Oh for pete sake. Yes Most analysts are dump. But what is being said here is certainly not.
Yes, designing the baseband isn't harder then CPU. But it certainly is another area with its sets of engineering challenges that has many different trade off compare to CPU or even GPU. But do remember Apple did not design its CPU / GPU from scratch. Those were IPs bought and they made custom design to it. So yes, if they decide to make one from scratch it certainly is a herculean task
Then there is the front end, where for most parts is still Analog. a.k.a Qualcomm RF360 parts. You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it.
Apple could also buy IP just like they did with CPU and GPU. CEVA would certainly be the better option. But i dont see how the front end is going to play out. Because I dont see Apple going to make one themselves and test every god damn combination of wireless standard out there.
So as someone has pointed out, in an increasingly data oriented Mobile network, I see Apple likely making an LTE only option. And if that is the case, it will likely give carrier 2 years to make the move and improve, while they work on their own LTE parts.
The most important fact to include here is that Apple is trying to make their own Baseband chip. So that means they think it is do-able and cost effective. The Baseband is what does all the handshaking and data transfer with the cell tower -- so it isn't likely rocket science -- just more like tax accounting and every state has it's own rules.
" You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it." I'd have to take your word on that. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of competition, it's also possible that Baseband chips are the weak link on cell phones and are old and crusty with little emphasis on performance since everyone buys from a few vendors who own the market.
"I see Apple likely making an LTE only option."
>> I think that's very possible. They can get rid of a lot of useless energy consumption and optimize for LTE. They may also have a regular baseband chip and an Apple LTE and one or the other is activated depending on towers -- a trick Apple used for graphics cards on laptops based on whether they were plugged in or running on batteries.
I can't see how it would take 5 years and 1,000 engineers. I assume the technology is already known. In order for the analyst to know what the requirements are, they would have to know Apple's intent.
For instance, Apple could use some IBM self-programming chips that change to morph into various Basebands -- allowing one phone to work in many different locations. The same tech has been used to create self-adapting antennas because one design does not work best for every frequency. The antenna breaks and adds connections in a pattern that is best designed for a specific signal -- so one antenna can be optimized for different carriers. I'm not absolutely sure this is in use -- but I was reading about the tech about 10 years ago.
My thought on Apple's goal here;
There's probably a lot of legacy cruft in the Baseband chips and a lot of functions that could be optimized that work for most cell phone systems -- reducing energy use and improving performance. Then Apple would have "images" of baseband configs that are connected or disconnected (via software PROM -- as is their style).
I'm not a Basband pro, but I suspect that most of the tech is FRAND now or not too expensive to license -- or else Apple wouldn't be trying to do this.
I'm betting Apple did their homework and the analyst has done less homework -- as most tech analysts in the media are about as accurate as monkeys with darts.
Yeah, I can't imagine 5 years and 1000 engineers too. Simplistic math: 1000 eng x $200000 per eng x 5 year = $1b investment. Maybe if they are starting zero, but they obviously are not, and they are hiring people who have done it before, and there is IP that can be licensed. So turnaround time could be 3 years with a lot less engineers, and something on the order of $200m instead.
And how does one quantify the difficulty level of design and implementing a CPU, a GPU, a SoC, and a baseband chip anyways? If you have the right people, it could be remarkably easy and cost effective. If you have the wrong people, it'll fail.
Apple does have a lot of economic and design reasons to do it, and it's inevitable that they'd do it when we say they designed their own SoC, and especially obvious when they designed their own CPU. The GPU is probably next, presuming that design a better one than the contemporary ImgTec one. After that, the radio chipset.
Currently, Apple has a Qualcomm chipset residing on their iOS device PCBs. It's not small. It takes up about as much space as the SoC and the storage, and it costs money. If they can implement one on the SoC, it saves them room on the PCB, saves them on the cost of the device from component costs to engineering/integration work, and they have a chance to make it better than an off-the-shelf one. So, lots of good reasons for them to do this.
Lastly, I think they are already doing something like this for their wristband project. If there ever was a device that needed an integrated and super low power WiFi and Bluetooth chipset/baseband into an SoC, it'll be this wristband thing. They've likely been working on it for a 2 or 3 years now, and it is the thing that Bob Mansfield has been heading up for awhile.
Yeah, I can't imagine 5 years and 1000 engineers too. Simplistic math: 1000 eng x $200000 per eng x 5 year = $1b investment. Maybe if they are starting zero, but they obviously are not, and they are hiring people who have done it before, and there is IP that can be licensed. So turnaround time could be 3 years with a lot less engineers, and something on the order of $200m instead.
And how does one quantify the difficulty level of design and implementing a CPU, a GPU, a SoC, and a baseband chip anyways? If you have the right people, it could be remarkably easy and cost effective. If you have the wrong people, it'll fail.
Apple does have a lot of economic and design reasons to do it, and it's inevitable that they'd do it when we say they designed their own SoC, and especially obvious when they designed their own CPU. The GPU is probably next, presuming that design a better one than the contemporary ImgTec one. After that, the radio chipset.
Currently, Apple has a Qualcomm chipset residing on their iOS device PCBs. It's not small. It takes up about as much space as the SoC and the storage, and it costs money. If they can implement one on the SoC, it saves them room on the PCB, saves them on the cost of the device from component costs to engineering/integration work, and they have a chance to make it better than an off-the-shelf one. So, lots of good reasons for them to do this.
Lastly, I think they are already doing something like this for their wristband project. If there ever was a device that needed an integrated and super low power WiFi and Bluetooth chipset/baseband into an SoC, it'll be this wristband thing. They've likely been working on it for a 2 or 3 years now, and it is the thing that Bob Mansfield has been heading up for awhile.
Who said it will be the 'next' iPhone, or that it will even be a phone?! I think it would actually more likely be an iPod Touch or iPad or something different, initially at least...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Having Apple screw over their entire customer base just to get to MNOs to spend billions on furthering their LTE rollouts is not a sound solution. It would hurt Apple and customers. Even if this did cause MNOs to take immediate action it would be years before the rollout would cover every are at that '2G' GSM and CDMA now covers. On top of that, the chips are small, inexpensive and power efficient that that they cause amuck bigger downside for not being included than being included.
This would also means that the next iPhone wouldn't have any native voice capabilities as VoLTE isn't yet available. It would be FaceTime Audio calls for those that happen to be on an LTE or WiFi network. VoLTE will happen but there is absolutely no reason for it to happen now that make your desire for the destruction of the iPhone as a product and dissatisfaction of its users a desirable objective.
Who said it will be the 'next' iPhone, or that it will even be a phone?! I think it would actually more likely be an iPod Touch or iPad or something different, initially at least...
1) Availability with a wireless standard refers to widespread adoption, not a remote, isolated usage.
2) Did GSM die the moment the first UMTS tower arrived? Of course! There is no mutually exclusivity to these standards so having '2G' with '3G" and '4G' are perfectly acceptable.
3) This is an email so posting your reply above the comment you're responding to makes no sense.
1) Availability with a wireless standard refers to widespread adoption, not a remote, isolated usage.
2) Did GSM die the moment the first UMTS tower arrived? Of course! There is no mutually exclusivity to these standards so having '2G' with '3G" and '4G' are perfectly acceptable.
Except that you're comments aren't about adding something but removing something that works well in certain areas and as a backup to newer tech that isn't yet universally available. Apple didn't remove 802.11b when they added 802.11g capability.
But Apple DID remove PowerPC emulation from OS X in time... Ending 2G/3G support for carriers provides various benefits including repurposing spectrum.
Another leapfrog like VoLTE is RCS, which seems to replace SMS/MMS and has other new features, another feature MetroPCS was a leader with:
Except that you're comments aren't about adding something but removing something that works well in certain areas and as a backup to newer tech that isn't yet universally available. Apple didn't remove 802.11b when they added 802.11g capability.
But Apple DID remove PowerPC emulation from OS X in time... Ending 2G/3G support for carriers provides various benefits including repurposing spectrum.
Another leapfrog like VoLTE is RCS, which seems to replace SMS/MMS and has other new features, another feature MetroPCS was a leader with: http://www.gsma.com/network2020/rcs/
They eventually removed it once it was used by so few people that it wasn't work maintaining. What you want Apple to do is artificially drop all backwards compatibility from their baseband chips despite this being included on the chips so that Apple's iPhone sales will come to a halt. Did Apple drop SMS and email when they created iMessage? Did Apple drop Safari when they created the App Store? Did Apple drop 802.11n when they added 802.11ac? Why even suggest Apple actively try to destroy themselves?
I think you need to re-read my previous comments, since you think I am proposing something different from what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They eventually removed it once it was used by so few people that it wasn't work maintaining. What you want Apple to do is artificially drop all backwards compatibility from their baseband chips despite this being included on the chips so that Apple's iPhone sales will come to a halt. Did Apple drop SMS and email when they created iMessage? Did Apple drop Safari when they created the App Store? Did Apple drop 802.11n when they added 802.11ac? Why even suggest Apple actively try to destroy themselves?
I think you need to re-read my previous comments, since you think I am proposing something different from what I said.
I suppose that's possible since you're purposely trying to jack this thread by not following basic forum etiquette, but your premise was that Apple should only support VoLTE in their devices to force every carrier in the world to update their systems.
You still need to re-read my first few posts, you still did not get it accurate, and continue to skew my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I suppose that's possible since you're purposely trying to jack this thread by not following basic forum etiquette, but your premise was that Apple should only support VoLTE in their devices to force every carrier in the world to update their systems.
if you wish to restate your point I'll gladly analyze it and be more attentive to it the next time, but I'm not going to look back through the thread to rediscover a point you're not willing to restate.
Comments
Oh for pete sake. Yes Most analysts are dump. But what is being said here is certainly not.
Yes, designing the baseband isn't harder then CPU. But it certainly is another area with its sets of engineering challenges that has many different trade off compare to CPU or even GPU. But do remember Apple did not design its CPU / GPU from scratch. Those were IPs bought and they made custom design to it. So yes, if they decide to make one from scratch it certainly is a herculean task
Then there is the front end, where for most parts is still Analog. a.k.a Qualcomm RF360 parts. You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it.
Apple could also buy IP just like they did with CPU and GPU. CEVA would certainly be the better option. But i dont see how the front end is going to play out. Because I dont see Apple going to make one themselves and test every god damn combination of wireless standard out there.
So as someone has pointed out, in an increasingly data oriented Mobile network, I see Apple likely making an LTE only option. And if that is the case, it will likely give carrier 2 years to make the move and improve, while they work on their own LTE parts.
The most important fact to include here is that Apple is trying to make their own Baseband chip. So that means they think it is do-able and cost effective. The Baseband is what does all the handshaking and data transfer with the cell tower -- so it isn't likely rocket science -- just more like tax accounting and every state has it's own rules.
" You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it." I'd have to take your word on that. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of competition, it's also possible that Baseband chips are the weak link on cell phones and are old and crusty with little emphasis on performance since everyone buys from a few vendors who own the market.
"I see Apple likely making an LTE only option."
>> I think that's very possible. They can get rid of a lot of useless energy consumption and optimize for LTE. They may also have a regular baseband chip and an Apple LTE and one or the other is activated depending on towers -- a trick Apple used for graphics cards on laptops based on whether they were plugged in or running on batteries.
I can't see how it would take 5 years and 1,000 engineers. I assume the technology is already known. In order for the analyst to know what the requirements are, they would have to know Apple's intent.
For instance, Apple could use some IBM self-programming chips that change to morph into various Basebands -- allowing one phone to work in many different locations. The same tech has been used to create self-adapting antennas because one design does not work best for every frequency. The antenna breaks and adds connections in a pattern that is best designed for a specific signal -- so one antenna can be optimized for different carriers. I'm not absolutely sure this is in use -- but I was reading about the tech about 10 years ago.
My thought on Apple's goal here;
There's probably a lot of legacy cruft in the Baseband chips and a lot of functions that could be optimized that work for most cell phone systems -- reducing energy use and improving performance. Then Apple would have "images" of baseband configs that are connected or disconnected (via software PROM -- as is their style).
I'm not a Basband pro, but I suspect that most of the tech is FRAND now or not too expensive to license -- or else Apple wouldn't be trying to do this.
I'm betting Apple did their homework and the analyst has done less homework -- as most tech analysts in the media are about as accurate as monkeys with darts.
Yeah, I can't imagine 5 years and 1000 engineers too. Simplistic math: 1000 eng x $200000 per eng x 5 year = $1b investment. Maybe if they are starting zero, but they obviously are not, and they are hiring people who have done it before, and there is IP that can be licensed. So turnaround time could be 3 years with a lot less engineers, and something on the order of $200m instead.
And how does one quantify the difficulty level of design and implementing a CPU, a GPU, a SoC, and a baseband chip anyways? If you have the right people, it could be remarkably easy and cost effective. If you have the wrong people, it'll fail.
Apple does have a lot of economic and design reasons to do it, and it's inevitable that they'd do it when we say they designed their own SoC, and especially obvious when they designed their own CPU. The GPU is probably next, presuming that design a better one than the contemporary ImgTec one. After that, the radio chipset.
Currently, Apple has a Qualcomm chipset residing on their iOS device PCBs. It's not small. It takes up about as much space as the SoC and the storage, and it costs money. If they can implement one on the SoC, it saves them room on the PCB, saves them on the cost of the device from component costs to engineering/integration work, and they have a chance to make it better than an off-the-shelf one. So, lots of good reasons for them to do this.
Lastly, I think they are already doing something like this for their wristband project. If there ever was a device that needed an integrated and super low power WiFi and Bluetooth chipset/baseband into an SoC, it'll be this wristband thing. They've likely been working on it for a 2 or 3 years now, and it is the thing that Bob Mansfield has been heading up for awhile.
Yeah, I can't imagine 5 years and 1000 engineers too. Simplistic math: 1000 eng x $200000 per eng x 5 year = $1b investment. Maybe if they are starting zero, but they obviously are not, and they are hiring people who have done it before, and there is IP that can be licensed. So turnaround time could be 3 years with a lot less engineers, and something on the order of $200m instead.
And how does one quantify the difficulty level of design and implementing a CPU, a GPU, a SoC, and a baseband chip anyways? If you have the right people, it could be remarkably easy and cost effective. If you have the wrong people, it'll fail.
Apple does have a lot of economic and design reasons to do it, and it's inevitable that they'd do it when we say they designed their own SoC, and especially obvious when they designed their own CPU. The GPU is probably next, presuming that design a better one than the contemporary ImgTec one. After that, the radio chipset.
Currently, Apple has a Qualcomm chipset residing on their iOS device PCBs. It's not small. It takes up about as much space as the SoC and the storage, and it costs money. If they can implement one on the SoC, it saves them room on the PCB, saves them on the cost of the device from component costs to engineering/integration work, and they have a chance to make it better than an off-the-shelf one. So, lots of good reasons for them to do this.
Lastly, I think they are already doing something like this for their wristband project. If there ever was a device that needed an integrated and super low power WiFi and Bluetooth chipset/baseband into an SoC, it'll be this wristband thing. They've likely been working on it for a 2 or 3 years now, and it is the thing that Bob Mansfield has been heading up for awhile.
Bingo!
Did everyone forget that the holy grail of LTE is an ALL-IP system, if the carriers get it implemented fully in the near future...
How do you figure VoLTE is not yet available?! MetroPCS (now part of T-Mobile) already has been doing VoLTE for years:
http://gigaom.com/2012/10/11/t-mobile-will-maintain-metropcss-volte-service-but-its-future-is-up-in-the-air/
AT&T is launching VoLTE in 2014:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/att-admits-volte-delay-wont-offer-new-launch-date/2014-02-26
Who said it will be the 'next' iPhone, or that it will even be a phone?! I think it would actually more likely be an iPod Touch or iPad or something different, initially at least...
Quote:
Having Apple screw over their entire customer base just to get to MNOs to spend billions on furthering their LTE rollouts is not a sound solution. It would hurt Apple and customers. Even if this did cause MNOs to take immediate action it would be years before the rollout would cover every are at that '2G' GSM and CDMA now covers. On top of that, the chips are small, inexpensive and power efficient that that they cause amuck bigger downside for not being included than being included.
This would also means that the next iPhone wouldn't have any native voice capabilities as VoLTE isn't yet available. It would be FaceTime Audio calls for those that happen to be on an LTE or WiFi network. VoLTE will happen but there is absolutely no reason for it to happen now that make your desire for the destruction of the iPhone as a product and dissatisfaction of its users a desirable objective.
1) Availability with a wireless standard refers to widespread adoption, not a remote, isolated usage.
2) Did GSM die the moment the first UMTS tower arrived? Of course! There is no mutually exclusivity to these standards so having '2G' with '3G" and '4G' are perfectly acceptable.
3) This is an email so posting your reply above the comment you're responding to makes no sense.
Apple implementing the first laptop WiFI was a 'remote, isolated usage' according to your definition, but it is the standard today...
http://www.design-laorosa.com/2013/02/history-first-laptop-with-wifi-apple.html
Vision, it is what brings us the future.
Quote:
1) Availability with a wireless standard refers to widespread adoption, not a remote, isolated usage.
2) Did GSM die the moment the first UMTS tower arrived? Of course! There is no mutually exclusivity to these standards so having '2G' with '3G" and '4G' are perfectly acceptable.
Except that you're comments aren't about adding something but removing something that works well in certain areas and as a backup to newer tech that isn't yet universally available. Apple didn't remove 802.11b when they added 802.11g capability.
But Apple DID remove PowerPC emulation from OS X in time... Ending 2G/3G support for carriers provides various benefits including repurposing spectrum.
Another leapfrog like VoLTE is RCS, which seems to replace SMS/MMS and has other new features, another feature MetroPCS was a leader with:
http://www.gsma.com/network2020/rcs/
Quote:
Except that you're comments aren't about adding something but removing something that works well in certain areas and as a backup to newer tech that isn't yet universally available. Apple didn't remove 802.11b when they added 802.11g capability.
They eventually removed it once it was used by so few people that it wasn't work maintaining. What you want Apple to do is artificially drop all backwards compatibility from their baseband chips despite this being included on the chips so that Apple's iPhone sales will come to a halt. Did Apple drop SMS and email when they created iMessage? Did Apple drop Safari when they created the App Store? Did Apple drop 802.11n when they added 802.11ac? Why even suggest Apple actively try to destroy themselves?
I think you need to re-read my previous comments, since you think I am proposing something different from what I said.
Quote:
They eventually removed it once it was used by so few people that it wasn't work maintaining. What you want Apple to do is artificially drop all backwards compatibility from their baseband chips despite this being included on the chips so that Apple's iPhone sales will come to a halt. Did Apple drop SMS and email when they created iMessage? Did Apple drop Safari when they created the App Store? Did Apple drop 802.11n when they added 802.11ac? Why even suggest Apple actively try to destroy themselves?
I suppose that's possible since you're purposely trying to jack this thread by not following basic forum etiquette, but your premise was that Apple should only support VoLTE in their devices to force every carrier in the world to update their systems.
You still need to re-read my first few posts, you still did not get it accurate, and continue to skew my point.
Quote:
I suppose that's possible since you're purposely trying to jack this thread by not following basic forum etiquette, but your premise was that Apple should only support VoLTE in their devices to force every carrier in the world to update their systems.
if you wish to restate your point I'll gladly analyze it and be more attentive to it the next time, but I'm not going to look back through the thread to rediscover a point you're not willing to restate.