But now it might be possible to just differentiate them on nothing more than the storage size and not the chipset meaning 3 instead possibly 21 or more.
Well, six (color x capacity). That definitely works to their advantage in the future, as it's only six SKUs (or, by dropping white, truly just three) to support per previous model added.
Oh, what if they drop the numbers, drop the old models and just run an 8GB version of their newest phone, whatever it is, off-contract unlocked at $299? Ah, that's too low, isn't it. $399 for the newest phone. But then there you go; that's too much again. Just throwing out possibilities. I still like best the "iPhone 4S for $299 off-contract, unlocked" idea. Requires zero extra R&D, zero new manufacturing techniques or equipment, and it could even only be available in those countries that clamor so much for it.
I thought the issue with supporting many cell phone bands is broader than just baseband chipset support. Different bands also need different support components including power amplifiers and antennae which add cost, space, power, and complexity making a true world phone for 2G through 4G very difficult.
That is correct about the power amps and filters. They require room and money.
Antennas are not too bad, partly because CDMA/GSM/LTE do often share the same basic bands. The problem comes with needing more of them for diversity reception and transmissions.
In Apple's case, they also have a metal back to contend with. No doubt that's one reason why we saw the patent on the microslot antennas in the metal case.
As for Simultaneous Voice and Data, the iPhone does not do that while using LTE for data, because of the lack of a spare antenna. On both CDMA and GSM carriers, the iPhone drops out of LTE while a voice call is going on. This saves Apple money and internal space, and they figure most people won't notice while we all wait for voice over LTE to arrive.
Qualcomm's been really aggressive in announcing new chipsets and features over the past couple of weeks. In addition to the highlights that MacBookPro mentioned in post 11, Qualcomm also announced two big additions to their Snapdragon chipset.
"Qualcomm, the folks behind the infamous Snapdragon processors, will bring voice activation and speedier charging to mobile devices that use its innards.
Officially, the voice feature is called Snapdragon Voice Activation and is built into suite of Qualcomm’s integrated audio. The technology allows you to wake up a device by saying, “Hey Snapdragon.” The phrase will change depending on which manufacturer takes advantage of the tech...."
"Quick Charge 2.0, the new feature is the update to Quick Charge 1.0 and promises to juice up your smartphone or tablet 75 percent faster than normal. Quicker charging is a highly desired feature and Qualcomm plans to deliver, though with a couple caveats. Like Snapdragon Voice Activation, Quick Charge 2.0 only works with Snapdragon 800 processors, which haven’t been used in any mobile devices yet. The HTC One is sporting a 600 series so the 800 devices are probably still six months or so away."
They might actually be a darn good investment for those that play in the stockmarket. ( I had several shares of their stock back in the 90's that did really well!) With all the recent innovations announced I think it's possible can set themselves up as the dominant source for smartphone processors and baseband chips.
At their typical 3.5% of the device total build cost you're looking at potentially huge paydays for them again. Even if they negotiate down to only 3%, how many billions could they get from just Apple alone?
Well, six (color x capacity). That definitely works to their advantage in the future, as it's only six SKUs (or, by dropping white, truly just three) to support per previous model added.
Oh, what if they drop the numbers, drop the old models and just run an 8GB version of their newest phone, whatever it is, off-contract unlocked at $299? Ah, that's too low, isn't it. $399 for the newest phone. But then there you go; that's too much again. Just throwing out possibilities. I still like best the "iPhone 4S for $299 off-contract, unlocked" idea. Requires zero extra R&D, zero new manufacturing techniques or equipment, and it could even only be available in those countries that clamor so much for it.
I just realized that this makes the "iPhone mini" highly improbable.
China Mobile supposedly has 15 million subscribers using 2G service with an iPhone. Apple would likely desire to upgrade those 15 million subscribers to 3G (TD-SCDMA) service and add a, very likely much larger, pool of current (cost conscious) 2G subscribers prior to releasing a drastically less expensive mobile phone. In fact, if China Mobile subscribers reenact the AT&T / iPhone adoption rates the results could be staggering.
Apple would likely expect a few million subscribers to upgrade to the next iPhone. The next iPhone would then drop in price in 2014 which would be the catalyst for even higher adoption rates. As the next iPhone becomes the economy ($.99 iPhone in the United States) iPhone adoption rates would likely soar.
My question is since it was just announced yesterday, when is the soonest we might see it in an actual phone for sale? Is it already too late for the upcoming iPhone later this year?
Apple could also come up with a new "must have" device such that China Mobile starts losing subscribers by not having it. There's more than one way to skin a Chat.
That's possible but I think China Mobile has the better position overall which is why I think Apple catering to them with a lower-cost device to help them get more 3G (and eventually 4G) subscribers on board is a likely outcome.
It would need a second cellular antenna (one for CDMA and one for LTE) not 3.
I see what you're saying but the end results seems to require a total of 3 antennas to meet Apple's needs for SV&D on their handsets. Here's what AnandTech had to say about it:
"While receive diversity was a great extra for the 4S that drastically improved cellular performance at cell edges, in LTE 2-antenna receive diversity is now thankfully mandatory, leaving the base LTE antenna configuration a two-antenna setup (two Rx, one shared for Tx). […] but the end implementation still requires the same three-antenna solution. […] would require an additional transmit path and antenna, and incur a size and weight penalty."
Yeah... I hopped in this thread to say the same thing. As annoying and impractical as it may be that the Chinese keep forking everything rather than using what the international community uses, anything deployed for use by over ONE BILLION HUMANS by definition does not qualify as "obscure". Unless, of course, the writer has a laughably West-/US-centric attitude in a global landscape.
Just being used by the world's largest carrier doesn't mean it's a common tech when you consider the world of cellphone use China Mobile's 714 million subscribers that's 10% of the world's subscribers but with most of them still not on '3G' TD-SCDMA or '4G' TD-LTE that percentage drops considerably. Of the world's cellular technologies TD-SCDMA is really just a drop in the bucket. A huge drop, but a drop nonetheless. I don't think anyone but China Mobile uses TD-SCDMA but TD-LTE has been adopted by at least one Japanese MNO. The good thing is these technologies are already part of Qualcomm's Gobi chips with biggest limitations being the operating bands.
My question is since it was just announced yesterday, when is the soonest we might see it in an actual phone for sale? Is it already too late for the upcoming iPhone later this year?
From the press release:
"OEM products featuring the complete Qualcomm RF360 Solution are anticipated to be launched in the second half of 2013"
Well, six (color x capacity). That definitely works to their advantage in the future, as it's only six SKUs (or, by dropping white, truly just three) to support per previous model added.
Oh, what if they drop the numbers, drop the old models and just run an 8GB version of their newest phone, whatever it is, off-contract unlocked at $299? Ah, that's too low, isn't it. $399 for the newest phone. But then there you go; that's too much again. Just throwing out possibilities. I still like best the "iPhone 4S for $299 off-contract, unlocked" idea. Requires zero extra R&D, zero new manufacturing techniques or equipment, and it could even only be available in those countries that clamor so much for it.
The iPhone 4 appears to currently cost $450 unlocked and contract-free.
As stated in my last post, I don't believe there is any reason for Apple to change their strategy.
2013 - 10 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (Premium 3G TD-SCDMA model)
iPhone 5 16 GB - $549 unlocked and contract-free
iPhone 4S 8 GB - $450 unlocked and contract-free
2014 - 20 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
iPhone 2014 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
iPhone 5 16 GB - $549 unlocked and contract-free
2015 - 40 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
iPhone 2015 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
iPhone 2014 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
China Mobile has likely considered the bleeding of customers the last couple of years to other carriers that offer 3G support for the iPhone.
At (Qualcomm's) typical 3.5% of the device total build cost you're looking at potentially huge paydays for them again. Even if they negotiate down to only 3%, how many billions could they get from just Apple alone?
Interesting sidenote:
Royalties are usually per wholesale price, but it's widely reported that Apple made a deal where they pay Qualcomm based on what Apple pays Foxconn per device (~$245), instead.
So, Qualcomm sells just their physical chipset to Apple for about $16.
Then, on top of that, Qualcomm charges Apple 3% to 5% ($10 to $15) IP royalty rate for iPhone / iPad models depending on what combination of GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE they have.
The iPhone 4 appears to currently cost $450 unlocked and contract-free.
Right, and this year that will be the iPhone 4S. Why not drop that to $299 off-contract and $0 on-contract?
As stated in my last post, I don't believe there is any reason for Apple to change their strategy.
Nor I. But it SHUTS UP the people whining about a "cheaper iPhone", so I'm all for that. As long as Apple still makes money on every single unit sold, I don't care what the price for that model is.
Right, and this year that will be the iPhone 4S. Why not drop that to $299 off-contract and $0 on-contract?
Nor I. But it SHUTS UP the people whining about a "cheaper iPhone", so I'm all for that. As long as Apple still makes money on every single unit sold, I don't care what the price for that model is.
The 4 and 4S don't have lightning and Apple wants to move to all lightning ASAP. It also doesn't have LTE which further limits it in the market. It is also perceived to be an old phone now. People like new even if it is no better in reality to a 4S. The 4 and 4S do continue to sell well but that is simply because there is no other alternative for a cheaper iPhone. If there were a brand new model with lightning, a new design, and possibly even LTE it would sell far better than the 4 or 4S. That is Marketing 101. Finally, margins are extremely important to Apple's thinking. The 4S though an older phone is still possibly expensive to make. At least more expensive to make to still get the same margins and be able to sell it for $299. If Apple goes this route I would expect a brand new model and to sell for $349 at the cheapest.
The 4 and 4S don't have lightning and Apple wants to move to all lightning ASAP. It also doesn't have LTE which further limits it in the market. It is also perceived to be an old phone now.
That's an interesting point and one worth considering but so far Apple hasn't dropped an older device because of Lightning. They dropped the iPad 3 for the iPad 4 but that flagship to flagship. They kept the 2010 iPod Touch, the 2011 iPad 2, and the 2010 and 2011 iPhone 4 and 4S when they switched to Lightning. I'm thinking they'll not drop the iPhone 4S with an entry-level device that has Lightning but I can how that would a benefit and I'm certainly open to your argument for it.
Royalties are usually per wholesale price, but it's widely reported that Apple made a deal where they pay Qualcomm based on what Apple pays Foxconn per device (~$245), instead.
So, Qualcomm sells just their physical chipset to Apple for about $16.
Then, on top of that, Qualcomm charges Apple 3% to 5% ($10 to $15) IP royalty rate for iPhone / iPad models depending on what combination of GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE they have.
That's pretty much the way I understood it. Qualcomm is charging based on the BOM rather than the wholesale price.
Will Qualcomm be able to deliver in massive quantities since more than likely Apple, Samsung, and every other company will want this chipset. This is after all the holy grail for smart phones in terms of chipsets. Prior to this, handset makers used a variety from different companies so I hope the massive demand that is sure to follow won't cause delays.
How will this effect the other chipset makers. I don't really know how many players there are in this market. I am sure all the others are working on their own Rosetta stone chipset as well. But if they don't provide a viable alternative Qualcomm might have a monopoly until they have an answer.
However you spin it, this is fantastic news barring any unforeseen complications or delays. I really hope this makes it into the next iPhone later in the year.
Will Qualcomm be able to deliver in massive quantities since more than likely Apple, Samsung, and every other company will want this chipset. This is after all the holy grail for smart phones in terms of chipsets. Prior to this, handset makers used a variety from different companies so I hope the massive demand that is sure to follow won't cause delays.
How will this effect the other chipset makers. I don't really know how many players there are in this market. I am sure all the others are working on their own Rosetta stone chipset as well. But if they don't provide a viable alternative Qualcomm might have a monopoly until they have an answer.
However you spin it, this is fantastic news barring any unforeseen complications or delays. I really hope this makes it into the next iPhone later in the year.
If the LTE chip they shipped last year in the iPhone 5 and then shortly after with the iPad 4 and iPad mini are indication then I think it's very likely Qualcomm will be able to deliver for Apple.
Right, and this year that will be the iPhone 4S. Why not drop that to $299 off-contract and $0 on-contract?
It's possible but at some point the cost of maintaining a completely separate build that uses older tech can start to become more costly that it just doesn't make sense to continue production. If the next iPhone launches this Summer it'll be 3 years since the iPhone 4 launched and we can then assume it would be a full 4 years before it reaches the end of its line. It's worth considering that a design that directly targeted the lower-end of the market might be a better fit, especially when that targeting might have to include TD-SCDMA for China Mobile which is on available on the iPhone 4.
It's possible but at some point the cost of maintaining a completely separate build that uses older tech can start to become more costly that it just doesn't make sense to continue production.
But this won't be separate, and it will still have been in production otherwise anyway.
Comments
Originally Posted by gwmac
But now it might be possible to just differentiate them on nothing more than the storage size and not the chipset meaning 3 instead possibly 21 or more.
Well, six (color x capacity). That definitely works to their advantage in the future, as it's only six SKUs (or, by dropping white, truly just three) to support per previous model added.
Oh, what if they drop the numbers, drop the old models and just run an 8GB version of their newest phone, whatever it is, off-contract unlocked at $299? Ah, that's too low, isn't it. $399 for the newest phone. But then there you go; that's too much again. Just throwing out possibilities. I still like best the "iPhone 4S for $299 off-contract, unlocked" idea. Requires zero extra R&D, zero new manufacturing techniques or equipment, and it could even only be available in those countries that clamor so much for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
I thought the issue with supporting many cell phone bands is broader than just baseband chipset support. Different bands also need different support components including power amplifiers and antennae which add cost, space, power, and complexity making a true world phone for 2G through 4G very difficult.
That is correct about the power amps and filters. They require room and money.
Antennas are not too bad, partly because CDMA/GSM/LTE do often share the same basic bands. The problem comes with needing more of them for diversity reception and transmissions.
In Apple's case, they also have a metal back to contend with. No doubt that's one reason why we saw the patent on the microslot antennas in the metal case.
As for Simultaneous Voice and Data, the iPhone does not do that while using LTE for data, because of the lack of a spare antenna. On both CDMA and GSM carriers, the iPhone drops out of LTE while a voice call is going on. This saves Apple money and internal space, and they figure most people won't notice while we all wait for voice over LTE to arrive.
Qualcomm's been really aggressive in announcing new chipsets and features over the past couple of weeks. In addition to the highlights that MacBookPro mentioned in post 11, Qualcomm also announced two big additions to their Snapdragon chipset.
"Qualcomm, the folks behind the infamous Snapdragon processors, will bring voice activation and speedier charging to mobile devices that use its innards.
Officially, the voice feature is called Snapdragon Voice Activation and is built into suite of Qualcomm’s integrated audio. The technology allows you to wake up a device by saying, “Hey Snapdragon.” The phrase will change depending on which manufacturer takes advantage of the tech...."
"Quick Charge 2.0, the new feature is the update to Quick Charge 1.0 and promises to juice up your smartphone or tablet 75 percent faster than normal. Quicker charging is a highly desired feature and Qualcomm plans to deliver, though with a couple caveats. Like Snapdragon Voice Activation, Quick Charge 2.0 only works with Snapdragon 800 processors, which haven’t been used in any mobile devices yet. The HTC One is sporting a 600 series so the 800 devices are probably still six months or so away."
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/qualcomm-unveils-always-on-voice-activation-and-quicker-charging-for-mobile-devices/
They might actually be a darn good investment for those that play in the stockmarket. ( I had several shares of their stock back in the 90's that did really well!) With all the recent innovations announced I think it's possible can set themselves up as the dominant source for smartphone processors and baseband chips.
At their typical 3.5% of the device total build cost you're looking at potentially huge paydays for them again. Even if they negotiate down to only 3%, how many billions could they get from just Apple alone?
I just realized that this makes the "iPhone mini" highly improbable.
China Mobile supposedly has 15 million subscribers using 2G service with an iPhone. Apple would likely desire to upgrade those 15 million subscribers to 3G (TD-SCDMA) service and add a, very likely much larger, pool of current (cost conscious) 2G subscribers prior to releasing a drastically less expensive mobile phone. In fact, if China Mobile subscribers reenact the AT&T / iPhone adoption rates the results could be staggering.
Apple would likely expect a few million subscribers to upgrade to the next iPhone. The next iPhone would then drop in price in 2014 which would be the catalyst for even higher adoption rates. As the next iPhone becomes the economy ($.99 iPhone in the United States) iPhone adoption rates would likely soar.
My question is since it was just announced yesterday, when is the soonest we might see it in an actual phone for sale? Is it already too late for the upcoming iPhone later this year?
That's possible but I think China Mobile has the better position overall which is why I think Apple catering to them with a lower-cost device to help them get more 3G (and eventually 4G) subscribers on board is a likely outcome.
I see what you're saying but the end results seems to require a total of 3 antennas to meet Apple's needs for SV&D on their handsets. Here's what AnandTech had to say about it:
Just being used by the world's largest carrier doesn't mean it's a common tech when you consider the world of cellphone use China Mobile's 714 million subscribers that's 10% of the world's subscribers but with most of them still not on '3G' TD-SCDMA or '4G' TD-LTE that percentage drops considerably. Of the world's cellular technologies TD-SCDMA is really just a drop in the bucket. A huge drop, but a drop nonetheless. I don't think anyone but China Mobile uses TD-SCDMA but TD-LTE has been adopted by at least one Japanese MNO. The good thing is these technologies are already part of Qualcomm's Gobi chips with biggest limitations being the operating bands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
My question is since it was just announced yesterday, when is the soonest we might see it in an actual phone for sale? Is it already too late for the upcoming iPhone later this year?
From the press release:
"OEM products featuring the complete Qualcomm RF360 Solution are anticipated to be launched in the second half of 2013"
The iPhone 4 appears to currently cost $450 unlocked and contract-free.
As stated in my last post, I don't believe there is any reason for Apple to change their strategy.
2013 - 10 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (Premium 3G TD-SCDMA model)
iPhone 5 16 GB - $549 unlocked and contract-free
iPhone 4S 8 GB - $450 unlocked and contract-free
2014 - 20 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
iPhone 2014 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
iPhone 5 16 GB - $549 unlocked and contract-free
2015 - 40 million in sales (to China Mobile subscribers)
iPhone 2015 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
iPhone 2014 (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
Next generation iPhone (32 GB?) - $649 unlocked and contract-free (TD-SCDMA)
China Mobile has likely considered the bleeding of customers the last couple of years to other carriers that offer 3G support for the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
At (Qualcomm's) typical 3.5% of the device total build cost you're looking at potentially huge paydays for them again. Even if they negotiate down to only 3%, how many billions could they get from just Apple alone?
Interesting sidenote:
Royalties are usually per wholesale price, but it's widely reported that Apple made a deal where they pay Qualcomm based on what Apple pays Foxconn per device (~$245), instead.
So, Qualcomm sells just their physical chipset to Apple for about $16.
Then, on top of that, Qualcomm charges Apple 3% to 5% ($10 to $15) IP royalty rate for iPhone / iPad models depending on what combination of GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE they have.
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
The iPhone 4 appears to currently cost $450 unlocked and contract-free.
Right, and this year that will be the iPhone 4S. Why not drop that to $299 off-contract and $0 on-contract?
As stated in my last post, I don't believe there is any reason for Apple to change their strategy.
Nor I. But it SHUTS UP the people whining about a "cheaper iPhone", so I'm all for that. As long as Apple still makes money on every single unit sold, I don't care what the price for that model is.
Why not continue to iPhone 4 for $350?
The 4 and 4S don't have lightning and Apple wants to move to all lightning ASAP. It also doesn't have LTE which further limits it in the market. It is also perceived to be an old phone now. People like new even if it is no better in reality to a 4S. The 4 and 4S do continue to sell well but that is simply because there is no other alternative for a cheaper iPhone. If there were a brand new model with lightning, a new design, and possibly even LTE it would sell far better than the 4 or 4S. That is Marketing 101. Finally, margins are extremely important to Apple's thinking. The 4S though an older phone is still possibly expensive to make. At least more expensive to make to still get the same margins and be able to sell it for $299. If Apple goes this route I would expect a brand new model and to sell for $349 at the cheapest.
That's an interesting point and one worth considering but so far Apple hasn't dropped an older device because of Lightning. They dropped the iPad 3 for the iPad 4 but that flagship to flagship. They kept the 2010 iPod Touch, the 2011 iPad 2, and the 2010 and 2011 iPhone 4 and 4S when they switched to Lightning. I'm thinking they'll not drop the iPhone 4S with an entry-level device that has Lightning but I can how that would a benefit and I'm certainly open to your argument for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Interesting sidenote:
Royalties are usually per wholesale price, but it's widely reported that Apple made a deal where they pay Qualcomm based on what Apple pays Foxconn per device (~$245), instead.
So, Qualcomm sells just their physical chipset to Apple for about $16.
Then, on top of that, Qualcomm charges Apple 3% to 5% ($10 to $15) IP royalty rate for iPhone / iPad models depending on what combination of GPRS/ CDMA / UMTS / LTE they have.
That's pretty much the way I understood it. Qualcomm is charging based on the BOM rather than the wholesale price.
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Why not continue to iPhone 4 for $350?
Then that's selling four models at once and forces Apple to gimp iOS 8 because the iPhone 4 "has" to be able to install it.
Will Qualcomm be able to deliver in massive quantities since more than likely Apple, Samsung, and every other company will want this chipset. This is after all the holy grail for smart phones in terms of chipsets. Prior to this, handset makers used a variety from different companies so I hope the massive demand that is sure to follow won't cause delays.
How will this effect the other chipset makers. I don't really know how many players there are in this market. I am sure all the others are working on their own Rosetta stone chipset as well. But if they don't provide a viable alternative Qualcomm might have a monopoly until they have an answer.
However you spin it, this is fantastic news barring any unforeseen complications or delays. I really hope this makes it into the next iPhone later in the year.
If the LTE chip they shipped last year in the iPhone 5 and then shortly after with the iPad 4 and iPad mini are indication then I think it's very likely Qualcomm will be able to deliver for Apple.
It's possible but at some point the cost of maintaining a completely separate build that uses older tech can start to become more costly that it just doesn't make sense to continue production. If the next iPhone launches this Summer it'll be 3 years since the iPhone 4 launched and we can then assume it would be a full 4 years before it reaches the end of its line. It's worth considering that a design that directly targeted the lower-end of the market might be a better fit, especially when that targeting might have to include TD-SCDMA for China Mobile which is on available on the iPhone 4.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's possible but at some point the cost of maintaining a completely separate build that uses older tech can start to become more costly that it just doesn't make sense to continue production.
But this won't be separate, and it will still have been in production otherwise anyway.