What makes you think Apple would charge the carriers for world phones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Carriers are already paying $400 for iphone subsidies --- they are not going to pay for the extra $20 for a world iphone which their own subscribers never going to use.
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
The marketing on this is pretty slippery. AT&T is claiming their network is ?4G? -and- stating that HSPA+ is what they mean by ?4G?. For any phone to be HSPA+ it has to be at least HSDPA Category 13, which means a 21.1Mbps capable chip. I?ve only seen one of these, maybe at CES, but most devices being called ?4G? as part of their name are still not HSPA+ even with HSDPA Category 10 at 14.4Mbps.
It?s one thing to invent a marketing term and another to abuse it. Will Apple call an iPhone with a 14.4Mbps HSDPA chip ?4G?? How will that affect the next iPhone on Verizon if they both use the same naming convention or will Apple do a staggered release and have the 5th iPhone generation actually be CDMA/EVDO/LTE for Verizon with the name iPhone 4G?
I doubt Apple is going to follow T-Mobile's inaccurate marketing scheme.
The next iPhone will absolutely not use LTE. There is little advantage to it at this point. They would do better to keep riding HSPA+ into faster speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict
Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
What makes you think Apple would charge the carriers for world phones?
Economy of scale doesn?t work for ?world mode? phones with Qualcomm?s history of licensing. They charge a lot for the current iPhone and they charge even more for CDMA/EVDO. To put it all into one phone may mean Apple pay a huge percentage of each phone to Qualcomm. With most of the world on GSM/UMTS and no need or interest in using CDMA/EVDO it would likely be a waste of money.
Right now, Apple pays 5% for each iPhone to Qualcomm. Correction, Foxconn pays 5% of the price they ?sell? the iPhone to Apple. This lowers the price Apple pays to Qualcomm by half. Qualcomm isn?t too happy about this workaround and Apple is clearly trying to pay Qualcomm as little as possible.
I doubt Apple is going to follow T-Mobile's inaccurate marketing scheme.
I don?t know what Apple will do, but I seem to recall Verizon getting upset with Sprint when they called their WiMAX ?4G? and AT&T getting upset with T-Mobile USA when they called HSPA+ ?4G?, yet both Verizon and AT&T are calling LTE and HSPA+ ?4G?, respectively.
It?s not an ITU definition, but it doesn?t matter. I suppose we?ll see in a few months how powerful this silly marketing term is.
Right now, Apple pays 5% for each iPhone to Qualcomm. Correction, Foxconn pays 5% of the price they ?sell? the iPhone to Apple. This lowers the price Apple pays to Qualcomm by half. Qualcomm isn?t too happy about this workaround and Apple is clearly trying to pay Qualcomm as little as possible.
Because its not worth the effort to try to fight Sprint and T-Mobile's efforts. Its easier to go with the flow than try to explain the finer details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don?t know what Apple will do, but I seem to recall Verizon getting upset with Sprint when they called their WiMAX ?4G? and AT&T getting upset with T-Mobile USA when they called HSPA+ ?4G?, yet both Verizon and AT&T are calling LTE and HSPA+ ?4G?, respectively.
I wonder if it will have Widgets. I must say, since I returned my iphone4 for SGS, I have fallen in love with widgets for facebook, calendar events, google tasks, weather etc... just so nice to have this info immediately visible and available rather than "leaving one room and entering another".
I also like NOT using quicktime/itunes and using drag and drop of a folder directly from my library to the phone, and then from my phone to anyone's computer, no syncing nonsense necessary. I LOVE that!
It would be nice if iphone 5 gave this kind of freedom, but somehow I doubt it... sadly.
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
Sadly Sprint started this whole mess by advertising a "4G" network that's slower than many 3G networks. In Canada they're staying a little closer to the truth by referring to the improved 3G networks as 3G+.
1) Is Sprint rumoured to have VoRA (VoIP on EV-DO Rev. A) or EV-DO Rev. B?
2) I doubt that Qualcomm chip will work for Apple as it?s Snapdragon CPU and Adeno GPU. I?m sure Apple will stick with Samsung and Imagination. However, that is just a reference model and the tech can be licensed from Qualcomm.
If the iPad 2, with its additional room and mini-PCIe GSM/UMTS that is larger than the Gobi cards you can buy now that are pretty much true ?world mode chips with 4x GSm bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA\\EVDO bands then we might be able to consider this for the next iPhone. But note the 3 HW models for the next iPad are listed in iOS 4.3.
1) Deny everything. 2) The chip is available and if they wanted to put it in, it would certainly be possible. Given the different things they're getting from Qualcomm, they probably get quite the nice volume discount.
I freely admit to conjecture on my part, but remember that Sprint knows they will be supporting EVDO until 2020, so why would they NOT be upgrading the system? They won't be able to have everyone covered by 4G like they do with 3G right now. Not for a long time. Not doing the upgrade makes no sense. This is a simple case of Cover Your Ass. Doing so doesn't mean they think WiMax will tank after all.
Comments
Carriers are already paying $400 for iphone subsidies --- they are not going to pay for the extra $20 for a world iphone which their own subscribers never going to use.
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
The marketing on this is pretty slippery. AT&T is claiming their network is ?4G? -and- stating that HSPA+ is what they mean by ?4G?. For any phone to be HSPA+ it has to be at least HSDPA Category 13, which means a 21.1Mbps capable chip. I?ve only seen one of these, maybe at CES, but most devices being called ?4G? as part of their name are still not HSPA+ even with HSDPA Category 10 at 14.4Mbps.
It?s one thing to invent a marketing term and another to abuse it. Will Apple call an iPhone with a 14.4Mbps HSDPA chip ?4G?? How will that affect the next iPhone on Verizon if they both use the same naming convention or will Apple do a staggered release and have the 5th iPhone generation actually be CDMA/EVDO/LTE for Verizon with the name iPhone 4G?
What makes you think Apple would charge the carriers for world phones?
Because Apple can.
The next iPhone will absolutely not use LTE. There is little advantage to it at this point. They would do better to keep riding HSPA+ into faster speeds.
Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Because Apple can.
What makes you think Apple would charge the carriers for world phones?
Economy of scale doesn?t work for ?world mode? phones with Qualcomm?s history of licensing. They charge a lot for the current iPhone and they charge even more for CDMA/EVDO. To put it all into one phone may mean Apple pay a huge percentage of each phone to Qualcomm. With most of the world on GSM/UMTS and no need or interest in using CDMA/EVDO it would likely be a waste of money.
Right now, Apple pays 5% for each iPhone to Qualcomm. Correction, Foxconn pays 5% of the price they ?sell? the iPhone to Apple. This lowers the price Apple pays to Qualcomm by half. Qualcomm isn?t too happy about this workaround and Apple is clearly trying to pay Qualcomm as little as possible.
I doubt Apple is going to follow T-Mobile's inaccurate marketing scheme.
I don?t know what Apple will do, but I seem to recall Verizon getting upset with Sprint when they called their WiMAX ?4G? and AT&T getting upset with T-Mobile USA when they called HSPA+ ?4G?, yet both Verizon and AT&T are calling LTE and HSPA+ ?4G?, respectively.
It?s not an ITU definition, but it doesn?t matter. I suppose we?ll see in a few months how powerful this silly marketing term is.
Your line of logic makes no sense. It would cost Apple more to make separate CDMA - HSPA phones than to have both in one phone.
Price is determined by supply and demand --- not by input cost.
Right now, Apple pays 5% for each iPhone to Qualcomm. Correction, Foxconn pays 5% of the price they ?sell? the iPhone to Apple. This lowers the price Apple pays to Qualcomm by half. Qualcomm isn?t too happy about this workaround and Apple is clearly trying to pay Qualcomm as little as possible.
I don?t know what Apple will do, but I seem to recall Verizon getting upset with Sprint when they called their WiMAX ?4G? and AT&T getting upset with T-Mobile USA when they called HSPA+ ?4G?, yet both Verizon and AT&T are calling LTE and HSPA+ ?4G?, respectively.
And it begins...no longer able to inundate us with Verizon rumors, we will now have a year of iPhone 5 rumors.
Hey, I'm looking forward to 2011.
Mac App Store
Verizon iPhone
MacBook, MacBook Pro updates
iOS 4.3
2nd-Generation iPad
-sharper display
-better battery life
-FaceTime, rear cameras
-thinner, lighter
-improved speakers
-A8 processor
-price drop
iOS 5.0?
iPhone 4 with slight improvements
OS X 10.7 Lion!!!
New iPods?
Maybe even a new Apple TV...
Man...if only it weren't so hard to get a job
Hey, I'm looking forward to 2011.
Mac App Store
Verizon iPhone
MacBook, MacBook Pro updates
iOS 4.3
2nd-Generation iPad
-sharper display
-better battery life
-FaceTime, rear cameras
-thinner, lighter
-improved speakers
-A8 processor
-price drop
iOS 5.0?
iPhone 4 with slight improvements
OS X 10.7 Lion!!!
New iPods?
Maybe even a new Apple TV...
Man...if only it weren't so hard to get a job
I admit I am as excited as the next one, but rumors rumors rumors...
And it begins...no longer able to inundate us with Verizon rumors, we will now have a year of iPhone 5 rumors.
Make dat 6 months.
Don't forget the impending iPad 2.0 rumors.
Understand their coming out with the Newton ...soon
Price is determined by supply and demand --- not by input cost.
Your view of Economics is simplistic and reminiscent of first year Macroeconomics. Price is determined well beyond 2 variables.
I also like NOT using quicktime/itunes and using drag and drop of a folder directly from my library to the phone, and then from my phone to anyone's computer, no syncing nonsense necessary. I LOVE that!
It would be nice if iphone 5 gave this kind of freedom, but somehow I doubt it... sadly.
Mark.
Is Apple stealing Audi's car names for their chips? What follows the A8... the A8 Convertible?
Cabriolet ... Please!
Not a chance. In case everyone missed it, AT&T and everyone else have given in to T-Mobiles branding of HSPA+ as 4G. The next iPhone will be marketed as a 4G iPhone, not necessarily named the iPhone 4G, but it will be sold as a 4G capable iPhone. Whether it has LTE or just HSPA+ is still an open question, but I am guessing the latter. Whenever the LTE iPhone appears, it will be marketed as somethign ohter than plain old 4G, like 4G-LTE.
Most people don't know what is and is not 4G, but they think 4G is newer and faster than 3G and the use of that designation will impact sales and perception.
4GTX might impress those same 'most people'.
4GTX might impress those same 'most people'.
Sadly Sprint started this whole mess by advertising a "4G" network that's slower than many 3G networks. In Canada they're staying a little closer to the truth by referring to the improved 3G networks as 3G+.
1) Is Sprint rumoured to have VoRA (VoIP on EV-DO Rev. A) or EV-DO Rev. B?
2) I doubt that Qualcomm chip will work for Apple as it?s Snapdragon CPU and Adeno GPU. I?m sure Apple will stick with Samsung and Imagination. However, that is just a reference model and the tech can be licensed from Qualcomm.
If the iPad 2, with its additional room and mini-PCIe GSM/UMTS that is larger than the Gobi cards you can buy now that are pretty much true ?world mode chips with 4x GSm bands, 5x UMTS bands, and 2x CDMA\\EVDO bands then we might be able to consider this for the next iPhone. But note the 3 HW models for the next iPad are listed in iOS 4.3.
1) Deny everything. 2) The chip is available and if they wanted to put it in, it would certainly be possible. Given the different things they're getting from Qualcomm, they probably get quite the nice volume discount.
I freely admit to conjecture on my part, but remember that Sprint knows they will be supporting EVDO until 2020, so why would they NOT be upgrading the system? They won't be able to have everyone covered by 4G like they do with 3G right now. Not for a long time. Not doing the upgrade makes no sense. This is a simple case of Cover Your Ass. Doing so doesn't mean they think WiMax will tank after all.