Apple will only have an 5G enabled iPhone in September 2020. Samsung and Huawei will have 5G enabled phone in the 2019 Christmas period. So they will both ahve a selling argument for that period.
The 5G networks will be up in running in major cities by the end of 2019
A iPhone user, who only buys a smartphone every 2 to 3 years and who needs a replacement end 2019 has 2 options: either he buys a 5G enabled Android or he buys a iPhone without 5G and wait for 5G for the next replacement cycle in 2022.
I can imagine that at least some users who live in areas where 5G will be available end 2019, will go for the first option.
Maybe you didn't notice the nonstop "Apple won't have 5G until 2020, maybe 2023" clickbait that has been posted everywhere, multiple times per day. Maybe you just desperately spin when you realize there's no other way to be critical apart from just spewing nonsensical words that sound like an opinion.
Bu there's a picture in the article you can look at to see what CNET has been preaching, despite the fact that 5G will not actually be relevant for multiple years.
The point is that Android lost all of its exclusivity in playing this 5G FUD game. There's also a picture fo that you could have looked at if you couldn't read the article.
CNET? That's your authoritative source?
It was never "exclusive to Android" to begin with. The companies using Android as their OS are largely if not 100% Qualcomm licensees as are not-Android companies running other OS's, those in China being one example. Now Apple is back too as a Qualcomm customer after a very short absence. You should be cheering that. "The Big Loser" angle you used instead is clickbait IMHO, and yes it might be only my opinion. But maybe it isn't.
None of the words you laid out here make any sense. (Fix: Well they do but it's inconvenient)
Look at the picture of 5G Android makers Qualcomm was showing in February. Now read the caption. Repeat if necessary.
Hey, point to a picture... Well OK
It was NEVER exclusive to "Android" whatever that means. Deflect and conquer doesn't always work DED.
Why would you ignore the elephant? Apple set out to define what would be acceptable conduct for an SEP licensor going forward and not only applying to Qualcomm. Terms such as double-dipping, "fair" royalties, what the obligations are for a "willing licensee", is withholding royalties permissable when disputing, can royalties already paid be clawed back, is the chipset itself the only agreeable royalty-bearing component and where is the line crossed with "Non-discriminating". Should agreements be defined by what standards agencies establish, and contracts are disputed under contract law, or on general principles of competition and a definition of what F/RAND actually requires.
Everyone (in general) was cheering, finally a hero willing and able to take a tough task on for the good of the industry. ...and then Apple failed at that task, with none of that decided in this court case even tho that was a supposed goal and focus. Settled before it ever began. It all came down to money. That's actually a real issue with real effects. "Android the big loser because Apple and QC are back in a bromance" is a made-up one.
Your point would carry water if there were a long list of offenders, in which case Apple following through with the Qualcomm case would have set a needed precedent. But when there’s only one significant supplier doing all that long list of offenses, Apple needed only resolve with that one supplier. No others are lined up like dominoes needing to be felled. So rather than mission failed, or even mission accomplished, more like mission scrubbed as no longer necessary. Everyone wins except the expensive legal teams.
Maybe you didn't notice the nonstop "Apple won't have 5G until 2020, maybe 2023" clickbait that has been posted everywhere, multiple times per day. Maybe you just desperately spin when you realize there's no other way to be critical apart from just spewing nonsensical words that sound like an opinion.
Bu there's a picture in the article you can look at to see what CNET has been preaching, despite the fact that 5G will not actually be relevant for multiple years.
The point is that Android lost all of its exclusivity in playing this 5G FUD game. There's also a picture fo that you could have looked at if you couldn't read the article.
CNET? That's your authoritative source?
It was never "exclusive to Android" to begin with. The companies using Android as their OS are largely if not 100% Qualcomm licensees as are not-Android companies running other OS's, those in China being one example. Now Apple is back too as a Qualcomm customer after a very short absence. You should be cheering that. "The Big Loser" angle you used instead is clickbait IMHO, and yes it might be only my opinion. But maybe it isn't.
None of the words you laid out here make any sense. (Fix: Well they do but it's inconvenient)
Look at the picture of 5G Android makers Qualcomm was showing in February. Now read the caption. Repeat if necessary.
Hey, point to a picture... Well OK
It was NEVER exclusive to "Android" whatever that means. Deflect and conquer doesn't always work DED.
Why would you ignore the elephant? Apple set out to define what would be acceptable conduct for an SEP licensor going forward and not only applying to Qualcomm. Terms such as double-dipping, "fair" royalties, what the obligations are for a "willing licensee", is withholding royalties permissable when disputing, can royalties already paid be clawed back, is the chipset itself the only agreeable royalty-bearing component and where is the line crossed with "Non-discriminating". Should agreements be defined by what standards agencies establish, and contracts are disputed under contract law, or on general principles of competition and a definition of what F/RAND actually requires.
Everyone (in general) was cheering, finally a hero willing and able to take a tough task on for the good of the industry. ...and then Apple failed at that task, with none of that decided in this court case even tho that was a supposed goal and focus. Settled before it ever began. It all came down to money. That's actually a real issue with real effects. "Android the big loser because Apple and QC are back in a bromance" is a made-up one.
Your point would carry water if there were a long list of offenders, in which case Apple following through with the Qualcomm case would have set a needed precedent. But when there’s only one significant supplier doing all that long list of offenses, Apple needed only resolve with that one supplier. No others are lined up like dominoes needing to be felled. So rather than mission failed, or even mission accomplished, more like mission scrubbed as no longer necessary. Everyone wins except the expensive legal teams.
The part that we don't know and probably never will: Was the mission no longer necessary, or was it done out of necessity for Apple?
They had only two other viable choices: get hammered in the marketplace while praying for Intel to get their act together, or go with Huawei which would generate political implications. Neither option was a good one. So, like they have done in the past with the likes of Microsoft and Google, they swallowed their pride and did what was best for their customer rather than themselves.
While I'm sad to see Apple take this route*, I applaud them for doing so.
* Qualcomm has demonstrated that they have no business ethics or morality and I doubt this agreement will change that. A thug is a thug until somebody makes them change.
"... not only with future chips supporting 5G connectivity, but also with today's modems. Apple currently sells 1 Gigabit modems in a world where Qualcomm markets 1.2 Gb at the top of the line."
And Huawei markets a 1.4 Gb/s at the top of the line and below.
But speed is only part of the solution. Reception is another, and Apple's current modems seem to have problems in this area when compared to QC modems in older iPhones. I see lots of people stating this, even here.
Apple being behind in this area is a well known failing of current and even past iPhones.
Maybe you didn't notice the nonstop "Apple won't have 5G until 2020, maybe 2023" clickbait that has been posted everywhere, multiple times per day. Maybe you just desperately spin when you realize there's no other way to be critical apart from just spewing nonsensical words that sound like an opinion.
Bu there's a picture in the article you can look at to see what CNET has been preaching, despite the fact that 5G will not actually be relevant for multiple years.
The point is that Android lost all of its exclusivity in playing this 5G FUD game. There's also a picture fo that you could have looked at if you couldn't read the article.
CNET? That's your authoritative source?
It was never "exclusive to Android" to begin with. The companies using Android as their OS are largely if not 100% Qualcomm licensees as are not-Android companies running other OS's, those in China being one example. Now Apple is back too as a Qualcomm customer after a very short absence. You should be cheering that. "The Big Loser" angle you used instead is clickbait IMHO, and yes it might be only my opinion. But maybe it isn't.
None of the words you laid out here make any sense. (Fix: Well they do but it's inconvenient)
Look at the picture of 5G Android makers Qualcomm was showing in February. Now read the caption. Repeat if necessary.
Hey, point to a picture... Well OK
It was NEVER exclusive to "Android" whatever that means. Deflect and conquer doesn't always work DED.
Why would you ignore the elephant? Apple set out to define what would be acceptable conduct for an SEP licensor going forward and not only applying to Qualcomm. Terms such as double-dipping, "fair" royalties, what the obligations are for a "willing licensee", is withholding royalties permissable when disputing, can royalties already paid be clawed back, is the chipset itself the only agreeable royalty-bearing component and where is the line crossed with "Non-discriminating". Should agreements be defined by what standards agencies establish, and contracts are disputed under contract law, or on general principles of competition and a definition of what F/RAND actually requires.
Everyone (in general) was cheering, finally a hero willing and able to take a tough task on for the good of the industry. ...and then Apple failed at that task, with none of that decided in this court case even tho that was a supposed goal and focus. Settled before it ever began. It all came down to money. That's actually a real issue with real effects. "Android the big loser because Apple and QC are back in a bromance" is a made-up one.
Your point would carry water if there were a long list of offenders, in which case Apple following through with the Qualcomm case would have set a needed precedent. But when there’s only one significant supplier doing all that long list of offenses, Apple needed only resolve with that one supplier. No others are lined up like dominoes needing to be felled. So rather than mission failed, or even mission accomplished, more like mission scrubbed as no longer necessary. Everyone wins except the expensive legal teams.
Nokia... Qualcomm... Ericsson... and that's only a few of those in the smartphone space specifically. There are hundreds of others using some of the same SEP licensing tactics across various industries from automotive to farming to television.
cropr said: The 5G networks will be up in running in major cities by the end of 2019
Too bad 5G doesn't really work that well inside buildings. I hear cities have a lot of those.
That's why CPE's exist.
It is also worth noting that 3G and 4G signals aren't mapped with building interiors in mind. You are simply receiving residual coverage from street mapping.
"However, the Open Handset Alliance of Android phone makers is the bigger casualty of the deal, because they're losing the strongest marketing point they've had to rival iPhones in ten years: exclusive access to Qualcomm's leading 5G modem chips."
No. The strongest marketing point is/was not 5G. It is/was price and cameras.
5G was just an added marketing point. One of many which is why Apple will surely stop shipping the 5W charger this year seeing as many Android phones can charge wirelessly faster than iPhones can charge with a wired connection (out of the box of course).
For camera options it is far easier and more effective to market for than 5G.
Thanks for that, Daniel. I don't disagree, but another way to look at it is this: Intel let Apple down. Again. Expect to see ARM-based Macs sooner rather than later.
"Suddenly, the one or two years of 5G exclusivity--and Qualcomm exclusivity-- that Android makers and their media promoters have been trying to turn into a major issue-- has vanished into nothing."
No. How could Android makers even know what was cooking at intel, Apple and QC?
That so-called exclusivity neverexisted because no one knew for certain that intel or Apple itself would not ship a 5G modem /phone this year.
All there were were rumours.
That said, Apple not shipping a 5G phone this year and or next year is a huge media promotion issue.
Android manufacturers want to ship phones and will use 5G to leverage that. Apple doesn't even cross their minds
"On the other hand, Android makers have been collectively promoting Qualcomm's marketing that has portrayed Apple asbeingbehindandmiredinuncertainty"
I think that was exactly the case, don't you? No need to 'portray' anything.
The QC trial outcome was uncertain.
The intel 5G modem was uncertain.
What modem Apple will ship this year is still uncertain.
As for being behind in this area. That is certain.
Until last night everything they 'portrayed' was true.
Portraits can be accurate. Quibbling about that choice of words just shows your bias.
How is it certain that Apple is still “behind in this area” now that this deal is made? They have had QC prototypes in hand for just as long as everybody else. The idea that Apple (or QC, for that matter) can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is absurd. Whatever 5G timetable Apple had planned, they only fell behind when Intel missed their deadlines. With this deal, Apple is back on track. The competition would be foolish to assume otherwise.
@corrections You didn't read my advice about making sure your hypothesis was correct and then keeping it short and concise, did you?
I was hoping you'd offer some real advice, but what you wrote was just condescending snark. Wasn't useful at all. Neither is this.
IreneW can’t offer you helpful advice, because to do that she would have to read your work carefully and take the time to figure out how to improve it!
Everyone could use a good editor, and that applies to you. It’s not easy to do, to step back from your work, especially working in real time, against a deadline. There’s reasons why newspapers and magazines have editors...
I feel really sorry for the jurors. Days wasted by many people in the selection process and then the selected ones sitting through the opening arguments only to be told: "Go home, you useless citizens".
The vast majority of trials are truncated just like this. No side is ever particularly happy with jury trials. Juries are notorious in making decisions based upon what legal and experts in the field (in cases like this, where highly technical issues are involved) find irrelevant.
"On the other hand, Android makers have been collectively promoting Qualcomm's marketing that has portrayed Apple asbeingbehindandmiredinuncertainty"
I think that was exactly the case, don't you? No need to 'portray' anything.
The QC trial outcome was uncertain.
The intel 5G modem was uncertain.
What modem Apple will ship this year is still uncertain.
As for being behind in this area. That is certain.
Until last night everything they 'portrayed' was true.
Portraits can be accurate. Quibbling about that choice of words just shows your bias.
How is it certain that Apple is still “behind in this area” now that this deal is made? They have had QC prototypes in hand for just as long as everybody else. The idea that Apple (or QC, for that matter) can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is absurd. Whatever 5G timetable Apple had planned, they only fell behind when Intel missed their deadlines. With this deal, Apple is back on track. The competition would be foolish to assume otherwise.
Apple is still behind because a new phone won't appear before September. That is if it appears this year. I think it could.
I'm not quibbling over the word 'portrayed' but highlighting in the exact same terms as the author and confirming the portrayal as accurate.
No one loses. Much less Android users. Everybody wins. Apple included and especially QC.
Intel took a decision and will have to live by it. It could have forged ahead and competed with QC and others with a 5G modem. The problem was if they could deliver a competitive modem or not. If they didn't see themselves as being capable of that, by pulling out early, they win too.
So much bitterness seeping out of every paragragh when iPhone users should just be celebrating this deal. It looks like the author was desperately fearing Android sweeping up on 5G as Apple struggled on with intel vaporware (at worst) or a late, poor performing modem (at best).
Why not just shout a woo hoo! And celebrate?
Agree. DED tends to exaggerate the impact of events.
It's pretty clear Intel's decision was forced by Apple's decision to make a deal with Qcom. It didn't have a choice to promise Apple it could deliver something competitive, because Apple needed to buy it. It wasn't going to be worth anything to anyone else.
And the reason for stating the truth about who is impacted and who is not is because that's helpful in understanding what will happen. I've been on the opposite side of lots of analysts and fake-balance "wohoo celebrate everyone" nonsense, and well, my record of accuracy is in print across 15 years of controversial writing: Vista, Zune, Android Market, PFS, Surface RT, Surface, HTC, iPads, HP WebOS, Honeycomb, MacBook Air, Nexus, Samsung, Tegra, Xiaomi, Motogoogarola, MS Nokia, Huawei, Alexa, Apple Watch, Android Wear, so many topics I've addressed and highlighted the future correctly in opposition to waves of people saying the opposite, and literally tons of anonymous cowards throwing out their catty disrespectful contempt. I don't have to feel "desperate fear" about anything.
And as for the historical revisionism of Avon and Gatergate on Android:
Sascha Seagan of PCMag : "Qualcomm Deal Means Apple’s 5G iPhone Is Back on for 2020"
"Even knowing that Apple has a good path to 5G takes a lot of air out of the Android world’s competitive sails. Samsung, Qualcomm, and various Android vendors have all been promoting 5G as an “only on Android!” technology—you see the banner ads pop up whenever you run the Speedtest app. It’s in Apple’s interest to cut that line of thinking short."
cropr said: The 5G networks will be up in running in major cities by the end of 2019
Too bad 5G doesn't really work that well inside buildings. I hear cities have a lot of those.
That's why CPE's exist.
It is also worth noting that 3G and 4G signals aren't mapped with building interiors in mind. You are simply receiving residual coverage from street mapping.
What are CPE's?
Regardless, as we all know, the 3/4G spectrum has the ability to penetrate buildings, 5G does not. One of the purported benefits of 5G is to replace home broadband access, but people have been very clear in stating that you will need to have a modem mounted outside your house to receive the signal. This is another reason I doubt 5G will be a huge game changer for mobile phones. A significant portion of the time you are inside, meaning the true, high bandwidth spectrum will be blocked. The biggest benefit of 5G for mobile users will likely be improvements to the internet backbone and increased numbers of towers for 4G reception.
Comments
While I'm sad to see Apple take this route*, I applaud them for doing so.
* Qualcomm has demonstrated that they have no business ethics or morality and I doubt this agreement will change that. A thug is a thug until somebody makes them change.
And Huawei markets a 1.4 Gb/s at the top of the line and below.
But speed is only part of the solution. Reception is another, and Apple's current modems seem to have problems in this area when compared to QC modems in older iPhones. I see lots of people stating this, even here.
Apple being behind in this area is a well known failing of current and even past iPhones.
It is also worth noting that 3G and 4G signals aren't mapped with building interiors in mind. You are simply receiving residual coverage from street mapping.
No. The strongest marketing point is/was not 5G. It is/was price and cameras.
5G was just an added marketing point. One of many which is why Apple will surely stop shipping the 5W charger this year seeing as many Android phones can charge wirelessly faster than iPhones can charge with a wired connection (out of the box of course).
For camera options it is far easier and more effective to market for than 5G.
I think that was exactly the case, don't you? No need to 'portray' anything.
The QC trial outcome was uncertain.
The intel 5G modem was uncertain.
What modem Apple will ship this year is still uncertain.
As for being behind in this area. That is certain.
Until last night everything they 'portrayed' was true.
No. How could Android makers even know what was cooking at intel, Apple and QC?
That so-called exclusivity never existed because no one knew for certain that intel or Apple itself would not ship a 5G modem /phone this year.
All there were were rumours.
That said, Apple not shipping a 5G phone this year and or next year is a huge media promotion issue.
Android manufacturers want to ship phones and will use 5G to leverage that. Apple doesn't even cross their minds
How is it certain that Apple is still “behind in this area” now that this deal is made? They have had QC prototypes in hand for just as long as everybody else. The idea that Apple (or QC, for that matter) can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is absurd. Whatever 5G timetable Apple had planned, they only fell behind when Intel missed their deadlines. With this deal, Apple is back on track. The competition would be foolish to assume otherwise.
Everyone could use a good editor, and that applies to you. It’s not easy to do, to step back from your work, especially working in real time, against a deadline. There’s reasons why newspapers and magazines have editors...
I'm not quibbling over the word 'portrayed' but highlighting in the exact same terms as the author and confirming the portrayal as accurate.
And the reason for stating the truth about who is impacted and who is not is because that's helpful in understanding what will happen. I've been on the opposite side of lots of analysts and fake-balance "wohoo celebrate everyone" nonsense, and well, my record of accuracy is in print across 15 years of controversial writing: Vista, Zune, Android Market, PFS, Surface RT, Surface, HTC, iPads, HP WebOS, Honeycomb, MacBook Air, Nexus, Samsung, Tegra, Xiaomi, Motogoogarola, MS Nokia, Huawei, Alexa, Apple Watch, Android Wear, so many topics I've addressed and highlighted the future correctly in opposition to waves of people saying the opposite, and literally tons of anonymous cowards throwing out their catty disrespectful contempt. I don't have to feel "desperate fear" about anything.
And as for the historical revisionism of Avon and Gatergate on Android:
Sascha Seagan of PCMag : "Qualcomm Deal Means Apple’s 5G iPhone Is Back on for 2020"
"Even knowing that Apple has a good path to 5G takes a lot of air out of the Android world’s competitive sails. Samsung, Qualcomm, and various Android vendors have all been promoting 5G as an “only on Android!” technology—you see the banner ads pop up whenever you run the Speedtest app. It’s in Apple’s interest to cut that line of thinking short."
Regardless, as we all know, the 3/4G spectrum has the ability to penetrate buildings, 5G does not. One of the purported benefits of 5G is to replace home broadband access, but people have been very clear in stating that you will need to have a modem mounted outside your house to receive the signal. This is another reason I doubt 5G will be a huge game changer for mobile phones. A significant portion of the time you are inside, meaning the true, high bandwidth spectrum will be blocked. The biggest benefit of 5G for mobile users will likely be improvements to the internet backbone and increased numbers of towers for 4G reception.