APPLEINSIDER: EVERYONE KNOWS THE NEXT IPHONE WILL BE 3G! It's not news!
But code in the newly SDK that hints to the 3G chip being used is news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
[...] Anyways, to make it short, W-CDMA is just the modulating technology that UMTS (3G) usually runs on. HSDPA (high-speed downlink packet access) and HSUPA (high-speed uplink packet access) are two (3.5G) technologies that enhance UMTS. [...]
If there were a post-of-the-month award you would surely be nominated. Excellent work!
Did it say SGOLD3H or just SGOLD3??? SGOLD3 is EDGE:
As you note, there are two GOLD3's: one is a 3G GSM-ish solution with GSM/WCDMA/EDGE/HSDPA/etc, the other is a GSM/EDGE/CDMA solution . The later is 2.xG, but can be upgraded to also support the 3G GSM-ish standards with a second chip.
Which one of these Apple will use depends on what they want to do with the iPhone. One possibility is that they want to have high speed access, especially in Europe which is moving increasingly to HSDPA. In this case they'll use the H. Another possibility is that they want to be able to run on old-skool CDMA as well as GSM, in which case they'd use the later model. The former is definitely "futuristic" and would greatly improve the iPhone as an "always on internet" device, which I think is where Apple is positioning it. The later, on the other hand, would offer completely universal worldwide roaming. Both of these approaches has its advantages!
My money's on the 3G approach, for what it's worth.
(15 minutes later) ok I just finished this.. If anyone finds any errors, let me know please... I make no guarantee this is completely accurate...
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site.
As a lay consumer, not literate in any of the above technical discussions (and, like most consumers, I couldn't care less about the specifications, just the real-world capabilities), I think the most exciting thing Apple could produce on a new phone, aside from 3G-speed web browsing/file transfer and all that goes with that, would be a 2nd camera to face the viewer and, thus, enable two-way video conversations. That would put us in a Dick Tracy world, and that would be as revolutionary as the affordable cell phone itself was.
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site.
Maury
Good idea! If you [winterspan] do, also upload the Excel file so it can be updated easily.
... I think the most exciting thing Apple could produce on a new phone, aside from 3G-speed web browsing/file transfer and all that goes with that, would be a 2nd camera to face the viewer and, thus, enable two-way video conversations. That would put us in a Dick Tracy world, and that would be as revolutionary as the affordable cell phone itself was.
According to the SDK keynote, VoIP is only allowed to work when enable by WiFi. To make this function via the carrier adds a buttload* of data traffic and lowers sales as people will no longer require more than the bare minimum of cell minutes.
How many people use the camera on their computers for frequent video chat? I have only used it a couple times over the several years, and that was for the novelty of it. I assume that most people have a broadband connections and a fast CPU with sufficient RAM to run two-way video. An iPhone do this would be less than ideal, especially if over 3G with it's higher latency than other tech.
What the hell makes you think GPS is a given? I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere. The only thing that seems to be a "given" at this point is that it will be 3G.
In many ways I doubt there will be GPS in the new phone because they already have invested time in this quasi GPS system they have going. GPS chips are huge power suckers, so I think GPS is probably one of the more unlikely features.
Likely features are things that would complement the 3G, like a front side camera, which is not all that unusual - most 3G phones have them.
Just speculation of course...
But don't GPS features require an extra monthly payment? (correct me if I'm wrong)
So if that's the case, couldn't they throw in GPS and have it available as an add-on to the plan while those that don't want/need GPS can just use the current "quasi GPS" or whatever its called?
But then again, Apple likes to keep things simple and probably would want to include GPS on the all the plans. \
Just wanted to say thanks to winterspan and some of the others who have posted truly useful, informative stuff here. One of the best AppleInsider discussions I've ever seen. Thanks folks.
What? The next iPhone is going to be 3G? That's confirmed?
Oh, right, Steve Jobs confirmed that last September.
I do appreciate confirmation that it's using the next version of the current chipset, but the tone of the article seems overly dramatic given what we already know.
I just hope that by 3G they mean REAL BROADBAND. If you remember that video where that guy said the new iPhone will be out "in 60 days", American broadband is often subject to definition by the companies who deliver that technology and is often not up to par.
Secondly, we will have to see if the iPhone software really will hold up to the standards this chip has to offer. Therefore, I don't think we can really say what the iPhone will do based on hardware specs alone.
How many people use the camera on their computers for frequent video chat? I have only used it a couple times over the several years, and that was for the novelty of it. I assume that most people have a broadband connections and a fast CPU with sufficient RAM to run two-way video. An iPhone do this would be less than ideal, especially if over 3G with it's higher latency than other tech.
I also rarely video chat. That may be though because most people with PC's don't have web cams. Also text chat is a lot less noticeable to your boss at work.
The stars may be aligning on the video chat rumor though.
- Apple files a mysterious and unused patent for recording video through a screen.
- Samsung's new ARM chip supports live two way video through graphics acceleration.
- Infineon's new wireless chip supports live two way video.
1st I hope that apple uses the "H" chipset and that it will run on the Asian & EU/US 3g networks!
2nd I hope if the 2nd cam gets built into it that apple releases the iChat client for PC because the aol client isn't capable of handling high quality video nor any audio!
It doesn't matter. Jobs said originally they were going to make a 3G iPhone, his comments since have indicated they're working on a 3G iPhone, and from a common sense standpoint, they HAVE to be working on a 3G iPhone. THERE WILL BE A 3G iPHONE. Whether AppleInsider has discovered some amazing evidence of 3G from the "Cupertino, California based company" is irrelevant.
The next big iPhone release will quite obviously be 3G, whether this "article" indicates 3G or not doesn't change this.
I agree that the "next big iPhone release" will be 3G, but that is no guarantee that the 3G version will be the next iPhone release. Who's to say there won't be a few more 2G iterations before the 3G lands? And considering how this article plays up supposed "proof" that the 3G iPhone is imminent, the fact that it could just be a switch to a newer EDGE chip is quite relevant. Much like this site's multiple announcements of the Mac Mini's demise that were recently retracted, there's no real word that 3G is even a twinkle in Apple's eye.
And it seems a bit odd this article states that the 3G is "officially scheduled" for a June launch. Did I miss an Apple press release or did Walt Mossberg become an official Apple spokesman?
I'd like to know the power usage differences between the PMB8878 using HSDPA and PMB8876 using EDGE.
don't forget the pmb8877 !!! that's the the new one without WCDMA, but it can be added with a co-processor... but i think apple will go for the integrated pmb8878... with integrated GPS!
Also, people should take maximum speeds with a grain of salt. For instance 14.4Mbps is a pipe dream. That's the aggregate bandwidth of a single cell. So to get that on a phone you'd have to be close to the tower, unobstructed and alone in the cell.
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
What's with the 3.9G? I think fractional generations are pretty stupid (what's the generation between your mother and your grandmother?), but it's pretty clear that new air interfaces mark generations and LTE uses a different one to UMTS, hence it's 4G. What exactly are you waiting for in 4G?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trowa
4G is LTE (Long Term Evolution). 4G requires new hardware and software upgrades on the towers. At least for the US (Verizon and AT&T), 4G will run on the 700 MHz band. This will allow deeper penetration into buildings and areas where the 800 MHz band couldn't reach.
Speeds can go from 326 Mbit/s dl and 86 Mbit/s. It offers increased spectrum flexibility in allowing faster rollouts from WCDMA and can hold more users per cell.
I at first didn't label LTE/HSOPA "4G" because although many use that label, many other times LTE/HSOPA routinely gets referred to as "pre-4G" or "post-3G", or that HSOPA is a "transitionary technology towards 4G", etc. Also, HSOPA is nicknamed "Super 3G". "3.9G" is what Japan is calling their upcoming LTE/HSOPA network to launch in 2010. I guess it's just confusing because of the abstract umbrella terms being used. But I will change it anyway.
Here is a good quote from 3GAmericas.org about this:
"Since 2006, significant progress has been made by the Radiocommunication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) in establishing an agreed and globally accepted definition of ‘4G’ wireless systems, and in 2008, the ITU-R is expected to release a full set of documentation for this definition. At that time the vision will be translated into a set of requirements by which technologies and systems can, in the near future, be determined a part of IMT-Advanced and in doing so, earn the credible right to be considered 4G.
Thus, any claim that a particular technology is a so-called ‘4G technology’ prior to that definition is in reality simply a marketing spin, creating market confusion and deflating the importance of the telecommunications industry standards. Technologies should be verified against a set of agreed-upon requirements in order to qualify as ‘4G’, and this will happen in the future when the requirements are outlined by the ITU. Only then will it be understood what is, and can be rightly and credibly called, 4G. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareform
Very nice chart! Cleared a big deal of the terminology for me and I guess most people here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site. Maury
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Good idea! If you [winterspan] do, also upload the Excel file so it can be updated easily.
Hey, thanks guys. I would love to. I don't have time to HTML it for wikipedia right now, but maybe this week -- unless someone else would like to do it I am also going to expand it to include all mobile phone technology, like older standards and the CDMA/3GPP2 track as well.
Anyways, here is the final updated pic. There are a few changes made from the first one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
That sounds right... 14.4mbps is NOT the aggregate bandwidth for the whole cell. But of course everyone should definitely take ALL max speeds with a grain of salt. I don't know the details of it, but I do know that there are 15 HSDPA channels in every 5mhz of bandwidth.. I need to look at it closer. Anyways, bottom line is the faster the theoretical speed, the faster the real-world practical throughput SHOULD be, right? so it's always better to have faster and more advanced technology.
Also, btw, the move from UTMS/384 to ANY form of HSDPA (and HSUPA) is great not just because of the increased throughput, but because of the massively reduced latency on the connection. HSDPA return latencies are around 70-100ms versus 3-5x that or more from UMTS. And then when you add HSUPA on the uplink side, the whole round trip becomes almost similar to a home broadband connection. This will be imporant for multi-player games, VOIP, video chat, etc.
By the way, for you or anyone else who wants more info, here are some good sources I found (besides Wiki of course):
Comments
APPLEINSIDER: EVERYONE KNOWS THE NEXT IPHONE WILL BE 3G! It's not news!
But code in the newly SDK that hints to the 3G chip being used is news.
[...] Anyways, to make it short, W-CDMA is just the modulating technology that UMTS (3G) usually runs on. HSDPA (high-speed downlink packet access) and HSUPA (high-speed uplink packet access) are two (3.5G) technologies that enhance UMTS. [...]
If there were a post-of-the-month award you would surely be nominated. Excellent work!
Did it say SGOLD3H or just SGOLD3??? SGOLD3 is EDGE:
As you note, there are two GOLD3's: one is a 3G GSM-ish solution with GSM/WCDMA/EDGE/HSDPA/etc, the other is a GSM/EDGE/CDMA solution . The later is 2.xG, but can be upgraded to also support the 3G GSM-ish standards with a second chip.
Which one of these Apple will use depends on what they want to do with the iPhone. One possibility is that they want to have high speed access, especially in Europe which is moving increasingly to HSDPA. In this case they'll use the H. Another possibility is that they want to be able to run on old-skool CDMA as well as GSM, in which case they'd use the later model. The former is definitely "futuristic" and would greatly improve the iPhone as an "always on internet" device, which I think is where Apple is positioning it. The later, on the other hand, would offer completely universal worldwide roaming. Both of these approaches has its advantages!
My money's on the 3G approach, for what it's worth.
Maury
(15 minutes later) ok I just finished this.. If anyone finds any errors, let me know please... I make no guarantee this is completely accurate...
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site.
Maury
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site.
Maury
Good idea! If you [winterspan] do, also upload the Excel file so it can be updated easily.
... I think the most exciting thing Apple could produce on a new phone, aside from 3G-speed web browsing/file transfer and all that goes with that, would be a 2nd camera to face the viewer and, thus, enable two-way video conversations. That would put us in a Dick Tracy world, and that would be as revolutionary as the affordable cell phone itself was.
According to the SDK keynote, VoIP is only allowed to work when enable by WiFi. To make this function via the carrier adds a buttload* of data traffic and lowers sales as people will no longer require more than the bare minimum of cell minutes.
How many people use the camera on their computers for frequent video chat? I have only used it a couple times over the several years, and that was for the novelty of it. I assume that most people have a broadband connections and a fast CPU with sufficient RAM to run two-way video. An iPhone do this would be less than ideal, especially if over 3G with it's higher latency than other tech.
* Industry term
What the hell makes you think GPS is a given? I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere. The only thing that seems to be a "given" at this point is that it will be 3G.
In many ways I doubt there will be GPS in the new phone because they already have invested time in this quasi GPS system they have going. GPS chips are huge power suckers, so I think GPS is probably one of the more unlikely features.
Likely features are things that would complement the 3G, like a front side camera, which is not all that unusual - most 3G phones have them.
Just speculation of course...
But don't GPS features require an extra monthly payment? (correct me if I'm wrong)
So if that's the case, couldn't they throw in GPS and have it available as an add-on to the plan while those that don't want/need GPS can just use the current "quasi GPS" or whatever its called?
But then again, Apple likes to keep things simple and probably would want to include GPS on the all the plans.
Who knows..... We shall see soon enough.
Oh, right, Steve Jobs confirmed that last September.
I do appreciate confirmation that it's using the next version of the current chipset, but the tone of the article seems overly dramatic given what we already know.
Secondly, we will have to see if the iPhone software really will hold up to the standards this chip has to offer. Therefore, I don't think we can really say what the iPhone will do based on hardware specs alone.
How many people use the camera on their computers for frequent video chat? I have only used it a couple times over the several years, and that was for the novelty of it. I assume that most people have a broadband connections and a fast CPU with sufficient RAM to run two-way video. An iPhone do this would be less than ideal, especially if over 3G with it's higher latency than other tech.
I also rarely video chat. That may be though because most people with PC's don't have web cams. Also text chat is a lot less noticeable to your boss at work.
The stars may be aligning on the video chat rumor though.
- Apple files a mysterious and unused patent for recording video through a screen.
- Samsung's new ARM chip supports live two way video through graphics acceleration.
- Infineon's new wireless chip supports live two way video.
2nd I hope if the 2nd cam gets built into it that apple releases the iChat client for PC because the aol client isn't capable of handling high quality video nor any audio!
It doesn't matter. Jobs said originally they were going to make a 3G iPhone, his comments since have indicated they're working on a 3G iPhone, and from a common sense standpoint, they HAVE to be working on a 3G iPhone. THERE WILL BE A 3G iPHONE. Whether AppleInsider has discovered some amazing evidence of 3G from the "Cupertino, California based company" is irrelevant.
The next big iPhone release will quite obviously be 3G, whether this "article" indicates 3G or not doesn't change this.
I agree that the "next big iPhone release" will be 3G, but that is no guarantee that the 3G version will be the next iPhone release. Who's to say there won't be a few more 2G iterations before the 3G lands? And considering how this article plays up supposed "proof" that the 3G iPhone is imminent, the fact that it could just be a switch to a newer EDGE chip is quite relevant. Much like this site's multiple announcements of the Mac Mini's demise that were recently retracted, there's no real word that 3G is even a twinkle in Apple's eye.
And it seems a bit odd this article states that the 3G is "officially scheduled" for a June launch. Did I miss an Apple press release or did Walt Mossberg become an official Apple spokesman?
the phone's chipset refers to a device known as "SGOLD3."
Sleuthing reveals this to be an Infineon chipset, the SGOLD3H
Did it say SGOLD3H or just SGOLD3??? SGOLD3 is EDGE
So any word from AppleInsider yet on what it actually said?
What was the "Sleuthing" they did that revealed SGOLD3 did not refer to SGOLD3, but rather SGOLD3H?
(FWIW, I too believe Apple will release 3G soon. I just don't see this discovery as evidence).
I'd like to know the power usage differences between the PMB8878 using HSDPA and PMB8876 using EDGE.
don't forget the pmb8877 !!! that's the the new one without WCDMA, but it can be added with a co-processor... but i think apple will go for the integrated pmb8878... with integrated GPS!
So any word from AppleInsider yet on what it actually said?
What was the "Sleuthing" they did that revealed SGOLD3 did not refer to SGOLD3, but rather SGOLD3H?
(FWIW, I too believe Apple will release 3G soon. I just don't see this discovery as evidence).
original screenshot zibri posted on his blog, ziphone.org:
Also, people should take maximum speeds with a grain of salt. For instance 14.4Mbps is a pipe dream. That's the aggregate bandwidth of a single cell. So to get that on a phone you'd have to be close to the tower, unobstructed and alone in the cell.
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
GSM does the same thing...
What's with the 3.9G? I think fractional generations are pretty stupid (what's the generation between your mother and your grandmother?), but it's pretty clear that new air interfaces mark generations and LTE uses a different one to UMTS, hence it's 4G. What exactly are you waiting for in 4G?
4G is LTE (Long Term Evolution). 4G requires new hardware and software upgrades on the towers. At least for the US (Verizon and AT&T), 4G will run on the 700 MHz band. This will allow deeper penetration into buildings and areas where the 800 MHz band couldn't reach.
Speeds can go from 326 Mbit/s dl and 86 Mbit/s. It offers increased spectrum flexibility in allowing faster rollouts from WCDMA and can hold more users per cell.
I at first didn't label LTE/HSOPA "4G" because although many use that label, many other times LTE/HSOPA routinely gets referred to as "pre-4G" or "post-3G", or that HSOPA is a "transitionary technology towards 4G", etc. Also, HSOPA is nicknamed "Super 3G". "3.9G" is what Japan is calling their upcoming LTE/HSOPA network to launch in 2010. I guess it's just confusing because of the abstract umbrella terms being used. But I will change it anyway.
Here is a good quote from 3GAmericas.org about this:
"Since 2006, significant progress has been made by the Radiocommunication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) in establishing an agreed and globally accepted definition of ‘4G’ wireless systems, and in 2008, the ITU-R is expected to release a full set of documentation for this definition. At that time the vision will be translated into a set of requirements by which technologies and systems can, in the near future, be determined a part of IMT-Advanced and in doing so, earn the credible right to be considered 4G.
Thus, any claim that a particular technology is a so-called ‘4G technology’ prior to that definition is in reality simply a marketing spin, creating market confusion and deflating the importance of the telecommunications industry standards. Technologies should be verified against a set of agreed-upon requirements in order to qualify as ‘4G’, and this will happen in the future when the requirements are outlined by the ITU. Only then will it be understood what is, and can be rightly and credibly called, 4G. "
Very nice chart! Cleared a big deal of the terminology for me and I guess most people here!
Winterspan, would you consider "donating" this chart to the wikipedia? Or more accurately, the wiki commons? I think it would dramatically improve a couple of articles on that site. Maury
Good idea! If you [winterspan] do, also upload the Excel file so it can be updated easily.
Hey, thanks guys. I would love to. I don't have time to HTML it for wikipedia right now, but maybe this week -- unless someone else would like to do it
Here is a link to the excel file . its on a stupid file hosting server, so you have to click "free download" on the page.
Anyways, here is the final updated pic. There are a few changes made from the first one:
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
That sounds right... 14.4mbps is NOT the aggregate bandwidth for the whole cell. But of course everyone should definitely take ALL max speeds with a grain of salt. I don't know the details of it, but I do know that there are 15 HSDPA channels in every 5mhz of bandwidth.. I need to look at it closer. Anyways, bottom line is the faster the theoretical speed, the faster the real-world practical throughput SHOULD be, right? so it's always better to have faster and more advanced technology.
Also, btw, the move from UTMS/384 to ANY form of HSDPA (and HSUPA) is great not just because of the increased throughput, but because of the massively reduced latency on the connection. HSDPA return latencies are around 70-100ms versus 3-5x that or more from UMTS. And then when you add HSUPA on the uplink side, the whole round trip becomes almost similar to a home broadband connection. This will be imporant for multi-player games, VOIP, video chat, etc.
By the way, for you or anyone else who wants more info, here are some good sources I found (besides Wiki of course):
GSM/UMTS Technology Center
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/Technology%5FCenter/
"EDGE, HSPA, LTE: The Mobile Broadband Advantage"
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/white...L_09.15.06.pdf
"Mobile Broadband: The Global Evolution of UMTS/HSPA - 3GPP Release 7 and Beyond" by 3G Americas
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/pd...yond_FINAL.pdf
LTE
\thttp://www.3gamericas.org/English/te...center/lte.cfm