American iphone user video capture may be bottom of the list but to a European it may be closer to the top. You cant make that statement as you have no idea what Apples strategy is in that regard.

Why does a European need video capture on a phone more than an American?

They don't NEED it more, but they EXPECT it more.