Verizon's 4G choice and the iPhone; Dell shipments slump in Q3

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Verizon's decision to use Long Term Evolution for its fourth-generation wireless will have a long-term effect on the US cellular industry. Also, Dell has traded spaces and finds itself struggling to grow sales, according to an iSuppli report.



Verizon's 4G to share same technology as AT&T



For the first time since the company's founding in 2000, Verizon Wireless will share the same base network technology as its largest rival AT&T, the carrier has revealed on Thursday while confirming future plans for its service.



Known as LTE for short, Long Term Evolution will replace the 3G (third-generation) networks of both carriers and will deliver downloads as quick as 100 megabits per second while cutting back on latency and supporting more users for every cell tower, making it easier to deploy than 3G in the process. To date, Verizon has used the competing CDMA standard and its accompanying EVDO data access, which are incompatible with AT&T's GSM network



The similarity virtually ensures greater network compatibility between the companies' cellular services in the future. A subscriber to AT&T with an LTE phone could roam to Verizon's network or vice versa, while customers of either provider will have the choice of bringing their unlocked devices with them if they switch providers. Vodafone's eventual European network will also support the same format, Verizon says.



While potentially impressive, Verizon cautions that its 4G network is still distant: early trials begin in 2008, hinting at an actual commercial deployment in 2009 or later. AT&T's exclusivity deal with the iPhone may also prevent some eventual 4G iPhones from switching to Verizon on an official basis. The Apple handset itself is also currently limited to AT&T's 2G EDGE service and will only reach 3G next year.



Rivals feed on Dell's PC marketshare misfortune, says report



The Round Rock, Texas-based computer builder is facing assaults on all fronts from PC vendors ready to take advantage of its mistakes, iSuppli said on Thursday.



Dell's computer shipments increased in the third quarter by just 1.5 percent compared to the same season a year ago, well behind other top-tier PC makers. The company shipped just 100,000 more systems than in summer 2006 and tumbled from a 16.3 percent marketshare of all PCs shipped worldwide to 14.6 percent.



The company's lackluster performance is largely due to sluggish sales channels that haven't yet adapted to the company's renewed PC-centric strategy.



Other companies have been eager to pounce on this fact, according to the researchers. Both first-place HP and fourth-place Acer are pushing Dell out of its familiar position at the top of the charts as they both put most of their attention on the more popular notebook business and have been much more successful at controlling their sales channels. Each grew substantially over the last year, with HP climbing from 16.5 percent to 19.2 percent year-over-year and Acer soaring from 5.4 to 7.9 percent -- a 68 percent leap in marketshare that will only get stronger once Acer finishes acquiring Gateway within coming months.



Lenovo occupies third place at 8.1 percent while Toshiba is fifth with an unspecified share, iSuppli adds. Companies below the marker, including Apple, are not mentioned.



The downturn for Dell is proving increasingly ironic for its namesake chief executive Michael Dell, who infamously suggested in October 1997 that he would shut down Apple and give back the money to shareholders at a time when Dell was triumphant and Apple was considered near death. The tone of the iSuppli report appears to echo this sentiment when it summarizes the effect of competition upon Dell ten years later.



"Dude, you're getting Dell's marketshare," iSuppli says.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    msnlymsnly Posts: 378member
    Thats just great, the iPhone is just now going to get 3G in a year and 4G is coming around!

    Will Apple ever catch up?!?!?!



  • Reply 2 of 31
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    iPhone not having 3G was a choice based on size, weight, and battery life. Its likely Apple's wireless chip supplier will provide what Apple wants when 4G is ready.
  • Reply 3 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MsNly View Post


    Thats just great, the iPhone is just now going to get 3G in a year and 4G is coming around!

    Will Apple ever catch up?!?!?!







    Unless the iPhone's architecture is brain-dead, the software (the important part) shouldn't care what the network is. There should be a generic telephony API for placing and receiving voice calls, along with a standard TCP/IP stack for data connectivity. It should be possible to swap in any wireless chipset and only require a new device driver to make it work.



    The real bottleneck will be power consumption on those chips. Keeping heat down and battery life up is needed to keep customers happy. If Jobs is to be believed, that's the thing keeping 3G out of today's iPhone. If the 4G chipsets meet Apple's power requirements, Apple probably wouldn't object to using them right from the start. If they don't, of course, then we'll all have to wait.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    Verizon currently uses Evolution Data Optimized (EVDO), so I don't see the weirdness in them using its successor. It's more interesting that AT&T is switching to Evolution. Incidentally, all 3G standards use CDMA. 4G uses OFDM. Either way, we get rid of awful, awful, awful GSM for voice.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone not having 3G was a choice based on size, weight, and battery life. Its likely Apple's wireless chip supplier will provide what Apple wants when 4G is ready.



    That's BS. iPhone not debuting at 3G was because:



    1. provides compelling short-term upgrade path

    2. AT&T isn't 3G

    3. Using old components allowed Apple to develop the iPhone in secret.



    If Apple had used a contemporary 3G SoC, the iPhone would have better battery life that the current model has, all else equal. <edit> I have a Samsung 3G phone with Sprint that goes 7 days between charges. I use it for music and data, as well.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    How does LTE compare to other 4g technologies like WiMax and the 700mhz spectrum?
  • Reply 6 of 31
    Advice to Michael Dell: Close up shop, sell the company and return the money to the shareholders.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Advice to Michael Dell: Close up shop, sell the company and return the money to the shareholders.



    Heh!



    From Reuters:

    Quote:

    "Chief Executive Michael Dell, leading a restructuring of the company he founded, spoke of "winds of caution in certain financial customers" despite good demand overall."



    I've got some winds for you right here Mr. Dell.
  • Reply 8 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    will deliver downloads as quick as 100 megabits per second while cutting back on latency and supporting more users for every cell tower



    Did we get overzealous with our zeros? 100 mb/s is the same as the LAN here! I might just be ditching my T3 line here and use a 4G iPhone when it comes out!



    --EDIT--

    Holy Hell! after some googling, the article appears correct! Wow... wireless ethernet... *drools*
  • Reply 9 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JakeTheRock View Post


    Did we get overzealous with our zeros? 100 mb/s is the same as the LAN here! I might just be ditching my T3 line here and use a 4G iPhone when it comes out!



    Of course, you're still limited by the speeds on the server at the other end of the connection.



    Right now, with cable modems running in the 10-30Mbps range, you already find plenty of sites that can't saturate the line. With a 100M link, I'm sure most sites will fall into that category.



    Of course, even if you never see an actual 100Mbps flood of data, it's still good if you can receive it as fast as the server can dish it out. That puts the onus on the data source where (IMO) it belongs, instead of on the carrier.
  • Reply 10 of 31
    bjkbjk Posts: 34member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JakeTheRock View Post


    Did we get overzealous with our zeros? 100 mb/s is the same as the LAN here! I might just be ditching my T3 line here and use a 4G iPhone when it comes out!



    --EDIT--

    Holy Hell! after some googling, the article appears correct! Wow... wireless ethernet... *drools*



    I believe that these ethernet figures are expressed in megabytes, not megabits.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    The downturn for Dell is proving increasingly ironic for its namesake chief executive Michael Dell, who infamously suggested in October 1997 that he would shut down Apple and give back the money to shareholders at a time when Dell was triumphant and Apple was considered near death. The tone of the iSuppli report appears to echo this sentiment when it summarizes the effect of competition upon Dell ten years later.



    Mr. Dell, you are an arrogant dumb a$$. I hope you enjoy eating your words.
  • Reply 12 of 31
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    1. provides compelling short-term upgrade path

    2. AT&T isn't 3G

    3. Using old components allowed Apple to develop the iPhone in secret.



    These three statements are either conjecture or just plain wrong. Adding 3G later does add an upgrade path but there has been sound evidence that 3G for UMTS does use more power than EDGE.



    The AT&T 3G / BroadbandConnect network is currently available in most major metropolitan areas and is expanding rapidly.



    I don't see how using EDGE or 3G would make any difference in the secret development of the iPhone.



    Quote:

    I have a Samsung 3G phone with Sprint that goes 7 days between charges. I use it for music and data, as well.



    Sprint uses EVDO and ATT uses GSM/UMTS. They are completely different technologies.



    Quote:

    If Apple had used a contemporary 3G SoC, the iPhone would have better battery life that the current model has, all else equal.



    Which SOC would you have suggested? Seeing as other UMTS 3G phones do take a hit in battery life.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmedia1 View Post


    Mr. Dell, you are an arrogant dumb a$$. I hope you enjoy eating your words.



    Meh. . . he has plenty in the bank. I assume that he realizes that, at some point, pursuit of profit is futile in a commodity market. Dell makes the stereotypical commodity PC.
  • Reply 14 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    1. provides compelling short-term upgrade path

    2. AT&T isn't 3G

    3. Using old components allowed Apple to develop the iPhone in secret.



    1 ? Yes.

    2 ? What you mean to say is that AT&T doesn't have reliable 3G coverage around the country.

    3 ? Apple could have used old components for development and switched to newer components for the final device and FCC approval.



    4 ? Cost. The iPhone is already expensive to produce. Making it 3G would just add more cost that is not necessary for the market right now. This ties in with your first point.

    5? Battery. It's not debatable that 3G is far more battery intensive than EDGE. Adding a stronger batter increases size, weight, and cost.

    6 ? Data. Apple can probably got a larger slice of the data plan revenue if they went with EDGE for the time being. AT&T has already invested a lot in beefing up EDGE, maintaining it.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JakeTheRock View Post


    Did we get overzealous with our zeros? 100 mb/s is the same as the LAN here! I might just be ditching my T3 line here and use a 4G iPhone when it comes out!



    --EDIT--

    Holy Hell! after some googling, the article appears correct! Wow... wireless ethernet... *drools*



    No, this is what's expected for 4G networks. It's like WiFi, though, an ideal. Real world speeds will never reach that, but could get to 50%, or so.
  • Reply 16 of 31
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BjK View Post


    I believe that these ethernet figures are expressed in megabytes, not megabits.



    Ethernet is measured in bits, not bytes. 10 GB Ethernet is around the corner, but is still VERY expensive since it requires (so far) fiber.
  • Reply 17 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Advice to Michael Dell: Close up shop, sell the company and return the money to the shareholders.



    It's the right way to go for a beleaguered company. Which Dell is.
  • Reply 18 of 31
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by icfireball View Post


    1 ? Yes.

    2 ? What you mean to say is that AT&T doesn't have reliable 3G coverage around the country.

    3 ? Apple could have used old components for development and switched to newer components for the final device and FCC approval.



    4 ? Cost. The iPhone is already expensive to produce. Making it 3G would just add more cost that is not necessary for the market right now. This ties in with your first point.

    5? Battery. It's not debatable that 3G is far more battery intensive than EDGE. Adding a stronger batter increases size, weight, and cost.

    6 ? Data. Apple can probably got a larger slice of the data plan revenue if they went with EDGE for the time being. AT&T has already invested a lot in beefing up EDGE, maintaining it.



    Wrong on all accounts. I do actually know what I'm talking about. Believe me: the iPhone was designed first and foremost to have a stealth product development cycle, and second to make way quickly for a much improved revision. That revision, the 3G revision, will be done right with (as far as I know) an OMAP SoC and several other cost and performance improvements. From the perspective of an electronic designer, the current iPhone is far from elegant. When I saw the breakdown photos, I was disgusted.



    2. AT&T marketing claims that they have 3G, but they actually do not. UTMS is not 3G.



    3. No. The iPhone electronic design is circa 2003/2004. 2007 design is all about SoC's. This would require a new board design. Second, FCC doesn't work that way.



    4. No. It would possibly reduce cost since the BOM would be simplified. Worst case is an extra $10, but I find that unlikely.



    5. 3G chips are more modern and more efficient than EDGE chips. Second, the network is 5 to 50 times faster, so the power-intense components are active that much less. Third, batteries aren't really that heavy or that expensive. If Apple used an SoC instead of the ludicrous board layout they decided to go with in the iPhone, they could probably get away with a single battery cell instead of two cells, which in turn would simplify the battery-supervisor circuitry, decrease leakage, and, all together, improve battery life and reduce cost.



    6. AT&T is only using EDGE because W-CDMA uses too wide a signal bandwidth to meet FCC approval. Otherwise, they would have upgraded their network years ago, when Sprint and Verizon did. Frankly, I'm amazed that they've managed to hold on to market. If Sprint and Verizon weren't run by knuckleheads, AT&T would have been out of the mobile business by now. AT&T QOS is shockingly bad in theory and in practice.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    Totally agree with Splinemodel's analysis.



    The "3G chips are too power hungry" excuse from Jobs was smoke and mirrors.



    There ARE 3G phones out there that are slimmer, smaller and 3G that have better battery life. And you've got the ultimate solution for 3G power usage - switch it off when you don't need it. That's how many people lived with the early 6xxx nokia 3G bricks available 3-4 years ago here.
  • Reply 20 of 31
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Advice to Michael Dell: Close up shop, sell the company and return the money to the shareholders.



    Nah, no reason to repeat stupid comments.



    I think the best thing Steve Jobs could say in response to Dell's current situation would be the truth (rather than repeat a stupid statement.)



    Something like, "I'd advise them to start making a products worth purchasing."



    I think that would get to the point of the current status of the two companies. That's how Jobs got Apple back on track, and that's exactly why Dell still sucks. We have Dell machines at work, and they are crap.



    Truth.



    IQ78
Sign In or Register to comment.