or quintuple... whatever the 5-way solution is called... i doubt apple would limit the 3G iphone to certain providers... so 4-way GSM and 5-way UMTS...
There a very few tri band 3G phones and no quad bands. Apple may come out with a quad band but a quintuple band is outside the realm possibility just now. My guess is that they will come out with a 3G 850/1900/2100 phone.
Keep in mind that someone has to engineer this stuff and radio frequency engineering is considered a "black art" of which there are relatively few who are good at it. Stuffing multiple radios and antennas into a small box just makes it more difficult.
Why not? They did it from the getgo and they still have revenue sharing in place. If they support the 1700 band then T-Mobile USA can hop on board (when they get their 3G network up) and thus lose revenue sharing to more unlocked iPhones on their network. Even before the 3G network is up people who prefer T-Mobile will wait it out, but if the next iPhone doesn't support 1700 then most will move to AT&T because 3G speeds weigh heavier than carrier loyalty for most people. (that is an assumption I've made based on people I know on T-Mobile USA)
officially they limited who sells it, but not which GSM-providers the iphone can roam on! or that the hacked iphone is able to use an GSM-provider, no matter what GSM frequency...
officially they limited who sells it, but not which GSM-providers the iphone can roam on! or that the hacked iphone is able to use an GSM-provider, no matter what GSM frequency...
Do you think it makes since for Apple to add a band that is ONLY used by T-Mobile in the US and will do nothing but hurt its revenue sharing, thus losing the company money? Adding 1700 makes absolutely no sense, except to those that want a device that can be everything to everyone, but Apple has never followed that plan.
Will Apple use a Quad-band radio (800/850/1900/2100 or 850/1700/1900/2100 ) or will they use a Tri-band radio (850/1900/2100 or 850/1700/2100)?
UMTS / HSDPA / HSUPA devices operate in the UMTS frequency bands or MHz:
2100 (downlink) / 1900 (uplink) for Japan, Europe, Brazil and Asia (usually referred simply as W-CDMA 2100)
1900 / 850 (independently, for both the uplink and downlink) for Americas (US, Canada, Latin America and Brazil) (e.g. AT&T Mobility and Rogers Wireless)
2100 (downlink) / 1700 (uplink) for America (e.g. T-Mobile USA)
850 for Australia (Telstra NextG)
800 for Japan (NTT DoCoMo in rural areas)
Apple won't support T-Mobile USA's upcoming 3G network for several reasons, but will they support NTT DoCoMo in rural areas? Does anyone else use the 1700 or 800 bands?
1700 and 800 are just too obscure. 1700 is US specific, 800 is Japan specific, as are others like a Japan 1500.
If Apple do a quad band phone it would have to be 850/900/1900/2100. 1800 in 2G doesn't serve a purpose in 3G because there is 2100. It might be 700/850/1900/2100 but that would be a very early call and be quite US specific whereas 900 is growing in Europe and Australia (Nokia has already started releasing 900 3G phones).
Apple always go for one version for scale, covering as many bases as possible. My money is on 850/1900/2100 tri band or 850/900/1900/2100 quad band.
Do you think it makes since for Apple to add a band that is ONLY used by T-Mobile in the US and will do nothing but hurt its revenue sharing, thus losing the company money? Adding 1700 makes absolutely no sense, except to those that want a device that can be everything to everyone, but Apple has never followed that plan.
i have to admit that doesn't make much sense since the 1700-band is t-mobile USA only and not used anywhere else in the world... i think i get confuesed a little... quad band UMTS should be enough then, but we never know, maybe the gold3h chip by infineon is capable of doing that... we will soon find out...
1700 and 800 are just too obscure. 1700 is US specific, 800 is Japan specific, as are others like a Japan 1500.
If Apple do a quad band phone it would have to be 850/900/1900/2100. 1800 in 2G doesn't serve a purpose in 3G because there is 2100. It might be 700/850/1900/2100 but that would be a very early call and be quite US specific whereas 900 is growing in Europe and Australia (Nokia has already started releasing 900 3G phones).
Apple always go for one version for scale, covering as many bases as possible. My money is on 850/1900/2100 tri band or 850/900/1900/2100 quad band.
i think 850/900/1900/2100 UMTS (HSDPA/HUSPA already confirmed) is a safe bet....
That's if they can pull off a quad band phone, which is questionable. I'd say 850/1900/2100 is more likely.
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
i just looked it up: "Less than 1000 mm² for a dual mode HSDPA
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
If you assume they'll come out with a new model same time next year, then risks are on trying to stretch the technology. 900 and other lesser frequencies are not that popular on the scale of things, so not losing that much market. But having a phone that doesn't work quite right because they reached forward too far is a different story. As you can see with the first version they went with the tried and true quad band 2G phone, minimising technological risk.
the chip was discovered way back by zibri (www.ziphone.org)... i had read the inf. pdf, but i didn''t pay attention to the quad/tri thing back then....
the chip was discovered way back by zibri (www.ziphone.org)... i had read the inf. pdf, but i didn''t pay attention to the quad/tri thing back then....
I spent the previous hour or so looking for information on the Inferion chip. I fancy myself a pretty good researcher and all around internet gumshoe but could find it.
I spent the previous hour or so looking for information on the Inferion chip. I fancy myself a pretty good researcher and all around internet gumshoe but could find it.
infineon gold3h will bring you closer when goggeling...
I wouldn't take the patent as gospel. Having a patent for the potential integration of a technology in no way states that their next product will have it. I don't see Flash or Windows Media being added at all. Though I do hope their patent for a multi-client IM UI will include MS' chat protocol as it's quite popular outside of the states.
Comments
or quintuple... whatever the 5-way solution is called... i doubt apple would limit the 3G iphone to certain providers... so 4-way GSM and 5-way UMTS...
There a very few tri band 3G phones and no quad bands. Apple may come out with a quad band but a quintuple band is outside the realm possibility just now. My guess is that they will come out with a 3G 850/1900/2100 phone.
Keep in mind that someone has to engineer this stuff and radio frequency engineering is considered a "black art" of which there are relatively few who are good at it. Stuffing multiple radios and antennas into a small box just makes it more difficult.
Why not? They did it from the getgo and they still have revenue sharing in place. If they support the 1700 band then T-Mobile USA can hop on board (when they get their 3G network up) and thus lose revenue sharing to more unlocked iPhones on their network. Even before the 3G network is up people who prefer T-Mobile will wait it out, but if the next iPhone doesn't support 1700 then most will move to AT&T because 3G speeds weigh heavier than carrier loyalty for most people. (that is an assumption I've made based on people I know on T-Mobile USA)
officially they limited who sells it, but not which GSM-providers the iphone can roam on! or that the hacked iphone is able to use an GSM-provider, no matter what GSM frequency...
officially they limited who sells it, but not which GSM-providers the iphone can roam on! or that the hacked iphone is able to use an GSM-provider, no matter what GSM frequency...
Do you think it makes since for Apple to add a band that is ONLY used by T-Mobile in the US and will do nothing but hurt its revenue sharing, thus losing the company money? Adding 1700 makes absolutely no sense, except to those that want a device that can be everything to everyone, but Apple has never followed that plan.
see:
Loco Roco
Patapon
Hot Shots Golf
Turn-based RPGs
Katamary Damaci
Will Apple use a Quad-band radio (800/850/1900/2100 or 850/1700/1900/2100 ) or will they use a Tri-band radio (850/1900/2100 or 850/1700/2100)? Apple won't support T-Mobile USA's upcoming 3G network for several reasons, but will they support NTT DoCoMo in rural areas? Does anyone else use the 1700 or 800 bands?
1700 and 800 are just too obscure. 1700 is US specific, 800 is Japan specific, as are others like a Japan 1500.
If Apple do a quad band phone it would have to be 850/900/1900/2100. 1800 in 2G doesn't serve a purpose in 3G because there is 2100. It might be 700/850/1900/2100 but that would be a very early call and be quite US specific whereas 900 is growing in Europe and Australia (Nokia has already started releasing 900 3G phones).
Apple always go for one version for scale, covering as many bases as possible. My money is on 850/1900/2100 tri band or 850/900/1900/2100 quad band.
Do you think it makes since for Apple to add a band that is ONLY used by T-Mobile in the US and will do nothing but hurt its revenue sharing, thus losing the company money? Adding 1700 makes absolutely no sense, except to those that want a device that can be everything to everyone, but Apple has never followed that plan.
i have to admit that doesn't make much sense since the 1700-band is t-mobile USA only and not used anywhere else in the world... i think i get confuesed a little... quad band UMTS should be enough then, but we never know, maybe the gold3h chip by infineon is capable of doing that... we will soon find out...
1700 and 800 are just too obscure. 1700 is US specific, 800 is Japan specific, as are others like a Japan 1500.
If Apple do a quad band phone it would have to be 850/900/1900/2100. 1800 in 2G doesn't serve a purpose in 3G because there is 2100. It might be 700/850/1900/2100 but that would be a very early call and be quite US specific whereas 900 is growing in Europe and Australia (Nokia has already started releasing 900 3G phones).
Apple always go for one version for scale, covering as many bases as possible. My money is on 850/1900/2100 tri band or 850/900/1900/2100 quad band.
i think 850/900/1900/2100 UMTS (HSDPA/HUSPA already confirmed) is a safe bet....
i think 850/900/1900/2100 UMTS (HSDPA/HUSPA already confirmed) is a safe bet....
That's if they can pull off a quad band phone, which is questionable. I'd say 850/1900/2100 is more likely.
That's if they can pull off a quad band phone, which is questionable. I'd say 850/1900/2100 is more likely.
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
i just looked it up: "Less than 1000 mm² for a dual mode HSDPA
(triband) and EDGE (quadband) modem
solution"
source infineon: http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/X-GOLD6...1957c66fee3850
so it will be a tri-band UMTS, quad-band GSM 3G iphone...!
so this discussion is over...
It's definitely more likely. Tri-bad chips are already widely used, they presumably cheaper and smaller, and they cover all the known carriers we are aware of.
But can we deduce that Apple will need a quad-band phone in the not to distant future that would make adding such a chip now financially beneficial?
If you assume they'll come out with a new model same time next year, then risks are on trying to stretch the technology. 900 and other lesser frequencies are not that popular on the scale of things, so not losing that much market. But having a phone that doesn't work quite right because they reached forward too far is a different story. As you can see with the first version they went with the tried and true quad band 2G phone, minimising technological risk.
So tri band now and quad band in 2009 or 10.
i just looked it up: "Less than 1000 mm² for a dual mode HSDPA
(triband) and EDGE (quadband) modem
solution"
source infineon: http://www.infineon.com/dgdl/X-GOLD6...1957c66fee3850
so it will be a tri-band UMTS, quad-band GSM 3G iphone...!
so this discussion is over...
Thank god for that. Sounds pretty convincing to me. We can all move on now.
Thank god for that. Sounds pretty convincing to me. We can all move on now.
yeah, if the manufacturer of the actual chip doesn't know what he's talking about, then who is??? ;-)
yeah, if the manufacturer of the actual chip doesn't know what he's talking about, then who is??? ;-)
Nice find!
Nice find!
the chip was discovered way back by zibri (www.ziphone.org)... i had read the inf. pdf, but i didn''t pay attention to the quad/tri thing back then....
the chip was discovered way back by zibri (www.ziphone.org)... i had read the inf. pdf, but i didn''t pay attention to the quad/tri thing back then....
I spent the previous hour or so looking for information on the Inferion chip. I fancy myself a pretty good researcher and all around internet gumshoe but could find it.
I spent the previous hour or so looking for information on the Inferion chip. I fancy myself a pretty good researcher and all around internet gumshoe but could find it.
infineon gold3h will bring you closer when goggeling...
or PMB8878 as it's called in infineon lingo....
zibir just posted that he found out that the 3G iphone will not have internal GPS! good news for all of us that love to have long battery runtime!!!
but it will have a bluetooth GPS stack!!! so people like me with a bluetooth GPS can connect to them and use them with google maps or other s/w....
quote: "The patents for the iPhone2 (and firmware 2.0) are out.
As you can see from the images above, FLASH and
WindowsMedia content will be finally supported.
In figure 53D you can also see how the
new welcome screen will look like.
Again there is nothing in the patent about
an embedded GPS (as I previously said).
External bluetooth GPS will be supported and
managed by the "locationd" daemon." source: http://www.ziphone.org/
infineon gold3h will bring you closer when goggeling...
or PMB8878 as it's called in infineon lingo....
That is what I was using. I found the PDF to the S-GOLD3H chip, but not to the X-GOLD 608.
edit: I forget they had changed the name. I think it was no more than a couple weeks ago I even posted that information about the name change.
OT and for appleinsider crew:
zibir just posted that he found out that the 3G iphone will not have internal GPS! good news for all of us that love to have long battery runtime!!!
but it will have a bluetooth GPS stack!!! so people like me with a bluetooth GPS can connect to them and use them with google maps or other s/w....
quote: "The patents for the iPhone2 (and firmware 2.0) are out.
As you can see from the images above, FLASH and
WindowsMedia content will be finally supported.
In figure 53D you can also see how the
new welcome screen will look like.
Again there is nothing in the patent about
an embedded GPS (as I previously said).
External bluetooth GPS will be supported and
managed by the "locationd" daemon." source: http://www.ziphone.org/
I wouldn't take the patent as gospel. Having a patent for the potential integration of a technology in no way states that their next product will have it. I don't see Flash or Windows Media being added at all. Though I do hope their patent for a multi-client IM UI will include MS' chat protocol as it's quite popular outside of the states.