Apple's use of Ultra-Wideband prompts more firms to adopt the technology

Posted:
in General Discussion
Industry sources claim that more companies are developing devices with, or uses for, UWB (Ultra-Wideband), following the popularity of it in Apple's iPhone 12 range and other devices.

Apple's U1 chip is included in the iPhone 12 and Pro ranges, the Apple Watch Series 6, and the HomePod mini.
Apple's U1 chip is included in the iPhone 12 and Pro ranges, the Apple Watch Series 6, and the HomePod mini.


As Apple continues to add Ultra-Wideband processors to most -- but not all -- of its devices, now other firms are reportedly following suit.

Following previous reports that Tile is to introduce UWB tracking to its tags, now Digitimes claims that the technology is being increasingly widely adopted.

"Apple has adopted the UWB technology for iPhone 11 and 12 series, Apple Watch 6 and HomePod mini," says the publication, "while Samsung Electronics has launched UWB-enabled smartphones including the Galaxy Note 20 Ultra and the Galaxy Flip 2 and China-based Xiaomi has also offered a UWB-enabled smartphone model."

Citing unnamed sources within the industry, Digitimes claims that, "other China-based smartphone vendors including Oppo and Vivo are expected to adopt UWB technology for their flagship models."

As well as the iPhone 12 range, Apple has included UWB in the HomePod mini, and in 2020 introduced it to the Apple Watch Series 6. Apple is also in discussion with car manufacturers such as BMW over an updated version of its CarKey technology that will use UWB.

Digitimes also claims that Apple is more actively pursuing CarKey partnerships than other UWB avenues.

"Apple seems to be uninterested in joining UWB Alliance or FiRa (fine ranging) Consortium," it reports, "[It] prefers Car Connectivity Consortium in which it is expected to promote addition of UWB technology to digital car keys."

Digitimes has a poor reputation for drawing conclusions about Apple products from its sources. It has a much stronger one for reports surrounding Apple's supply chain.

Ultra Wideband is for short-range, highly accurate location tracking. One UWB device is typically able to assess the distance, and the relative location, of another such device. It's most immediately use is with tracking applications such as Find My, but Apple is also using it to enable the handoff of music or other audio from one device to another.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    mobirdmobird Posts: 617member
    I'm going to guess that a majority of purchasers of the iPhone 12 models were most likely unaware of any UWB chip in the new models or what it actually does for them. "popularity" of the UWB - that's a stretch...

    AppleInsider said:
    Industry sources claim that more companies are developing devices with, or uses for, UWB (Ultra-Wideband), following the popularity of it in Apple's iPhone 12 range and other devices.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 26
    I had to look it up, but "FiRa Consortium and the UWB Alliance announced their formal liaison to "accelerate the development and adoption of UWB technology"". They develop "technology for use cases such as access control, location-based services, and device-to-device services". I don't know why Apple WOULDN'T want to be a member. There are other member that work on things like access control devices for doors. Wouldn't it be so easy to use your iPhone and/or Apple Watch to, say, lock and unlock your front door? They're already working on it for your car. That would make it SO much more convent. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
  • Reply 4 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    jony0
  • Reply 5 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    edited January 21
  • Reply 6 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    edited January 24 JanNLjony0
  • Reply 7 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


  • Reply 8 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    jony0
  • Reply 9 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 


  • Reply 10 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "
    My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    edited January 24 jony0
  • Reply 11 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You are still unable to comprehend. 

    Your argument now sounds of "why would it be important to have 5G on today's smartphone if the infrastructure isn't ready anytime soon". 

    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.

    In the meantime, Apple does have useful UWB in its products, even if mostly limited today to "find by iPhone", but the future release of its UWB Tile will change all that, and meanwhile, Apple just keeps building up its UWB stack; as I stated, some 300 million devices by this summer.

    In the meantime, there is no concerted effort on the part of Samsung, et al, to do the same throughout their product lines, because it is "too expensive". That Apple generates huge profits to fund this is not extraordinary; it is disruptive, just as it's M series is disruptive.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s21-ultra-has-uwb-heres-how-ultra-wideband-tech-will-make-your-life-easier-faq/
  • Reply 13 of 26
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
  • Reply 15 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You are still unable to comprehend. 

    Your argument now sounds of "why would it be important to have 5G on today's smartphone if the infrastructure isn't ready anytime soon". 

    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.

    In the meantime, Apple does have useful UWB in its products, even if mostly limited today to "find by iPhone", but the future release of its UWB Tile will change all that, and meanwhile, Apple just keeps building up its UWB stack; as I stated, some 300 million devices by this summer.

    In the meantime, there is no concerted effort on the part of Samsung, et al, to do the same throughout their product lines, because it is "too expensive". That Apple generates huge profits to fund this is not extraordinary; it is disruptive, just as it's M series is disruptive.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s21-ultra-has-uwb-heres-how-ultra-wideband-tech-will-make-your-life-easier-faq/
    My argument is simple. Apple isn't kick starting this. That's it. 

    The industry is moving to it at its own pace. On its own roadmap. Apple isn't leading the way, kick starting, or anything else. This technology has existed for a while. It's been is use for a few years now. It is simply coming into focus in the CE realm. 

    5G?

    That is a very poor counter argument as it not only depends on third party companies but also governments and standards committees. Those hurdles do not exist for UWB because it is already in use. But guess what? Huawei is part of the whole 5G stack and Balong is SA compatible! It isn't limited to NSA. But hopefully you understand that providing 5G solutions goes far beyond the scope of one company. 

    That is NOT the case with UWB. 


  • Reply 16 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
    I can afford even the most expensive of phones but I jumped ship from iPhones precisely because I didn't want to pay those high prices. Not because I couldn't afford them. 

    The same applies to my Android phones. You won't see me brandishing a 1,000€ flagship. 

    It will be the best bang for buck I can get in line with my needs. My current phone is performing flawlessly. No need to upgrade right now. 

    I live in a small coastal town on the Mediterranean. Very humble surroundings and no 5G - yet. We've just got fibre in this area.

    In one way or another I've been confined to my town since March last year and working from home. It is estimated that the 5G roll out could be up to 10 times faster than 4G.

    I'm currently receiving 4.5G.

    My next phone will be 5G but I have no reason to upgrade yet.

    My macs are old too. 

    So is my TV. A Pioneer Kuro. 

    So am I. LOL! 

    The alarm clock on my bedside table is almost 50 years old! A digital Casio. 

    No need to upgrade things that are still working fine. 

    That doesn't mean I'm living in the past and don't know what's happening in the tech world. 

    My work takes me into science, health, edication, datacenters, computing, supercomputing, industry etc. 

    It's not as if I'm out of the picture because I don't have 5G. LOL. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
    I can afford even the most expensive of phones but I jumped ship from iPhones precisely because I didn't want to pay those high prices. Not because I couldn't afford them. 

    The same applies to my Android phones. You won't see me brandishing a 1,000€ flagship. 

    It will be the best bang for buck I can get in line with my needs. My current phone is performing flawlessly. No need to upgrade right now. 

    I live in a small coastal town on the Mediterranean. Very humble surroundings and no 5G - yet. We've just got fibre in this area.

    In one way or another I've been confined to my town since March last year and working from home. It is estimated that the 5G roll out could be up to 10 times faster than 4G.

    I'm currently receiving 4.5G.

    My next phone will be 5G but I have no reason to upgrade yet.

    My macs are old too. 

    So is my TV. A Pioneer Kuro. 

    So am I. LOL! 

    The alarm clock on my bedside table is almost 50 years old! A digital Casio. 

    No need to upgrade things that are still working fine. 

    That doesn't mean I'm living in the past and don't know what's happening in the tech world. 

    My work takes me into science, health, edication, datacenters, computing, supercomputing, industry etc. 

    It's not as if I'm out of the picture because I don't have 5G. LOL. 


    LOL

    So all of your rants about Apple being behind on 5G, "a disaster", with an "old modem", all while Apple is on the path beyond 230 million iPhones sold this year, 75% or more with 5G (170 million iPhones), is fucking bullshit. Very few consumers really benefit from 5G today, given solid 4G and little 5G buildout. It was always the 5G hype behind your posts that I disagreed, and now, it looks that I nave been absolutely correct. That you are unable to eat your own dogfood, puts you in the majority of smartphone buyers who also don't have anything better than repurposed 4G radios to look forward to for their 5G infrastructure.

    There are few reasons that I still wait to replace my iPhone 7 Plus, but mostly, I just don't use my iPhone much. My greatest priority is upgrading to the next iMac, and to the next iPad Pro. After that, the iPhone 13 Pro Max might make sense.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
    I can afford even the most expensive of phones but I jumped ship from iPhones precisely because I didn't want to pay those high prices. Not because I couldn't afford them. 

    The same applies to my Android phones. You won't see me brandishing a 1,000€ flagship. 

    It will be the best bang for buck I can get in line with my needs. My current phone is performing flawlessly. No need to upgrade right now. 

    I live in a small coastal town on the Mediterranean. Very humble surroundings and no 5G - yet. We've just got fibre in this area.

    In one way or another I've been confined to my town since March last year and working from home. It is estimated that the 5G roll out could be up to 10 times faster than 4G.

    I'm currently receiving 4.5G.

    My next phone will be 5G but I have no reason to upgrade yet.

    My macs are old too. 

    So is my TV. A Pioneer Kuro. 

    So am I. LOL! 

    The alarm clock on my bedside table is almost 50 years old! A digital Casio. 

    No need to upgrade things that are still working fine. 

    That doesn't mean I'm living in the past and don't know what's happening in the tech world. 

    My work takes me into science, health, edication, datacenters, computing, supercomputing, industry etc. 

    It's not as if I'm out of the picture because I don't have 5G. LOL. 


    LOL

    So all of your rants about Apple being behind on 5G, "a disaster", with an "old modem", all while Apple is on the path beyond 230 million iPhones sold this year, 75% or more with 5G (170 million iPhones), is fucking bullshit. Very few consumers really benefit from 5G today, given solid 4G and little 5G buildout. It was always the 5G hype behind your posts that I disagreed, and now, it looks that I nave been absolutely correct. That you are unable to eat your own dogfood, puts you in the majority of smartphone buyers who also don't have anything better than repurposed 4G radios to look forward to for their 5G infrastructure.

    There are few reasons that I still wait to replace my iPhone 7 Plus, but mostly, I just don't use my iPhone much. My greatest priority is upgrading to the next iMac, and to the next iPad Pro. After that, the iPhone 13 Pro Max might make sense.
    What I do personally, has nothing to do with my view on the situation of Apple, Huawei, core technologies, ICT, strategic planning and a whole host of other topics. They can coexist with my personal stance without issue.

    Your foolish conclusions are akin to my telling you not to give your political commentary because you aren't a politician, much less a politician of the areas you regularly like to slam. 

    My opinion on 5G has not changed. My opinion on Apple has not changed. Pretty much everything I've said on the subject has been correct and fully supported with the relevant links. Apple has actually moved in the directions I was saying they should. Let's see if those major changes in its mobile business show some fruit. 

    All that is necessary, is to actually know something about what you are talking about and that, I mostly do. If I don't, I normally stay out of the discussion.
    edited January 25
  • Reply 19 of 26
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,417member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
    I can afford even the most expensive of phones but I jumped ship from iPhones precisely because I didn't want to pay those high prices. Not because I couldn't afford them. 

    The same applies to my Android phones. You won't see me brandishing a 1,000€ flagship. 

    It will be the best bang for buck I can get in line with my needs. My current phone is performing flawlessly. No need to upgrade right now. 

    I live in a small coastal town on the Mediterranean. Very humble surroundings and no 5G - yet. We've just got fibre in this area.

    In one way or another I've been confined to my town since March last year and working from home. It is estimated that the 5G roll out could be up to 10 times faster than 4G.

    I'm currently receiving 4.5G.

    My next phone will be 5G but I have no reason to upgrade yet.

    My macs are old too. 

    So is my TV. A Pioneer Kuro. 

    So am I. LOL! 

    The alarm clock on my bedside table is almost 50 years old! A digital Casio. 

    No need to upgrade things that are still working fine. 

    That doesn't mean I'm living in the past and don't know what's happening in the tech world. 

    My work takes me into science, health, edication, datacenters, computing, supercomputing, industry etc. 

    It's not as if I'm out of the picture because I don't have 5G. LOL. 


    LOL

    So all of your rants about Apple being behind on 5G, "a disaster", with an "old modem", all while Apple is on the path beyond 230 million iPhones sold this year, 75% or more with 5G (170 million iPhones), is fucking bullshit. Very few consumers really benefit from 5G today, given solid 4G and little 5G buildout. It was always the 5G hype behind your posts that I disagreed, and now, it looks that I nave been absolutely correct. That you are unable to eat your own dogfood, puts you in the majority of smartphone buyers who also don't have anything better than repurposed 4G radios to look forward to for their 5G infrastructure.

    There are few reasons that I still wait to replace my iPhone 7 Plus, but mostly, I just don't use my iPhone much. My greatest priority is upgrading to the next iMac, and to the next iPad Pro. After that, the iPhone 13 Pro Max might make sense.
    What I do personally, has nothing to do with my view on the situation of Apple, Huawei, core technologies, ICT, strategic planning and a whole host of other topics. They can coexist with my personal stance without issue.

    Your foolish conclusions are akin to my telling you not to give your political commentary because you aren't a politician, much less a politician of the areas you regularly like to slam. 

    My opinion on 5G has not changed. My opinion on Apple has not changed. Pretty much everything I've said on the subject has been correct and fully supported with the relevant links. Apple has actually moved in the directions I was saying they should. Let's see if those major changes in its mobile business show some fruit. 

    All that is necessary, is to actually know something about what you are talking about and that, I mostly do. If I don't, I normally stay out of the discussion.
    For all that, you continue, obstinately and with no supporting data, I might add, to deny that Apple is leading consumer devices with UWB.

    Your bias continues to show...
  • Reply 20 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,895member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple isn't prompting anyone to use the technology more.

    UWB has been widely used in industry for years and was likely to appear in consumer grade devices at some point.

    The two main reasons it hasn't become more widespread until now were:

    1. Cost. For what it offers, it has been an expensive technology. 

    2. Need. Other technologies that were already available on devices have covered all of the use cases to date (NFC, bluetooth and even WiFi).

    As use cases develop and prices come down, UWB will eventually become more common. 
    You butthurt again?

    When Huawei uses it in their consumer products, it's all good, right?
    It's good wherever it is as long as the cost can be justified and there is something that it can be used for. 

    But that doesn't mean Apple is making it more popular.

    For the record, Huawei wrote about UWB from a strategic perspective in 2015. At that time cost and bandwidth were considered to be the impediments. That has remained the same until recently. 

    In the meantime, it has been used in industrial settings. 

    Now, as prices come down and use cases appear, it will gain traction in the CE and IoT
    realm. 

    It's ironic how only Apple seems to be able to kickstart volume production of technologies that are too expensive for other companies to incorporate, and at the same time, not receive credit for same. Apple currently leads in the delivery of UWB in consumer devices, and it isn't even a close thing. I expect that Apple will have delivered something on the order of 300 million UWB compatible devices to consumers by this summer. No other company is even close.

    Apple is also the driving force behind price reductions on UWB components, merely because their current demand has been cause for manufacturers to invest in production increases and manufacturing efficiences. 
    Apple does not 'kick-start' something like UWB.

    As stated, competitors also have - and are using - UWB. For handsets it (or equivalent technology) is already on their roadmaps. 

    Cost is a major and logical factor. Handset makers have already decided when they will incorporate UWB. 

    Apple isn't 'kick starting' their use of it. That is crazy. Competitors chose to bring other technologies to market first - and with good reason. Not even Apple has given UWB a full use case yet. Unlike Huawei for example that is using it widely in industry. 

    So, those other technologies came to market first and were actually better used. You know the stuff I'm talking about : better, faster modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras etc. Where was Apple when that was happening?

    But let's run with your logic for a moment. Those competitors were 'kick starting' Apple into getting onboard with all that technology! 

    That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? And neither does what you are saying. Especially as it is Samsung that is actually putting an end-to-end UWB solution for handsets on the table at this point in time. 

    As time passes, others will come onboard but following their own roadmaps, not because Apple is in someway kickstarting the technolgy. Which from a technology perspective, they never did anyway. 


    LOL..

    Same old arguments, same lack of support.

    But, now with more whataboutism!

    Funny, now you're making "roadmap" arguments; something that I have oft stated is behind Apple's very successful business model.

    Moving goalposts yet again?
    I have no idea what you are referring to. 

    Lack of support? I providing you with information you must surely already be aware of. Google it yourself. 

    Surely Samsung's announcement couldn't have slipped by you? 

    The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something.

    Each company will decide if and when to use UWB (or an equivalent to satisfy the same needs) on handsets and/or IoT plus wearables. 

    There are still issues to be dealt with but it's coming to a wider audience in due course. 

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9208653 [pdf] 

    But Apple isn't kick starting it. 



    Uhm, Apple isn't making announcements about shipping UWB. Apple has been shipping since the release of the iPhone 11, over 15 months ago.

    https://www.howtogeek.com/441183/what-is-ultra-wideband-and-why-is-it-in-the-iphone-11/

    CHRIS HOFFMAN  @chrisbhoffman 
    SEP 20, 2019, 6:40 AM EST | 3 MIN READ

    "Apple’s new iPhone 11 devices include a “U1” chip with ultra-wideband (UWB) technology. This isn’t new technology, but it’s the first time it’s been in a modern smartphone. It’s not just about iPhones: Android phones could also get UWB."

    Of course Android phones could also get UWB, and 15 months later, they are, but only in limited flagship models. 

    Surely, Samsung delivering UWB now in only a couple of high end models, is not the same as Apple delivering UWB through its entire iPhone 11, and now iPhone 12, product line, plus the Apple Watch 6, and the HomePod Mini. Samsung will be lucky to ship 20 million UWB devices this year, while Apple's iPhone 12 alone will ship 170 to 180  million units, on top of the iPhone 11 units that have been, and are still being, sold.

    You still haven't shown where Apple isn't leading this, and that link that you posted came out about the same time as the iPhone 12 was released, so, not really supporting what you have been pushing.

    I don't doubt that Android OS OEM's want to include UWB, but the fact that you state that the tech is currently too expensive, is a pretty big tell that Apple iPhone is way ahead of its competition wrt UWB.

    Apple is going to blow through $100B in revenue for last quarter, and that explains all you need to know why Apple can afford to include UWB, and broadly, and Android OS   OEM's cannot; Android OS OEM's just don't have the revenue and profits to do it. 

    from ped30.com

    "My take: Here’s a preview of Munster’s Q1 2021 estimates:

    Total revenue: $109.5B
    EPS: $1.42
    Revenue by segment:
    iPhone: $64.9B
    iPad: $8.1B
    Mac: $10.0B
    Services: $15.0B
    Wearables/Home/Accessories: $11.5B
    Gross margin on total revenue: 38.8%"


    You need to re-read what I said:

    " The fact that Apple basically hasn't even completed the other half of the house should tell you something."

    Until the other shoe drops there isn't much happening. 

    Don't you remember what happened with AR Kit? Millions of earlier devices could run it but absolutely nothing came of it. 

    The all new (and $1,000) iPhone X shipped with all that processing power. Less than a year later it was unable to run the new version of AR Kit! 

    Until you provide a full solution to a technology it isn't worth much. Samsung is doing that at least (or at least has announced and given prices/timeframes). 

    'blow a 100 billion'? 

    Again, re-read what I said. 

    Someone has to pay for that technology. It's in the price tag. 

    Android phones (and Apple devices) could have introduced this technology years ago! 

    Read your own quoted piece! 

    This isn't new technology. 

    But why would you introduce something for which there is little to no benefit if the cost is high and you could better spend that money elsewhere? 

    So the money went elsewhere (modems, wifi, batteries, charging, cameras...) 

    What did Apple do in spite of all its billions? Not much at all in any of those areas! 

    Areas that had a real impact on the user experience. 

    No. Money isn't the answer here. It simply allowed for Apple to bring this existing technology to the handset market a little earlier. That's it. And we are still waiting for user facing implementations anyway. 

    It isn't kick starting anything. Not even its own product line with the surprising lack of UWB on AP Max and iPad Pro. 

    Did they run out of enough billions to include it on those products? 



    You and I have one thing in common. Neither of us has a 5G capable phone, and neither of us is losing anything for that. Myself, because I can wait for an iPhone until my 7 Plus dies and because there is no useful 5G near me, you because you can't afford a new 5G capable phone anytime soon.
    Lol. On the bolded part, the fact that he bought an iPhone XR (around $700, not sure about the European price though) for his wife just 14-15 months ago points to the fact that he can very well afford an 5G capable phone, isn't it? Mid range Android 5G phones cost only around $300-$400 now, so affordability is NOT an issue in 2021 for lot of people. Back in 2019, Yes, 5G phones were costing way too high. That is not the case anymore, now in 2021.
    Fair enough, so why hasn't the primary preacher of 5G on this site been using a 5G phone, given the plethora of benefits that he has espoused since he has been here? Anyone would expect him to be an early adopter. He has stated he will hold on to his phone, an Honor 10, which lacks 5G, though it is true that he is likely waiting for price reductions to do that. Quid pro quo, he can't afford it yet. 

    More to the point, Avon b7 needs to eat his own dog food when it comes to 5G.

    Myself, I barely use my iPhone, given that I'm not the chatty type, nor do I have my nose in social media, but the fact is that I'm self employed, and work out of my shop, so find that my iMac is the most used device that I have. Hence, why I am waiting for said M series replacement. 

    My next most used device is my iPad, first generation, 12.9 inch, which I am see to upgrade this year as well. I'm more than happy to wait for this, the iPhone 13, and the next Apple Watch, all of which I am interested in for various reasons, but mostly because of how they will interface with the M series Mac's.

    As for his wife's iPhone, he took advantage of the high trade in value of her iPhone 6, if my recollection is correct.

    For all of that, Avon b7 is unable to recognize that Apple is indeed, leading in UWB for consumer devices, and others are only now beginning to follow. 
    I can afford even the most expensive of phones but I jumped ship from iPhones precisely because I didn't want to pay those high prices. Not because I couldn't afford them. 

    The same applies to my Android phones. You won't see me brandishing a 1,000€ flagship. 

    It will be the best bang for buck I can get in line with my needs. My current phone is performing flawlessly. No need to upgrade right now. 

    I live in a small coastal town on the Mediterranean. Very humble surroundings and no 5G - yet. We've just got fibre in this area.

    In one way or another I've been confined to my town since March last year and working from home. It is estimated that the 5G roll out could be up to 10 times faster than 4G.

    I'm currently receiving 4.5G.

    My next phone will be 5G but I have no reason to upgrade yet.

    My macs are old too. 

    So is my TV. A Pioneer Kuro. 

    So am I. LOL! 

    The alarm clock on my bedside table is almost 50 years old! A digital Casio. 

    No need to upgrade things that are still working fine. 

    That doesn't mean I'm living in the past and don't know what's happening in the tech world. 

    My work takes me into science, health, edication, datacenters, computing, supercomputing, industry etc. 

    It's not as if I'm out of the picture because I don't have 5G. LOL. 


    LOL

    So all of your rants about Apple being behind on 5G, "a disaster", with an "old modem", all while Apple is on the path beyond 230 million iPhones sold this year, 75% or more with 5G (170 million iPhones), is fucking bullshit. Very few consumers really benefit from 5G today, given solid 4G and little 5G buildout. It was always the 5G hype behind your posts that I disagreed, and now, it looks that I nave been absolutely correct. That you are unable to eat your own dogfood, puts you in the majority of smartphone buyers who also don't have anything better than repurposed 4G radios to look forward to for their 5G infrastructure.

    There are few reasons that I still wait to replace my iPhone 7 Plus, but mostly, I just don't use my iPhone much. My greatest priority is upgrading to the next iMac, and to the next iPad Pro. After that, the iPhone 13 Pro Max might make sense.
    What I do personally, has nothing to do with my view on the situation of Apple, Huawei, core technologies, ICT, strategic planning and a whole host of other topics. They can coexist with my personal stance without issue.

    Your foolish conclusions are akin to my telling you not to give your political commentary because you aren't a politician, much less a politician of the areas you regularly like to slam. 

    My opinion on 5G has not changed. My opinion on Apple has not changed. Pretty much everything I've said on the subject has been correct and fully supported with the relevant links. Apple has actually moved in the directions I was saying they should. Let's see if those major changes in its mobile business show some fruit. 

    All that is necessary, is to actually know something about what you are talking about and that, I mostly do. If I don't, I normally stay out of the discussion.
    For all that, you continue, obstinately and with no supporting data, I might add, to deny that Apple is leading consumer devices with UWB.

    Your bias continues to show...
    Where did kick starting go? 

    I suppose you finally see things clearer now. 
Sign In or Register to comment.