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.
I assume that Apple makes a deal with Qualcomm to not charge a royalty fee for CDMA if Apple makes them their baseband provider.
You?re not thinking this through from anyone?s PoV, especially not Apple?s which is the only one that really matters here.
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
Dave
No, it couldn’t just work as you’ve stated because it’s designed for screen size, which you’ve stated Apple will just easily change without considering what it does to the UI or EX. That might be fine for vendors using Android, but that isn’t the way Apple operates and you’ve shown absolutely no evidence that they would start doing this now.
Your entire premise is that Apple could make the entire footprint bigger so they could add more HW. Of course they could, but nothing says that they will. They couldn’t make it thicker to add more HW, too, but nothing shows that will. They could also get more internal space for components by cutting the battery size down, but again, nothing points to that as being likely. Everything points to Apple wanting a smaller phone using a 3.5” 4:3 display, a power efficient phone that lasts longer under the same tasks as the previous model, and a obsessive focus on the details of the UI. You’re pointing out what you want, but not pointing out what is actually viable or likely for Apple to do.
On top of that, no one said they will keep the same screen size for 20 years, but that Apple isn’t going to adjust the size or alter the dot pitch without also altering the UI to accommodate the change. If you want precedence for that then here is Exhibit A: www.apple.com
Jobs, by contrast, is a notorious micromanager. No product escapes Cupertino without meeting Jobs' exacting standards, which are said to cover such esoteric details as the number of screws on the bottom of a laptop and the curve of a monitor's corners. "He would scrutinize everything, down to the pixel level," says Cordell Ratzlaff, a former manager charged with creating the OS X interface.
I assume that Apple makes a deal with Qualcomm to not charge a royalty fee for CDMA if Apple makes them their baseband provider.
Qualcomm has to make money too. Royalties are part of the equation, though Apple might be able to twist a few arms for better rates, I still see them paying something. Eventually the royalties will decrease anyways as the technology is supplanted with new.
Besides I believe they have even fewer vendors to choose from for CDMA tech.
No, it couldn?t just work as you?ve stated because it?s designed for screen size, which you?ve stated Apple will just easily change without considering what it does to the UI or EX. That might be fine for vendors using Android, but that isn?t the way Apple operates and you?ve shown absolutely no evidence that they would start doing this now.
This is BS and I think you know it!
All the app needs to know is what screen it is working with and the parameters of that screen. Further you keep bring up Android which is stupid because the discussion has nothing to do with Android.
Beyound that Apple has been very clear and has said repeatedly not to assume screen resolutions. How is this not clear? As for evidence what are the resolutions of iPad and iPhone 4 relative to the original devices?
If you don't believe me fine, nothing I can do about that. However I'm looking at SDK documentation right now, a section called "Supporting High-Resolution Screens". The very first sentence says; "Applications built against iPhone SDK 4 and later need to be prepared to run on devices with different screen resolutions.". This is followed shortly by a checklist. Immediately after that a discusion of points vs pixels take place where it is clearly stated "One point does not necessarily correspond to one pixel on screen."
I'd be the first to admit that supporting different resolutions is extra work for the app developer. It is not however un expected. Rather it is a reality for any non trivial platform. Apple has certainly made it simple for developers currently as the two scale factors are 1.0 and 2.0, however they again warn that other scales are possible in the future.
So again show me that I'm completely wrong here. And please don't bring up Android again as it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Quote:
Your entire premise is that Apple could make the entire footprint bigger so they could add more HW. Of course they could, but nothing says that they will. They couldn?t make it thicker to add more HW, too, but nothing shows that will. They could also get more internal space for components by cutting the battery size down, but again, nothing points to that as being likely. Everything points to Apple wanting a smaller phone using a 3.5? 4:3 display, a power efficient phone that lasts longer under the same tasks as the previous model, and a obsessive focus on the details of the UI. You?re pointing out what you want, but not pointing out what is actually viable or likely for Apple to do.
Jobs, by contrast, is a notorious micromanager. No product escapes Cupertino without meeting Jobs' exacting standards, which are said to cover such esoteric details as the number of screws on the bottom of a laptop and the curve of a monitor's corners. "He would scrutinize everything, down to the pixel level," says Cordell Ratzlaff, a former manager charged with creating the OS X interface.
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.
2100 MHz UMTS is a frequency and technology found in major cities in the following nations outside of Japan and Europe: China, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, South Africa, Syria, New Zealand, Nigeria, Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Singapore, Pakistan, Ghana, Namibia, Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, Nepal, Aruba, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Thailand, Uruguay, Bahrain, Uganda, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, and Tajikistan. I missed a few other nations, but you get the idea. Not much worldwide coverage.
Meanwhile, CDMA covers almost every nation in Central and South America, in addition to the US, Canada, and Mexico. So, yeah, simply adding 2100 MHz UMTS to make a "world" CDMA iPhone wouldn't create satisfactory worldwide coverage.
Qualcomm could be working on a custom chip that combines CDMA and 2100 MHz UMTS, in a power-efficient design. You never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
Actually, GSM, as a whole, is more global than CDMA. There are nations which have GSM or UMTS, that don't have CDMA. Every nation that I know of with CDMA has a competing GSM-based network. So it makes total sense to make a GSM-based phone that reflects that fact. There is no need for AT&T, or some European carrier, to sell an iPhone with CDMA built-in. All the CDMA royalties paid to Qualcomm for such phones would be a waste.
Is there a demand of some sort for a CDMA/UMTS iPhone? Absolutely. What I'm saying is that there may be such high demand for a CDMA iPhones, that even if it's CDMA-only, and traveling businessmen sit out, there still would be brisk sales. The only difference would be that the waiting lists would be shorter.
And even if the UMTS radio is in there, they can't price it $50 higher just to make up the difference in licensing fees. AT&T would provide enough competitive pressure on Verizon, for example, that if the price was higher than AT&T, then some people would go to AT&T for their iPhone. Perhaps some people would pay an extra $50 for a 2100 MHz UMTS radio on their CDMA iPhone, but I suspect that the average consumer would not. They may pay $50 extra so they can get an iPhone that works on Verizon's network, but they wouldn't care about the UMTS radio in it. And even if it sells for $50 more, that cash doesn't go to Apple's profit margins, which is the main thing here. Apple's MO has been to maximize profit margins on hardware sales, so it can feel comfortable just breaking even in app store sales.
What I meant about IPS was that sometimes, Steve chooses to place in technology that drives up the price of the device. He doesn't always think about the competition when doing it, either; I'm sure that he often focuses solely on making the best possible user experience for his customers. For example, the IPS screen is easier on the eyes than a less expensive screen. That helps when you're looking at it all day, and your eyes don't strain at the end of the day, compared to a lesser screen.
Steve's basic philosophy is this: "Make the best possible user experience." That's an ethos that goes beyond simple competition. That's what I meant when I mentioned IPS.
Perhaps Steve will decide that the UMTS radio would add enough to the user experience that it's worth the royalty fees. Perhaps he'll feel that the UMTS radio isn't needed, and CDMA-only is enough. What I'm basically saying is that I can make a logical argument on either side whether or not to add 2100 MHz UMTS to a CDMA iPhone. It's ultimately up to Steve.
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.
Perhaps Apple saw this and gave them a call. Add to that Qualcomm's work on a next-gen Snapdragon processor based on multicore Cortex-A9 technology, and now we've got something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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
Your post just might be the most bang-on post in this thread, although only top Apple staff know for sure.
This may ultimately be why Qualcomm is getting the contract for CDMA and UMTS basebands. In time, Apple's SOC could likely become a Snapdragon-based multicore design that includes the baseband. Perhaps the next-gen iPhone will have this design. It would make room for the RFID payment system that has been rumored.
No wonder Infineon didn't keep the UMTS baseband contract. Even if it didn't get bought by Intel, they've never had any experience with building an ARM SoC, let alone integrating a baseband with one. Outside of Qualcomm, I can't think of any company that has had deep experience in building both SoC's and basebands, and therefore have the best ability to integrate the two. Apple outgrew Infineon. It wasn't just money that led Apple to Qualcomm for basebands, like I originally thought. It was technological factors, too.
All the app needs to know is what screen it is working with and the parameters of that screen. Further you keep bring up Android which is stupid because the discussion has nothing to do with Android.
Beyound that Apple has been very clear and has said repeatedly not to assume screen resolutions. How is this not clear? As for evidence what are the resolutions of iPad and iPhone 4 relative to the original devices?
If you don't believe me fine, nothing I can do about that. However I'm looking at SDK documentation right now, a section called "Supporting High-Resolution Screens". The very first sentence says; "Applications built against iPhone SDK 4 and later need to be prepared to run on devices with different screen resolutions.". This is followed shortly by a checklist. Immediately after that a discusion of points vs pixels take place where it is clearly stated "One point does not necessarily correspond to one pixel on screen."
I'd be the first to admit that supporting different resolutions is extra work for the app developer. It is not however un expected. Rather it is a reality for any non trivial platform. Apple has certainly made it simple for developers currently as the two scale factors are 1.0 and 2.0, however they again warn that other scales are possible in the future.
So again show me that I'm completely wrong here. And please don't bring up Android again as it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Do we need to recap your exact words. You stated quite clearly that that ?there is zero impact on developers? may using a larger display with the same pixel count. I gave one example or many of how your statement is wrong. I only need one to show you are wrong. The only BS is that you actually think your statement that ?there is zero impact on developers? is accurate, and this is before we (again) tackle the obvious elephant in the room of Apple never before creating an IOS UI that was not catered to the display it?s using. It?s simply ridiculous to suggest that Apple wil cater to your specific needs and follow Android?s lead by ignoring the UI altogether for their future devices when the UI is the at heart oft their focus.
Who cares what chip powers the baseband. The goal is to make the most reliable phone, reception wise.
And thats very interesting. Apple has been said to be using the wrong chip. The infineon chip seems to have been designed for the European market where towers are more closely spaced, but doesn't work as well here, where towers are further apart. This could be why the reception issues here are not duplicated in other areas of the world.
Perhaps, if Apple IS changing chip makers, this is a bigger reason why.
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
Dave
Apple will change the size of the screen and the rez whenever they think they have to. But they won't do it randomly. By doubling the rez on the phone/Touch they made it easy for everyone. How would they do it next time? Even going to the iPad rez would jumble things up/ The only way would be to first enable variable size rez in the OS the way Windows and OS X does it.
Apple will change the size of the screen and the rez whenever they think they have to. But they won't do it randomly. By doubling the rez on the phone/Touch they made it easy for everyone. How would they do it next time? Even going to the iPad rez would jumble things up/ The only way would be to first enable variable size rez in the OS the way Windows and OS X does it.
And if we consider that Apple kept the 480x320 display for 3 iPhone releases (long after most of us expected them to keep that resolution) and didn't change the display size when it would have been easiest with the iPhone 4 display change, it seems even more unrealistic to me to expect Apple will simply make a larger display iPhone without any regard for the UI or UX.
And if we consider that Apple kept the 480x320 display for 3 iPhone releases (long after most of us expected them to keep that resolution) and didn't change the display size when it would have been easiest with the iPhone 4 display change, it seems even more unrealistic to me to expect Apple will simply make a larger display iPhone without any regard for the UI or UX.
I do think Apple cares about the size of the phone. It seems to me that some Android phone makers are doing what the auto industry does. Each year, they would make the model a bit larger. They even turned the Thunderbird sports car into a sedan over a period of years. i see that happening with phones now.
I've handled some of these things, and really, they're too big. I understand that Verizon is marketing the Droids to the big macho men out there, but fortunately, they're a minority.
The Dell Streak is even worse. not really a tablet, no matter what is said, with the phone-like resolution and way too small screen for tablet usage. but it's also too big for a phone.
For some years when we were talking, and of course, arguing about an Apple tablet, and how big it should be, I wanted one that was about 7" diag., about 4 x 6. I thought it would be the smallest configuration that would be of use as one, and that something bigger would be too big to carry around all the time.
These phones are getting clumsy. I read one reviewer saying that the EVO 4G wasn't too big for his pants pocket, even though when he reviewed the iPhone earlier, he said that IT was too big. Shows the objectivity of these guys.
But, I don't see why Apple would want a bigger phone, unless it was just a few millimeters. After all, they could have put a 3.8" screen in the older size instead of making it a bit smaller.
Comments
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.
I assume that Apple makes a deal with Qualcomm to not charge a royalty fee for CDMA if Apple makes them their baseband provider.
You?re not thinking this through from anyone?s PoV, especially not Apple?s which is the only one that really matters here.
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
Dave
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
Dave
No, it couldn’t just work as you’ve stated because it’s designed for screen size, which you’ve stated Apple will just easily change without considering what it does to the UI or EX. That might be fine for vendors using Android, but that isn’t the way Apple operates and you’ve shown absolutely no evidence that they would start doing this now.
Your entire premise is that Apple could make the entire footprint bigger so they could add more HW. Of course they could, but nothing says that they will. They couldn’t make it thicker to add more HW, too, but nothing shows that will. They could also get more internal space for components by cutting the battery size down, but again, nothing points to that as being likely. Everything points to Apple wanting a smaller phone using a 3.5” 4:3 display, a power efficient phone that lasts longer under the same tasks as the previous model, and a obsessive focus on the details of the UI. You’re pointing out what you want, but not pointing out what is actually viable or likely for Apple to do.
On top of that, no one said they will keep the same screen size for 20 years, but that Apple isn’t going to adjust the size or alter the dot pitch without also altering the UI to accommodate the change. If you want precedence for that then here is Exhibit A: www.apple.com
I assume that Apple makes a deal with Qualcomm to not charge a royalty fee for CDMA if Apple makes them their baseband provider.
Qualcomm has to make money too. Royalties are part of the equation, though Apple might be able to twist a few arms for better rates, I still see them paying something. Eventually the royalties will decrease anyways as the technology is supplanted with new.
Besides I believe they have even fewer vendors to choose from for CDMA tech.
No, it couldn?t just work as you?ve stated because it?s designed for screen size, which you?ve stated Apple will just easily change without considering what it does to the UI or EX. That might be fine for vendors using Android, but that isn?t the way Apple operates and you?ve shown absolutely no evidence that they would start doing this now.
This is BS and I think you know it!
All the app needs to know is what screen it is working with and the parameters of that screen. Further you keep bring up Android which is stupid because the discussion has nothing to do with Android.
Beyound that Apple has been very clear and has said repeatedly not to assume screen resolutions. How is this not clear? As for evidence what are the resolutions of iPad and iPhone 4 relative to the original devices?
If you don't believe me fine, nothing I can do about that. However I'm looking at SDK documentation right now, a section called "Supporting High-Resolution Screens". The very first sentence says; "Applications built against iPhone SDK 4 and later need to be prepared to run on devices with different screen resolutions.". This is followed shortly by a checklist. Immediately after that a discusion of points vs pixels take place where it is clearly stated "One point does not necessarily correspond to one pixel on screen."
I'd be the first to admit that supporting different resolutions is extra work for the app developer. It is not however un expected. Rather it is a reality for any non trivial platform. Apple has certainly made it simple for developers currently as the two scale factors are 1.0 and 2.0, however they again warn that other scales are possible in the future.
So again show me that I'm completely wrong here. And please don't bring up Android again as it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Your entire premise is that Apple could make the entire footprint bigger so they could add more HW. Of course they could, but nothing says that they will. They couldn?t make it thicker to add more HW, too, but nothing shows that will. They could also get more internal space for components by cutting the battery size down, but again, nothing points to that as being likely. Everything points to Apple wanting a smaller phone using a 3.5? 4:3 display, a power efficient phone that lasts longer under the same tasks as the previous model, and a obsessive focus on the details of the UI. You?re pointing out what you want, but not pointing out what is actually viable or likely for Apple to do.
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.
2100 MHz UMTS is a frequency and technology found in major cities in the following nations outside of Japan and Europe: China, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, South Africa, Syria, New Zealand, Nigeria, Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Singapore, Pakistan, Ghana, Namibia, Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, Nepal, Aruba, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Thailand, Uruguay, Bahrain, Uganda, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, and Tajikistan. I missed a few other nations, but you get the idea. Not much worldwide coverage.
Meanwhile, CDMA covers almost every nation in Central and South America, in addition to the US, Canada, and Mexico. So, yeah, simply adding 2100 MHz UMTS to make a "world" CDMA iPhone wouldn't create satisfactory worldwide coverage.
Qualcomm could be working on a custom chip that combines CDMA and 2100 MHz UMTS, in a power-efficient design. You never know.
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.
Actually, GSM, as a whole, is more global than CDMA. There are nations which have GSM or UMTS, that don't have CDMA. Every nation that I know of with CDMA has a competing GSM-based network. So it makes total sense to make a GSM-based phone that reflects that fact. There is no need for AT&T, or some European carrier, to sell an iPhone with CDMA built-in. All the CDMA royalties paid to Qualcomm for such phones would be a waste.
Is there a demand of some sort for a CDMA/UMTS iPhone? Absolutely. What I'm saying is that there may be such high demand for a CDMA iPhones, that even if it's CDMA-only, and traveling businessmen sit out, there still would be brisk sales. The only difference would be that the waiting lists would be shorter.
And even if the UMTS radio is in there, they can't price it $50 higher just to make up the difference in licensing fees. AT&T would provide enough competitive pressure on Verizon, for example, that if the price was higher than AT&T, then some people would go to AT&T for their iPhone. Perhaps some people would pay an extra $50 for a 2100 MHz UMTS radio on their CDMA iPhone, but I suspect that the average consumer would not. They may pay $50 extra so they can get an iPhone that works on Verizon's network, but they wouldn't care about the UMTS radio in it. And even if it sells for $50 more, that cash doesn't go to Apple's profit margins, which is the main thing here. Apple's MO has been to maximize profit margins on hardware sales, so it can feel comfortable just breaking even in app store sales.
What I meant about IPS was that sometimes, Steve chooses to place in technology that drives up the price of the device. He doesn't always think about the competition when doing it, either; I'm sure that he often focuses solely on making the best possible user experience for his customers. For example, the IPS screen is easier on the eyes than a less expensive screen. That helps when you're looking at it all day, and your eyes don't strain at the end of the day, compared to a lesser screen.
Steve's basic philosophy is this: "Make the best possible user experience." That's an ethos that goes beyond simple competition. That's what I meant when I mentioned IPS.
Perhaps Steve will decide that the UMTS radio would add enough to the user experience that it's worth the royalty fees. Perhaps he'll feel that the UMTS radio isn't needed, and CDMA-only is enough. What I'm basically saying is that I can make a logical argument on either side whether or not to add 2100 MHz UMTS to a CDMA iPhone. It's ultimately up to Steve.
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.
Perhaps Apple saw this and gave them a call. Add to that Qualcomm's work on a next-gen Snapdragon processor based on multicore Cortex-A9 technology, and now we've got something.
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
Your post just might be the most bang-on post in this thread, although only top Apple staff know for sure.
This may ultimately be why Qualcomm is getting the contract for CDMA and UMTS basebands. In time, Apple's SOC could likely become a Snapdragon-based multicore design that includes the baseband. Perhaps the next-gen iPhone will have this design. It would make room for the RFID payment system that has been rumored.
No wonder Infineon didn't keep the UMTS baseband contract. Even if it didn't get bought by Intel, they've never had any experience with building an ARM SoC, let alone integrating a baseband with one. Outside of Qualcomm, I can't think of any company that has had deep experience in building both SoC's and basebands, and therefore have the best ability to integrate the two. Apple outgrew Infineon. It wasn't just money that led Apple to Qualcomm for basebands, like I originally thought. It was technological factors, too.
This is BS and I think you know it!
All the app needs to know is what screen it is working with and the parameters of that screen. Further you keep bring up Android which is stupid because the discussion has nothing to do with Android.
Beyound that Apple has been very clear and has said repeatedly not to assume screen resolutions. How is this not clear? As for evidence what are the resolutions of iPad and iPhone 4 relative to the original devices?
If you don't believe me fine, nothing I can do about that. However I'm looking at SDK documentation right now, a section called "Supporting High-Resolution Screens". The very first sentence says; "Applications built against iPhone SDK 4 and later need to be prepared to run on devices with different screen resolutions.". This is followed shortly by a checklist. Immediately after that a discusion of points vs pixels take place where it is clearly stated "One point does not necessarily correspond to one pixel on screen."
I'd be the first to admit that supporting different resolutions is extra work for the app developer. It is not however un expected. Rather it is a reality for any non trivial platform. Apple has certainly made it simple for developers currently as the two scale factors are 1.0 and 2.0, however they again warn that other scales are possible in the future.
So again show me that I'm completely wrong here. And please don't bring up Android again as it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Do we need to recap your exact words. You stated quite clearly that that ?there is zero impact on developers? may using a larger display with the same pixel count. I gave one example or many of how your statement is wrong. I only need one to show you are wrong. The only BS is that you actually think your statement that ?there is zero impact on developers? is accurate, and this is before we (again) tackle the obvious elephant in the room of Apple never before creating an IOS UI that was not catered to the display it?s using. It?s simply ridiculous to suggest that Apple wil cater to your specific needs and follow Android?s lead by ignoring the UI altogether for their future devices when the UI is the at heart oft their focus.
Who cares what chip powers the baseband. The goal is to make the most reliable phone, reception wise.
And thats very interesting. Apple has been said to be using the wrong chip. The infineon chip seems to have been designed for the European market where towers are more closely spaced, but doesn't work as well here, where towers are further apart. This could be why the reception issues here are not duplicated in other areas of the world.
Perhaps, if Apple IS changing chip makers, this is a bigger reason why.
However if this app can work on both the old and new iPhones then it could also work on any resolution device. In fact it should work on the iPad too. All you need to know is the pixel pitch.
Really I see people making moutains out of mole hills here. Does anybody actually expect Apple to keep the same screen size for twenty some odd years or for however long cell phone exist? Really I'm thinking this through, iPhone is subject to change both in hardware and software. The developer documentation says as much, if I remeber correctly it has also been mentioned at WWDC too.
Maybe Apple has zero interest in a multi mode iPhone, my point is the size of the iPhone isn't a factor here. If they do go the CDMA route they may very well consider a slightly different form factor just to differentiate the hardware or implement technology differently.
I just see Apple being painted into a box here that no manufacture wants to be in. Locking Apple into the current screen size would stifle innovation in a way contrary to what Apple does.
Dave
Apple will change the size of the screen and the rez whenever they think they have to. But they won't do it randomly. By doubling the rez on the phone/Touch they made it easy for everyone. How would they do it next time? Even going to the iPad rez would jumble things up/ The only way would be to first enable variable size rez in the OS the way Windows and OS X does it.
Apple will change the size of the screen and the rez whenever they think they have to. But they won't do it randomly. By doubling the rez on the phone/Touch they made it easy for everyone. How would they do it next time? Even going to the iPad rez would jumble things up/ The only way would be to first enable variable size rez in the OS the way Windows and OS X does it.
And if we consider that Apple kept the 480x320 display for 3 iPhone releases (long after most of us expected them to keep that resolution) and didn't change the display size when it would have been easiest with the iPhone 4 display change, it seems even more unrealistic to me to expect Apple will simply make a larger display iPhone without any regard for the UI or UX.
And if we consider that Apple kept the 480x320 display for 3 iPhone releases (long after most of us expected them to keep that resolution) and didn't change the display size when it would have been easiest with the iPhone 4 display change, it seems even more unrealistic to me to expect Apple will simply make a larger display iPhone without any regard for the UI or UX.
I do think Apple cares about the size of the phone. It seems to me that some Android phone makers are doing what the auto industry does. Each year, they would make the model a bit larger. They even turned the Thunderbird sports car into a sedan over a period of years. i see that happening with phones now.
I've handled some of these things, and really, they're too big. I understand that Verizon is marketing the Droids to the big macho men out there, but fortunately, they're a minority.
The Dell Streak is even worse. not really a tablet, no matter what is said, with the phone-like resolution and way too small screen for tablet usage. but it's also too big for a phone.
For some years when we were talking, and of course, arguing about an Apple tablet, and how big it should be, I wanted one that was about 7" diag., about 4 x 6. I thought it would be the smallest configuration that would be of use as one, and that something bigger would be too big to carry around all the time.
These phones are getting clumsy. I read one reviewer saying that the EVO 4G wasn't too big for his pants pocket, even though when he reviewed the iPhone earlier, he said that IT was too big. Shows the objectivity of these guys.
But, I don't see why Apple would want a bigger phone, unless it was just a few millimeters. After all, they could have put a 3.8" screen in the older size instead of making it a bit smaller.