Apple may shift to single-band 5G on 2021 'iPhone 13' lineup

AppleInsider

Apple's 2021 "iPhone 13" models may not include support for both high-band and low-band 5G connectivity, a report claims, with the future models potentially shipping with compatibility for either the extremely fast mmWave or the more resilient sub-6GHz spectrum.

It is largely believed that Apple's 2020 iPhone models will include 5G support, with the "iPhone 12" range expected to use 5G modems sourced from Qualcomm. But while speculation for the inbound iPhone generation is intensifying, some attention is being turned to the 2021 model, plausibly called the "iPhone 13."

According to DigiTimes, Apple is considering the possibility of producing a version of the iPhone using a single 5G band. While the iPhone 12 collection is anticipated to work with both sub-6GHz signal as well as mmWave, giving customers the full usage of 5G, Taiwan-based sources believe Apple is entertaining the thought of including support of one or the other "for specific markets."

While DigiTimes is generally a good source of supply chain rumors, it typically fares better with production news and delays, rather than on specific features of new hardware. That being said, it would be feasible for Apple to make such a decision.

The decision to provide partial 5G support could potentially allow Apple to offer devices that offer at different connectivity speeds, depending on what the market offers in terms of existing infrastructure, as well as the needs of customers.

Retaining support for mmWave would mean that consumers will be able to take advantage of the high speeds that promotion of 5G promises will be available, but such signal is susceptible to interference and lacks range, issues that would normally be fixed by the sub-6GHz spectrum. Feasibly, by offering mmWave support in this manner, the iPhone would instead have to rely on existing LTE infrastructure to provide extended coverage.

Sub-6GHz 5G is resilient and able to operate at long ranges, unlike mmWave, but it won't provide much of a speed boost over LTE connections.

MplsP

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

mattinoz

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time. Sub6-5G will make that more so. So generally the general public will just upgrade now on other aspects.

mmWave will do nothing to make your device faster when it's needed and everything to make your phone faster when not needed.

ktappe

This seems like a bad idea.  What if Apple chooses the 5G band that's not the one implemented in my area?  Sure, one reply is "They'll be sure to sell you the one for your region", but what if I move or travel? 

GeorgeBMac

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

"This would be incredibly stupid"

You took the words right out of my mouth.

This would be reminsicent of the days when a Verizon phone was incapable of running on an AT&T network -- and vice-versa.   Where the user was locked to a particular carrier and, if you wanted to switch carriers you had to buy a new phone.

GeorgeBMac

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

mike1

If true, the article stated that any decision to include one or the other would be "for specific markets". They already produce dozens of different models for sale in different countries. If there was an appreciable cost savings to leave out mmWave (the most likely case) in those areas of the world where there is no infrastructure to support it, it would make sense.

wonkothesane

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Isn’t that’s a bit comparing apples and oranges? If Apple would decide the more robust variant wouldn’t that still be an improvement for all? Or are there providers that only support the mmWave variant? Obviously, many faster cars would put more pressure on building better roads (to use your picture here), but one year give or take, what’s the big difference? We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

GeorgeBMac

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

MplsP

GeorgeBMac said:

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

That’s not opposing 5G, just stating that the majority of people have no need for extra speed. 

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Again, not a valid comparison, but if you must, must, the conversion from horses to cars did not happen overnight. It took decades, and for the early adopters the main benefit to an automobile was status. One could say the same about 5G...

MplsP

GeorgeBMac said:

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

That’s not opposing 5G, just stating that the majority of people have no need for extra speed. 

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Again, not a valid comparison, but if you must, must, the conversion from horses to cars did not happen overnight. It took decades, and for the early adopters the main benefit to an automobile was status. One could say the same about 5G...

GeorgeBMac

MplsP said:

GeorgeBMac said:

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

That’s not opposing 5G, just stating that the majority of people have no need for extra speed. 

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Again, not a valid comparison, but if you must, must, the conversion from horses to cars did not happen overnight. It took decades, and for the early adopters the main benefit to an automobile was status. One could say the same about 5G...

So, saying most people don't need 5G is not opposing 5G?   Perhaps, but it sure sounds like he does,

But you are correct that 4G won't go away anytime soon -- just as 3G didn't.

mattinoz

GeorgeBMac said:

MplsP said:

GeorgeBMac said:

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

That’s not opposing 5G, just stating that the majority of people have no need for extra speed. 

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Again, not a valid comparison, but if you must, must, the conversion from horses to cars did not happen overnight. It took decades, and for the early adopters the main benefit to an automobile was status. One could say the same about 5G...

So, saying most people don't need 5G is not opposing 5G?   Perhaps, but it sure sounds like he does,

But you are correct that 4G won't go away anytime soon -- just as 3G didn't.

Opposing would be the people claiming all sorts of crazy ideas about it. Roll it out see how it goes fine with me but here is the thing about horse. For many decades a better horse was a good thing in many situations better horses are still the best option. So what reduced there market was a different use not a different technology.  

But as far as phones and tablets even laptops mobile computing more coverage beats small pockets of better bandwidth. To me mmWave is about enabling another use not improving a current one. So why burden the current use for little to no benefit. What’s it matter if iPhone only gets the useful parts of 5G?

GeorgeBMac

mattinoz said:

GeorgeBMac said:

MplsP said:

GeorgeBMac said:

wonkothesane said:

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

....

We are not talking about opposing 5G in general.

Really?   Then I must have misunderstood what he meant by:
"The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......"

That’s not opposing 5G, just stating that the majority of people have no need for extra speed. 

GeorgeBMac said:

mattinoz said:

MplsP said:

This would be incredibly stupid, but the general public is so uninformed about 5G that Apple may do it.

mmWave 5G has horrible penetration and coverage and the cell phone companies have come right out and said it will never extend beyond densely populated metro areas. A while ago Verizon finally published detailed 5G coverage maps and it's very telling - 5G coverage in Chicago was limited to the streets only in the downtown area. A phone with 5G capability limited to mmWave would be useless to anyone who doesn't live in such an area and useless to those people if they were inside.

The general public also gets that 4G means their phone is fast enough most of the time......

100 some years ago people said the same about horses.

Again, not a valid comparison, but if you must, must, the conversion from horses to cars did not happen overnight. It took decades, and for the early adopters the main benefit to an automobile was status. One could say the same about 5G...

So, saying most people don't need 5G is not opposing 5G?   Perhaps, but it sure sounds like he does,

But you are correct that 4G won't go away anytime soon -- just as 3G didn't.

Opposing would be the people claiming all sorts of crazy ideas about it. Roll it out see how it goes fine with me but here is the thing about horse. For many decades a better horse was a good thing in many situations better horses are still the best option. So what reduced there market was a different use not a different technology.  

But as far as phones and tablets even laptops mobile computing more coverage beats small pockets of better bandwidth. To me mmWave is about enabling another use not improving a current one. So why burden the current use for little to no benefit. What’s it matter if iPhone only gets the useful parts of 5G?

Because what is useful for you today may not be what's useful for someone tomorrow.  It would be bad for Apple to pick and choose.