My prediction is: Apple knows just how important 5G is -- which is why they settled with Qualcomm. And, they will announce a 5G phone in September.
Based on Apple's long history of not being early adopters of new cellular network standards, I'd say the 5G phone is not coming until Fall 2020. For what it's worth, some news outlets mentioned that the recent Apple-Qualcomm settlement came too late for Apple to work the current Qualcomm 5G chips into the design of its Fall 2019 handsets.
Apple has never released a handset that adopts up-and-coming sparsely deployed cellular network technologies. Apple waits until there's significant deployment to make it a worthwhile and relevant selling point.
Remember that 5G isn't coming to the USA first. The first truly significant deployments will be in Southeast Asia and some of the richer Western European countries' major cities. The USA is not the pioneer when it comes to cellular network deployments.
The first wave of cellular chips are often power hungry so it is likely that future silicon will be more energy efficient and thus more interesting for manufacturers of battery powered mobile devices. We saw the same thing with the first wave of 4G LTE chips which were primarily used in cellular modems plugged into the wall using AC electricity.
Even today's smartphones often have a setting to turn off LTE. No reason to enable the circuitry and have it waste battery if there's no such network in your area.
Yes, it is likely that it is too late for Apple to incorporate a 5G modem in a phone being released in September. But not too late for them to announce a 5G phone that will be released "shortly" after.
As for Apple lagging behind communications standards, there has never been such impetus to stay current. 5G, by all reports, is not an evolutionary change but an revolutionary one. As I said, I think it is important enough that Apple swallowed their pride and their checkbook to get access to Qualcomm's modem.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
Predominant? That will mostly depend on when and where you measure it: In the Cleveland urban areas, Cleveland Clinic & at Case Western -- or in the corn fields surrounding Lordstown. But if you mean that 4G/LTE will exist as a backbone (just as 3G has) for many years, I agree.
As for T-Mobile and Verizon saying it won't be ready for use (which is what you seem to be implying) for "5 years or more", I have not heard them say that.
My prediction is: Apple knows just how important 5G is -- which is why they settled with Qualcomm. And, they will announce a 5G phone in September.
I'm not implying anything. Your use of "ready for use" is loaded, though. If you can't see an installed network, you can't use it, so it isn't ready to use. For that small subset of users that can see the network, then it's ready to use. The former category will far, far outnumber the latter for those five years that I spoke of.
Very similarly, the FCC considers a single home or business in a census block to equate to "this zone is covered by broadband." Verizon does the same thing with FiOS deployments. Tell the unserved in that block that they're covered, and see how it goes.
Sorry Mike, what I am seeing does not support your argument. 5G is being rolled out today in high population density areas around the world and appears to be a high priority for every carrier. That suggests that a lot more will have access to it than what it appears you are saying.
Or, to put it another way: If only 1/4 or 1/3 of those in Apple's prime markets have access to a 5G network but Apple does not have a phone capable of accessing it, Apple will get beaten up for falling behind current technology.
But again, I don't think that will happen. I think Apple will announce a 5G phone in September for release in the next 3-4 months -- or sooner due to the Christmas season. I strongly suspect they already have a premliminary design for it and are giving it every priority. ... Frankly, If they don't announce in September, they'll get hammered because they won't likely have much else exciting for the iPhone. Just more evolutionary updates.
I doubt the Apple engineers will be getting much sleep over the next several months.
I had an interesting conversation with an AT&T wireless engineer about 5G last year. We both ended up waiting for our cars to be serviced and had no desire to suffer through the HGTV on the lounge TV.
Without getting into the details, the biggest advantage I can see with the 5G technology will be the ability to extend true high-speed internet to areas where it is too rural or whatever to deliver high-speed data.
For the average cell phone user with access to good LTE, the differences might not be that great especially if you figure in the expected higher cost.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
Predominant? That will mostly depend on when and where you measure it: In the Cleveland urban areas, Cleveland Clinic & at Case Western -- or in the corn fields surrounding Lordstown. But if you mean that 4G/LTE will exist as a backbone (just as 3G has) for many years, I agree.
As for T-Mobile and Verizon saying it won't be ready for use (which is what you seem to be implying) for "5 years or more", I have not heard them say that.
My prediction is: Apple knows just how important 5G is -- which is why they settled with Qualcomm. And, they will announce a 5G phone in September.
I'm not implying anything. Your use of "ready for use" is loaded, though. If you can't see an installed network, you can't use it, so it isn't ready to use. For that small subset of users that can see the network, then it's ready to use. The former category will far, far outnumber the latter for those five years that I spoke of.
Very similarly, the FCC considers a single home or business in a census block to equate to "this zone is covered by broadband." Verizon does the same thing with FiOS deployments. Tell the unserved in that block that they're covered, and see how it goes.
Sorry Mike, what I am seeing does not support your argument. 5G is being rolled out today in high population density areas around the world and appears to be a high priority for every carrier. That suggests that a lot more will have access to it than what it appears you are saying.
Or, to put it another way: If only 1/4 or 1/3 of those in Apple's prime markets have access to a 5G network but Apple does not have a phone capable of accessing it, Apple will get beaten up for falling behind current technology.
But again, I don't think that will happen. I think Apple will announce a 5G phone in September for release in the next 3-4 months -- or sooner due to the Christmas season. I strongly suspect they already have a premliminary design for it and are giving it every priority. ... Frankly, If they don't announce in September, they'll get hammered because they won't likely have much else exciting for the iPhone. Just more evolutionary updates.
I doubt the Apple engineers will be getting much sleep over the next several months.
What the carriers are calling a "rollout" is very, very small, like the FCC/FiOS thing I said. I'd be surprised if 1/4 or even 1/2 of those in Apple's prime markets will have 5G at the end of those five years, and even then, the fast mmwave part of 5G will still be spotty.
Apple will get beaten up if it has a 5G iPhone and users can't connect with any frequency. Apple will get beat up if they don't. Apple may say "and 5G is coming to the iPhone soon" in September, but it would be surprising if they had something for it by this time next year -- primarily because the 5G network will still be crap, and Apple doesn't really have any say in that. We've been here before, in the shift to LTE from 3G, and for much the same reasons.
And again, Verizon and T-Mobile execs are all on record saying that mmWave and 5G aren't going to be wide deployments soon, if at all. I'm not sure why you think differently in regards to this matter.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
When a mobile operator like Verizon says that they are deploying 5G/whatever to a city, just having one transmitter is enough for them to make the claim.
In reality, it takes YEARS for these networks to be deployed. It's not like the Verizon CEO can press a button and new cellular network hardware and antenna magically sprout up on all of Verizon's cellular towers. These deployments are probably just a handful of towers per day in a given major market.
Worse, the physical limitations of the mmWave radio frequency require additional network locations. If a network operator simply uses their existing 3G/LTE towers, there will be significant gaps in coverage due to mmWave's shorter range. It is the increased number of network locations that make mmWave unplausible/financially unattractive outside of some 5G hotspot areas in heavily dense urban locations.
Again, the Verizon CEO said that mmWave 5G is not a coverage frequency.
Thus, if a company deploys mmWave 5G to a hotspot that covers -- oh let's say Times Square in NYC -- it's not like every single person in the five boroughs can take advantage of it. Hell, it doesn't help people a few blocks away.
It takes a long time for a mobile operator to deploy a new cellular network infrastructure and it most likely will not be going into residential neighborhoods from the beginning. Trust me, it took years for T-Mobile to upgrade their Edge towers to 3G and a similar amount of time to get to wide LTE deployment. I've also dabbled with an MVNO who used AT&T towers and lengthy deployments are the norm. There are still places in urbanized Silicon Valley where T-Mobile towers have significant coverage gaps and the same goes for pretty much all of the major mobile operators.
A company saying that they are "working on it" is not the same as real world widespread availability. And don't go by coverage maps on their websites, those are a total joke.
The article DangDave linked to is very good. This is another article that is also informative. One of the interesting points that the articles made was that while 5G is a wireless technology, it is not necessarily mobile. I also found it revealing that Qualcomm is advising having at least 2, preferably 3 antennae per device, strategically placed to minimize the risk of the signal being blocked by the user's hand holding the device. Literally, to keep you from holding it wrong.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
After reading the above articles, I'm glad there won't be an option this year. It will take time to get 5G working, and the early devices are going to be just that - early devices with suboptimal performance and capabilities.
Think about the history of tech roll outs - when has the reality ever matched the promises made beforehand? The apocryphal promises of free electricity from nuclear power plants have been repeated over and over again through the history of technology. The numbers and specs quoted are theoretical maximums. those depend on the hardware being perfected and the carriers having capable equipment. Even now, 4G isn't realizing the promises made before it was launched. Now think about the timeframe. 4G took years. It was announced in the early to mid 2000's, the first 4G phone was introduced in 2008, networks started rolling out 4G around 2009-2010 , the first 4G iPhone (5) came out in 2012 (when 4G modems were actually maturing) and it was probably 2014-2015 before truly widespread 4G coverage was achieved. This pattern is repeated again and again - theoretical maximum speeds are quoted and all the technophiles jump on them and go ga-ga.
5G requires significantly more work to roll out and you have officials from both Verizon and T-Mo publicly stating that coverage will be limited. The cities that are 'covered' only have a few patches of coverage. The standards are not yet finalized. They infrastructure that is being rolled out still doesn't meet what 5G is promised to be, and even if it did it's not clear if it would be at all useful. To cap everything off, many of the promises made regarding 5G presume widespread, consistent coverage. Clearly that will be years in the making and any technologies that depend on that will be very slow to develop until that time. Why in God's name anyone is fretting over the 5G capabilities of a smartphone is beyond me.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
Predominant? That will mostly depend on when and where you measure it: In the Cleveland urban areas, Cleveland Clinic & at Case Western -- or in the corn fields surrounding Lordstown. But if you mean that 4G/LTE will exist as a backbone (just as 3G has) for many years, I agree.
As for T-Mobile and Verizon saying it won't be ready for use (which is what you seem to be implying) for "5 years or more", I have not heard them say that.
My prediction is: Apple knows just how important 5G is -- which is why they settled with Qualcomm. And, they will announce a 5G phone in September.
I'm not implying anything. Your use of "ready for use" is loaded, though. If you can't see an installed network, you can't use it, so it isn't ready to use. For that small subset of users that can see the network, then it's ready to use. The former category will far, far outnumber the latter for those five years that I spoke of.
Very similarly, the FCC considers a single home or business in a census block to equate to "this zone is covered by broadband." Verizon does the same thing with FiOS deployments. Tell the unserved in that block that they're covered, and see how it goes.
Sorry Mike, what I am seeing does not support your argument. 5G is being rolled out today in high population density areas around the world and appears to be a high priority for every carrier. That suggests that a lot more will have access to it than what it appears you are saying.
Or, to put it another way: If only 1/4 or 1/3 of those in Apple's prime markets have access to a 5G network but Apple does not have a phone capable of accessing it, Apple will get beaten up for falling behind current technology.
But again, I don't think that will happen. I think Apple will announce a 5G phone in September for release in the next 3-4 months -- or sooner due to the Christmas season. I strongly suspect they already have a premliminary design for it and are giving it every priority. ... Frankly, If they don't announce in September, they'll get hammered because they won't likely have much else exciting for the iPhone. Just more evolutionary updates.
I doubt the Apple engineers will be getting much sleep over the next several months.
What the carriers are calling a "rollout" is very, very small, like the FCC/FiOS thing I said. I'd be surprised if 1/4 or even 1/2 of those in Apple's prime markets will have 5G at the end of those five years, and even then, the fast mmwave part of 5G will still be spotty.
Apple will get beaten up if it has a 5G iPhone and users can't connect with any frequency. Apple will get beat up if they don't. Apple may say "and 5G is coming to the iPhone soon" in September, but it would be surprising if they had something for it by this time next year -- primarily because the 5G network will still be crap, and Apple doesn't really have any say in that. We've been here before, in the shift to LTE from 3G, and for much the same reasons.
And again, Verizon and T-Mobile execs are all on record saying that mmWave and 5G aren't going to be wide deployments soon, if at all. I'm not sure why you think differently in regards to this matter.
It sounds like you are looking primarily at the mmwave aspect -- which I suspect the "execs" are referring to when they say it isn't "going to be wide deployments". But for generic, broad spectrum 5G I see them taking an aggressive approach (at least in high population density areas). And, I am using the broader definition of 5G -- which admittedly waters down the benefits of 5G and moves it more into an evolutionary rather than revolutionary upgrade -- which undermines my arguments. But, I am hopeful -- even knowing that historically my hopes have always raced ahead of reality.
It is perhaps that mixed nature of 5G -- short, fast mmwave along with longer, slower frequencies that make it hard to discuss and muddy the waters -- because talking about "5G" is a bit like talking about "Communications technology" -- the term can mean whatever you want it to mean.
As for Apple getting beat up either way: Well, yeh, that's how it works! But, in truth, I think most people know enough now to separate what their carrier does or does not do from their phone.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
Why not this year -- now that Apple has access to a 5G modem? Is there that much difference between LTE and a 5G modems that they couldn't "stick one in" with relatively minor design changes?
Yeh, I know that they are getting close to production for the September phones -- I'm not talking about them. But what about a "December" release? For Apple that could have 2 advantages: their 4G September-release phones could go out with consumer level pricing and their 5G December phones could be the premium priced phones. That way they cover all the bases.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
Why not this year -- now that Apple has access to a 5G modem? Is there that much difference between LTE and a 5G modems that they couldn't "stick one in" with relatively minor design changes?
Yeh, I know that they are getting close to production for the September phones -- I'm not talking about them. But what about a "December" release? For Apple that could have 2 advantages: their 4G September-release phones could go out with consumer level pricing and their 5G December phones could be the premium priced phones. That way they cover all the bases.
I can think of several possible reasons not to:
I don’t know what the development timeframes are for iPhone hardware, but I’m guessing months to years. Even for a December launch it may be too late.
How much testing is necessary? Being a new technology and also more susceptible to physical factors, the phone and antenna configuration would likely need significant field testing. This is also difficult to do given the lack of 5G infrastructure.
What chips are available when and in what quantities? QC may not have sufficient quantities of their latest chips ready in time
What are the sizes of the chips? The pictures I’ve seen of QC’s 5G modem chip and antenna indicate that they are fairly large and QC reportedly recommends having at least 3 antennae. That would potentially require significant re-engineering of the iphone design
What are the power characteristics? In the past early versions of modems were significantly less efficient. If they take extra room it would probably mean a smaller battery, too. The combination could potentially mean meaningfully shorter battery life will virtually no feature benefit for the next 2-3 years, potentially longer.
What are the capabilities of the modem? The specs and features of 5G are still evolving. If this year’s chip is short on specs it may make sense to wait for a more full-featured chip.
All or none of these may be true, but they any one of them could be a reason not to rush the inclusion this year. Ultimately, simply slapping in a new modem chip is not free there are both financial as well as potential performance costs associated with it. If I were buying a phone this year, I would far rather have a well-designed 4G phone than a rushed 5G phone with compromises.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
Why not this year -- now that Apple has access to a 5G modem? Is there that much difference between LTE and a 5G modems that they couldn't "stick one in" with relatively minor design changes?
Yeh, I know that they are getting close to production for the September phones -- I'm not talking about them. But what about a "December" release? For Apple that could have 2 advantages: their 4G September-release phones could go out with consumer level pricing and their 5G December phones could be the premium priced phones. That way they cover all the bases.
I can think of several possible reasons not to:
I don’t know what the development timeframes are for iPhone hardware, but I’m guessing months to years. Even for a December launch it may be too late.
How much testing is necessary? Being a new technology and also more susceptible to physical factors, the phone and antenna configuration would likely need significant field testing. This is also difficult to do given the lack of 5G infrastructure.
What chips are available when and in what quantities? QC may not have sufficient quantities of their latest chips ready in time
What are the sizes of the chips? The pictures I’ve seen of QC’s 5G modem chip and antenna indicate that they are fairly large and QC reportedly recommends having at least 3 antennae. That would potentially require significant re-engineering of the iphone design
What are the power characteristics? In the past early versions of modems were significantly less efficient. If they take extra room it would probably mean a smaller battery, too. The combination could potentially mean meaningfully shorter battery life will virtually no feature benefit for the next 2-3 years, potentially longer.
What are the capabilities of the modem? The specs and features of 5G are still evolving. If this year’s chip is short on specs it may make sense to wait for a more full-featured chip.
All or none of these may be true, but they any one of them could be a reason not to rush the inclusion this year. Ultimately, simply slapping in a new modem chip is not free there are both financial as well as potential performance costs associated with it. If I were buying a phone this year, I would far rather have a well-designed 4G phone than a rushed 5G phone with compromises.
That all makes sense and it's logical. But if it were true, then why did Apple bother to cave in their Qualcomm lawsuit? Unless they felt they couldn't win it (which I doubt), they had nothing to gain by settling. Intel will continue supplying their 4G chips. And, if they weren't going to use the Qualcomm modem for a year or so, then they could have waited for more favorable conditions.
My bet: The design changes needed to accommodate 5G modem (such as extra antennas) are fairly minor and 90% of the existing design can go untouched --- maybe thicker side bands, etc... As for testing, the only testing Apple should need to do is testing the Qualcomm modem in the Apple's iPhone rather than testing the chip itself.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
Why not this year -- now that Apple has access to a 5G modem? Is there that much difference between LTE and a 5G modems that they couldn't "stick one in" with relatively minor design changes?
Yeh, I know that they are getting close to production for the September phones -- I'm not talking about them. But what about a "December" release? For Apple that could have 2 advantages: their 4G September-release phones could go out with consumer level pricing and their 5G December phones could be the premium priced phones. That way they cover all the bases.
I can think of several possible reasons not to:
I don’t know what the development timeframes are for iPhone hardware, but I’m guessing months to years. Even for a December launch it may be too late.
How much testing is necessary? Being a new technology and also more susceptible to physical factors, the phone and antenna configuration would likely need significant field testing. This is also difficult to do given the lack of 5G infrastructure.
What chips are available when and in what quantities? QC may not have sufficient quantities of their latest chips ready in time
What are the sizes of the chips? The pictures I’ve seen of QC’s 5G modem chip and antenna indicate that they are fairly large and QC reportedly recommends having at least 3 antennae. That would potentially require significant re-engineering of the iphone design
What are the power characteristics? In the past early versions of modems were significantly less efficient. If they take extra room it would probably mean a smaller battery, too. The combination could potentially mean meaningfully shorter battery life will virtually no feature benefit for the next 2-3 years, potentially longer.
What are the capabilities of the modem? The specs and features of 5G are still evolving. If this year’s chip is short on specs it may make sense to wait for a more full-featured chip.
All or none of these may be true, but they any one of them could be a reason not to rush the inclusion this year. Ultimately, simply slapping in a new modem chip is not free there are both financial as well as potential performance costs associated with it. If I were buying a phone this year, I would far rather have a well-designed 4G phone than a rushed 5G phone with compromises.
That all makes sense and it's logical. But if it were true, then why did Apple bother to cave in their Qualcomm lawsuit? Unless they felt they couldn't win it (which I doubt), they had nothing to gain by settling. Intel will continue supplying their 4G chips. And, if they weren't going to use the Qualcomm modem for a year or so, then they could have waited for more favorable conditions.
My bet: The design changes needed to accommodate 5G modem (such as extra antennas) are fairly minor and 90% of the existing design can go untouched --- maybe thicker side bands, etc... As for testing, the only testing Apple should need to do is testing the Qualcomm modem in the Apple's iPhone rather than testing the chip itself.
Well, no one knows the terms and exactly who caved to whom. Both companies had a lot on the line: Apple needed 5G eventually and it was becoming clear that Intel wasn't going to be able to produce, and QC stood potentially to lose billions. Even assuming Apple's main goal was access to QC's 5G modems that doesn't mean they wanted access to them for this year. It could very well have been that they wanted them for the Fall of 2020 and they needed 12-16 months of lead time for development. You've been focusing on a 4 year lifespan for smart phones - 2020 would mean the phone would last until 2024 which is probably when 5G will actually start be relevant beyond the hype and early adopters.
If you look at the articles DangDave and I linked to above, there's a picture of the modem chip and antennae; I have no experience in this area, but it definitely looks non-trivial to add them in to a device. The testing would need to involve the QC modem, the antennae and various configurations as well as measuring power consumption and software changes. If all of this requires changes to the circuit board or battery design, then those need to be accomplished and sourced to suppliers as well. Again, I'm just guessing with all of this, but I can easily see how it would take more than 8 months.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
Frankly, I'd rather have the option this year but know there won't be one -- and the internet will be flooded with hot takes that there is no 5G iPhone -- but no, it isn't a big deal.
Why not this year -- now that Apple has access to a 5G modem? Is there that much difference between LTE and a 5G modems that they couldn't "stick one in" with relatively minor design changes?
Yeh, I know that they are getting close to production for the September phones -- I'm not talking about them. But what about a "December" release? For Apple that could have 2 advantages: their 4G September-release phones could go out with consumer level pricing and their 5G December phones could be the premium priced phones. That way they cover all the bases.
I can think of several possible reasons not to:
I don’t know what the development timeframes are for iPhone hardware, but I’m guessing months to years. Even for a December launch it may be too late.
How much testing is necessary? Being a new technology and also more susceptible to physical factors, the phone and antenna configuration would likely need significant field testing. This is also difficult to do given the lack of 5G infrastructure.
What chips are available when and in what quantities? QC may not have sufficient quantities of their latest chips ready in time
What are the sizes of the chips? The pictures I’ve seen of QC’s 5G modem chip and antenna indicate that they are fairly large and QC reportedly recommends having at least 3 antennae. That would potentially require significant re-engineering of the iphone design
What are the power characteristics? In the past early versions of modems were significantly less efficient. If they take extra room it would probably mean a smaller battery, too. The combination could potentially mean meaningfully shorter battery life will virtually no feature benefit for the next 2-3 years, potentially longer.
What are the capabilities of the modem? The specs and features of 5G are still evolving. If this year’s chip is short on specs it may make sense to wait for a more full-featured chip.
All or none of these may be true, but they any one of them could be a reason not to rush the inclusion this year. Ultimately, simply slapping in a new modem chip is not free there are both financial as well as potential performance costs associated with it. If I were buying a phone this year, I would far rather have a well-designed 4G phone than a rushed 5G phone with compromises.
That all makes sense and it's logical. But if it were true, then why did Apple bother to cave in their Qualcomm lawsuit? Unless they felt they couldn't win it (which I doubt), they had nothing to gain by settling. Intel will continue supplying their 4G chips. And, if they weren't going to use the Qualcomm modem for a year or so, then they could have waited for more favorable conditions.
My bet: The design changes needed to accommodate 5G modem (such as extra antennas) are fairly minor and 90% of the existing design can go untouched --- maybe thicker side bands, etc... As for testing, the only testing Apple should need to do is testing the Qualcomm modem in the Apple's iPhone rather than testing the chip itself.
Well, no one knows the terms and exactly who caved to whom. Both companies had a lot on the line: Apple needed 5G eventually and it was becoming clear that Intel wasn't going to be able to produce, and QC stood potentially to lose billions. Even assuming Apple's main goal was access to QC's 5G modems that doesn't mean they wanted access to them for this year. It could very well have been that they wanted them for the Fall of 2020 and they needed 12-16 months of lead time for development. You've been focusing on a 4 year lifespan for smart phones - 2020 would mean the phone would last until 2024 which is probably when 5G will actually start be relevant beyond the hype and early adopters.
If you look at the articles DangDave and I linked to above, there's a picture of the modem chip and antennae; I have no experience in this area, but it definitely looks non-trivial to add them in to a device. The testing would need to involve the QC modem, the antennae and various configurations as well as measuring power consumption and software changes. If all of this requires changes to the circuit board or battery design, then those need to be accomplished and sourced to suppliers as well. Again, I'm just guessing with all of this, but I can easily see how it would take more than 8 months.
As world wide carriers are putting a high priority on rolling out 5G, I am not buying the claim that 5G won't be relevant for another 5 years.
First: Admittedly, it's likely somebody living outside of an urbanized area won't see it for some time -- heck I took my grandson fishing 12 miles outside of Pittsburgh the other night and had no signal. But, to the carriers, the few scattered people living in those areas simply don't matter (the ethics behind that is different topic).
Second: It likely depends on what kind of 5G you're talking about. Ultra-fast mmwave 5G likely won't be widely available till it develops a commercial type use -- such as self-driving cars, trucks and drones.
As for the testing: I am assuming that Qualcomm already performed a lot of it and has specs and recommendations already available and that they have already coordinated with the various carriers. That would leave Apple with mostly implementation and verification rather than original, base level R&D type testing.
From the reading I’ve done, my understanding is the high bandwidth features of 5G depend on mm wavelength signal, but that spectrum is also incredibly poor at penetrating objects and needs very closely spaced antennae. That would fit with T-Mo’s position that it will only be available or viable in dense urban areas. This makes me wonder - first, how effective will mmWave be in urban areas if it is so susceptible to obstruction by physical objects. Second, what will be the actual usable features of 5G, both in urban areas and in areas that don’t have mmWave coverage? Everyone touts speed, latency and increasing the number of devices. Latency isn’t going to matter for the vast majority of people. What kind of speeds can we realistically expect to see?
There in lies the problem, marketing can’t beat physics. I’m actually surprised at this executives candor as far too many would try to exploit the new tech as the latest and greatest thing. In one way he is a bit mistaken in that 5G is not ideal for densely packed urban areas. Frankly it is the same problem many phone companies had with 4G in large cities operating on the higher frequency channels. Ultimately AT&T and others had to switch to lower frequency carriers to maintain decent service. As the operating frequency goes up, radio waves become very much line of sight solutions thus you can get dead spots behind anything blocking the signal. In the old days before the wide spread use of fiber microwave point to point communications was common. These sorts of communication systems where easy to disrupt by anything traveling between towers.
So frankly the cell cell phone companies and the communications companies really need to do more to educate the public because frankly I don’t ever see 5G becoming highly reliable. It certainly will not meet most people’s expectations with respect to their experiences with 4G. Frankly I’m not sure how the likes of Apple will manage this one! If Apple isn’t honest about 5G they will piss off a lot of customers if they are honest far too many will say that it isn’t worth the expense. In the end 5G will only be leveraged by a small minority of users. It will likely work out better for people in the south but those in the north, in the winter months, will find the service to be frustrating as they are indoors so much of the time.
Of course there are work arounds. For example stadiums and malls for example may end up having interior cell sites. Phone companies may even make greater use of repeaters in homes and small businesses. The problem here is that these solutions compete with WiTi. Frankly it is better for most of these locations to offer up WiFi. Well at least until all laptops come with 5G.
As for speeds it will not be much different than today. You might get lucky and see the vastly increased speeds from time to time reaching the specified rates. The reality is you might never see those rates due to a whole host of issues some of which have nothing to do with 5G. Network congestion is still going to be with us for example. (Early adopters win with respect to congestion). Signal strength of course impacts data rates. So it comes back to the variability of the world around us.
From the reading I’ve done, my understanding is the high bandwidth features of 5G depend on mm wavelength signal, but that spectrum is also incredibly poor at penetrating objects and needs very closely spaced antennae. That would fit with T-Mo’s position that it will only be available or viable in dense urban areas. This makes me wonder - first, how effective will mmWave be in urban areas if it is so susceptible to obstruction by physical objects. Second, what will be the actual usable features of 5G, both in urban areas and in areas that don’t have mmWave coverage? Everyone touts speed, latency and increasing the number of devices. Latency isn’t going to matter for the vast majority of people. What kind of speeds can we realistically expect to see?
I think a lot of your questions will need to wait until there's actually a usable network, and devices in the field.
And you're right, most users don't care about latency. Speeds will greatly vary by the inch. Based on how mmWave propagates and penetrates, a difference of inches in regards to device placement on your desk could make all the difference. We'll see.
And, notably, tree leaves are an effective mmwave block. Delivered signal will vary a great deal based on plant cover alone -- and that's pretty ridiculous.
So, it sounds like this will be pretty useless indoors. I presume the service providers will begin to offer Microcell-type devices to help justify the higher costs they want to charge for 5G service.
It isn’t just indoors. If you can shoot a laser beam between you and a 5G tower you will get good reception. If not the high speed promise of 5G goes away.
That is is a bit simplistic because radio waves can reflect off objects to some extent. Penetration depends upon many factors also. But the starkness of the drop outs will be worse than 4G before most of the carriers switched to lower frequency bands.
As for Micro-cell type technology or cell phone repeaters; yes I would expect to see far wider usage. It will be required for large indoor venues like malls and stadiums. In many cases the 5G signals carrying the high data rates will not penetrate these buildings at all. Consider for example the building I work in, even with 4G every cell phone goes off line deep inside that building. The concrete and ceramic tiles are just too much even for 4G. 5G would be even less likely to make it through so the problem isn’t unique to 5G but likely to be far worse.
I wonder how the tone and content of the comments marginalizing and disparaging 5G would change if Apple were rolling out a 5G phone instead of Samsung.
... Well, actually, I don't.
It wouldn't change from me. The reality is, 4G will be the predominant method of wireless networking for cellphones for five years or more. 5G will be good for who it serves, and under ideal circumstances, but that day is far, far away.
You've got T-Mobile and Verizon saying the same thing.
It all comes down to physics which radio designers can not over come. 5G will be great for those that can leverage it under the optimal conditions needed but it will be far harder for most to get those glowing data rates.
i suspect that the cell cell phone companies are trying to figure out how to manage consumer expectations. If you remember back to the early 4G days there was a lot of loud noise about loss signals with 4G. The cell companies quickly changed most sites over to lower frequency bands to mitigate these complaints. However to increase data rates they pretty much have to increase operating frequency which will reduce reliability for mobile use. So what we are seeing here is the cell companies trying to moderate expectations that potential new users might have.
The more 5G is just a transmission protocol, and not simply defined as broadcasting on specific wavelengths, the more 5G can become the standard for cellular communications supporting multiple wavelengths.
Sure 5G is a transmission protocol but the very high data rates are dependent upon very high frequencies. Since everybody seems to only care about those data rates there will be many unhappy customers if the cell companies can’t manage expectations.
By the way in the open country represented by the vast desert areas of Nevada, 5G will likely work better for people outside of the cities. The reasons are pretty simple long distances with line of sight contact with cell towers vs highly congested urban areas like Las Vegas. Combine this with the lack of tall structures outside of the major cities and you may find 5G working better outside of the urban areas. There is a flip side here though in that your cell phone needs to be able to communicate back to the tower, it isn’t all about reception.
A lot of people here are putting out a lot of very logical evidence why 5G will either never work or won't for a long, long time.
But, telecoms & mobile equipment vendors around the world are betting many billions of dollars -- basically betting their company -- that it will. In fact, it's impact is projected to be such that it has become worldwide security / political issue.
Then, add on top of that that 5G was really the only incentive for Apple to cave in and settle with Qualcomm....
And, it all adds up that the experts are saying its coming hard and fast.
A lot of people here are putting out a lot of very logical evidence why 5G will either never work or won't for a long, long time.
But, telecoms & mobile equipment vendors around the world are betting many billions of dollars -- basically betting their company -- that it will. In fact, it's impact is projected to be such that it has become worldwide security / political issue.
Then, add on top of that that 5G was really the only incentive for Apple to cave in and settle with Qualcomm....
And, it all adds up that the experts are saying its coming hard and fast.
You’re assuming that Apple settled with QC to get 5G (not an unreasonable assumption,) but 5G for phones may be as much or more about the perception than the reality, and that alone may be enough of a reason for manufacturers to put it in their devices and for the telecoms to expand their 5G coverage. Look at AT&T with their 5GE sham. One other possibility is that the benefit of 5G is not actually maximum speed, rather allowing more devices to connect at a given speed so you can actually get more devices, all at decent (4G) speeds without bogging down.
All of the hype around 5G focuses on latency, speed and increased numbers of devices. One of the Zdnet articles made an interesting statement: 5G is wireless, but it’s not mobile. The articles that I’ve read that actually go beyond the hype all point to significant technical issues with 5G. This leaves me with a conundrum - as you say, the telecoms are heavily investing in 5G rollouts (with some of them now making statements to temper expectations) yet the technical descriptions don’t seem to bear out the hype. THat leaves me with 3 general possibilities - the telecoms are all racing each other for a prize they don’t understand other than that they know they don’t want to be last, the technical issues are as insurmountable as they would seem, or the real benefits of 5G have to do with the infrastructure and other non-mobile uses. The first seems ludicrous until you listen to an MBA talk about technical issues so who knows?
Comments
As for Apple lagging behind communications standards, there has never been such impetus to stay current. 5G, by all reports, is not an evolutionary change but an revolutionary one. As I said, I think it is important enough that Apple swallowed their pride and their checkbook to get access to Qualcomm's modem.
But again, I don't think that will happen. I think Apple will announce a 5G phone in September for release in the next 3-4 months -- or sooner due to the Christmas season. I strongly suspect they already have a premliminary design for it and are giving it every priority.
... Frankly, If they don't announce in September, they'll get hammered because they won't likely have much else exciting for the iPhone. Just more evolutionary updates.
I doubt the Apple engineers will be getting much sleep over the next several months.
Without getting into the details, the biggest advantage I can see with the 5G technology will be the ability to extend true high-speed internet to areas where it is too rural or whatever to deliver high-speed data.
This is practical testing, after six months plus of buildout, and maybe as many as nine. https://gizmodo.com/wind-sleet-and-dead-zones-my-quest-to-map-chicagos-s-1834012422
Apple will get beaten up if it has a 5G iPhone and users can't connect with any frequency. Apple will get beat up if they don't. Apple may say "and 5G is coming to the iPhone soon" in September, but it would be surprising if they had something for it by this time next year -- primarily because the 5G network will still be crap, and Apple doesn't really have any say in that. We've been here before, in the shift to LTE from 3G, and for much the same reasons.
And again, Verizon and T-Mobile execs are all on record saying that mmWave and 5G aren't going to be wide deployments soon, if at all. I'm not sure why you think differently in regards to this matter.
So in other words, 5G possibly not being on an iPhone until 2020 really isn't that big of a deal? This is what I was thinking. I know there are those out there saying this will put the iPhone behind (again) and that it will be a major selling feature of Android phones but I don't see this as being the case. Android users might buy a 5G phone, but it won't be because of the 5G feature unless you're just a nerd who gets their kicks off having the latest and greatest and cares only about specs to brag.
When a mobile operator like Verizon says that they are deploying 5G/whatever to a city, just having one transmitter is enough for them to make the claim.
In reality, it takes YEARS for these networks to be deployed. It's not like the Verizon CEO can press a button and new cellular network hardware and antenna magically sprout up on all of Verizon's cellular towers. These deployments are probably just a handful of towers per day in a given major market.
Worse, the physical limitations of the mmWave radio frequency require additional network locations. If a network operator simply uses their existing 3G/LTE towers, there will be significant gaps in coverage due to mmWave's shorter range. It is the increased number of network locations that make mmWave unplausible/financially unattractive outside of some 5G hotspot areas in heavily dense urban locations.
Again, the Verizon CEO said that mmWave 5G is not a coverage frequency.
Thus, if a company deploys mmWave 5G to a hotspot that covers -- oh let's say Times Square in NYC -- it's not like every single person in the five boroughs can take advantage of it. Hell, it doesn't help people a few blocks away.
It takes a long time for a mobile operator to deploy a new cellular network infrastructure and it most likely will not be going into residential neighborhoods from the beginning. Trust me, it took years for T-Mobile to upgrade their Edge towers to 3G and a similar amount of time to get to wide LTE deployment. I've also dabbled with an MVNO who used AT&T towers and lengthy deployments are the norm. There are still places in urbanized Silicon Valley where T-Mobile towers have significant coverage gaps and the same goes for pretty much all of the major mobile operators.
A company saying that they are "working on it" is not the same as real world widespread availability. And don't go by coverage maps on their websites, those are a total joke.
After reading the above articles, I'm glad there won't be an option this year. It will take time to get 5G working, and the early devices are going to be just that - early devices with suboptimal performance and capabilities.
Think about the history of tech roll outs - when has the reality ever matched the promises made beforehand? The apocryphal promises of free electricity from nuclear power plants have been repeated over and over again through the history of technology. The numbers and specs quoted are theoretical maximums. those depend on the hardware being perfected and the carriers having capable equipment. Even now, 4G isn't realizing the promises made before it was launched. Now think about the timeframe. 4G took years. It was announced in the early to mid 2000's, the first 4G phone was introduced in 2008, networks started rolling out 4G around 2009-2010 , the first 4G iPhone (5) came out in 2012 (when 4G modems were actually maturing) and it was probably 2014-2015 before truly widespread 4G coverage was achieved. This pattern is repeated again and again - theoretical maximum speeds are quoted and all the technophiles jump on them and go ga-ga.
5G requires significantly more work to roll out and you have officials from both Verizon and T-Mo publicly stating that coverage will be limited. The cities that are 'covered' only have a few patches of coverage. The standards are not yet finalized. They infrastructure that is being rolled out still doesn't meet what 5G is promised to be, and even if it did it's not clear if it would be at all useful. To cap everything off, many of the promises made regarding 5G presume widespread, consistent coverage. Clearly that will be years in the making and any technologies that depend on that will be very slow to develop until that time. Why in God's name anyone is fretting over the 5G capabilities of a smartphone is beyond me.
My bet: The design changes needed to accommodate 5G modem (such as extra antennas) are fairly minor and 90% of the existing design can go untouched --- maybe thicker side bands, etc... As for testing, the only testing Apple should need to do is testing the Qualcomm modem in the Apple's iPhone rather than testing the chip itself.
If you look at the articles DangDave and I linked to above, there's a picture of the modem chip and antennae; I have no experience in this area, but it definitely looks non-trivial to add them in to a device. The testing would need to involve the QC modem, the antennae and various configurations as well as measuring power consumption and software changes. If all of this requires changes to the circuit board or battery design, then those need to be accomplished and sourced to suppliers as well. Again, I'm just guessing with all of this, but I can easily see how it would take more than 8 months.
First: Admittedly, it's likely somebody living outside of an urbanized area won't see it for some time -- heck I took my grandson fishing 12 miles outside of Pittsburgh the other night and had no signal. But, to the carriers, the few scattered people living in those areas simply don't matter (the ethics behind that is different topic).
Second: It likely depends on what kind of 5G you're talking about. Ultra-fast mmwave 5G likely won't be widely available till it develops a commercial type use -- such as self-driving cars, trucks and drones.
As for the testing: I am assuming that Qualcomm already performed a lot of it and has specs and recommendations already available and that they have already coordinated with the various carriers. That would leave Apple with mostly implementation and verification rather than original, base level R&D type testing.
So frankly the cell cell phone companies and the communications companies really need to do more to educate the public because frankly I don’t ever see 5G becoming highly reliable. It certainly will not meet most people’s expectations with respect to their experiences with 4G. Frankly I’m not sure how the likes of Apple will manage this one! If Apple isn’t honest about 5G they will piss off a lot of customers if they are honest far too many will say that it isn’t worth the expense. In the end 5G will only be leveraged by a small minority of users. It will likely work out better for people in the south but those in the north, in the winter months, will find the service to be frustrating as they are indoors so much of the time.
Of course there are work arounds. For example stadiums and malls for example may end up having interior cell sites. Phone companies may even make greater use of repeaters in homes and small businesses. The problem here is that these solutions compete with WiTi. Frankly it is better for most of these locations to offer up WiFi. Well at least until all laptops come with 5G.
As for speeds it will not be much different than today. You might get lucky and see the vastly increased speeds from time to time reaching the specified rates. The reality is you might never see those rates due to a whole host of issues some of which have nothing to do with 5G. Network congestion is still going to be with us for example. (Early adopters win with respect to congestion). Signal strength of course impacts data rates. So it comes back to the variability of the world around us.
That is is a bit simplistic because radio waves can reflect off objects to some extent. Penetration depends upon many factors also. But the starkness of the drop outs will be worse than 4G before most of the carriers switched to lower frequency bands.
As for Micro-cell type technology or cell phone repeaters; yes I would expect to see far wider usage. It will be required for large indoor venues like malls and stadiums. In many cases the 5G signals carrying the high data rates will not penetrate these buildings at all. Consider for example the building I work in, even with 4G every cell phone goes off line deep inside that building. The concrete and ceramic tiles are just too much even for 4G. 5G would be even less likely to make it through so the problem isn’t unique to 5G but likely to be far worse.
i suspect that the cell cell phone companies are trying to figure out how to manage consumer expectations. If you remember back to the early 4G days there was a lot of loud noise about loss signals with 4G. The cell companies quickly changed most sites over to lower frequency bands to mitigate these complaints. However to increase data rates they pretty much have to increase operating frequency which will reduce reliability for mobile use. So what we are seeing here is the cell companies trying to moderate expectations that potential new users might have.
By the way in the open country represented by the vast desert areas of Nevada, 5G will likely work better for people outside of the cities. The reasons are pretty simple long distances with line of sight contact with cell towers vs highly congested urban areas like Las Vegas. Combine this with the lack of tall structures outside of the major cities and you may find 5G working better outside of the urban areas. There is a flip side here though in that your cell phone needs to be able to communicate back to the tower, it isn’t all about reception.
But, telecoms & mobile equipment vendors around the world are betting many billions of dollars -- basically betting their company -- that it will. In fact, it's impact is projected to be such that it has become worldwide security / political issue.
Then, add on top of that that 5G was really the only incentive for Apple to cave in and settle with Qualcomm....
And, it all adds up that the experts are saying its coming hard and fast.
All of the hype around 5G focuses on latency, speed and increased numbers of devices. One of the Zdnet articles made an interesting statement: 5G is wireless, but it’s not mobile. The articles that I’ve read that actually go beyond the hype all point to significant technical issues with 5G. This leaves me with a conundrum - as you say, the telecoms are heavily investing in 5G rollouts (with some of them now making statements to temper expectations) yet the technical descriptions don’t seem to bear out the hype. THat leaves me with 3 general possibilities - the telecoms are all racing each other for a prize they don’t understand other than that they know they don’t want to be last, the technical issues are as insurmountable as they would seem, or the real benefits of 5G have to do with the infrastructure and other non-mobile uses. The first seems ludicrous until you listen to an MBA talk about technical issues so who knows?