2012 is ripe for Apple to add LTE to their iPad and/or iPhone. There are other devices using new LTE chips that are fairly power efficient, certainly more so than between Apple's first and second iPhone where they went from EDGE to UMTS data.
That is not to say that Apple will launch LTE with the iPad before the iPhone but there is no real technical issue at this point that would be make it an unlikely prospect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You DO realize the second wave of LTE chips is entering production, right? The ones with much better power draw?
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
THose are all valid points and consdieration but let me counter with these...
'4G' will continue to use more power than '3G" the same way '3G' uses more power than '2G'.
The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
In regards to the iPad, it could be a way for Apple to field test their LTE more thoroughly.
In regards to the iPad, there is plenty of space for LTE unlike in the current iPhone with last generation LTE.
The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
In regards to the iPad, we're talking about Apple trying to iPod-ify the tablet market and waiting until March 2013 to release LTE for the iPad might not be the most advantageous strategy.
In regards to the iPad, adding LTE might be a way for Apple to maintain the $129 cellular card cost while adding functionality.
The newest LTE will get the iPhone as-is with power usage that is better than the first iPhone with 3G. And by October 2012 AT&T and Verizon will probably have about the same UMTS and EV-DO Rev. A (Note I didn't say '3G') coverage as they did in June 2008. That tells me that it's time.
Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable. And remember, if Apple includes LTE on the optional cellular HW it's not like a user has to turn it on, but it will likely help for their resale value in a year or two.
The only problem i see is that yields won't begin sampling until Q4 2012 which is right when I expect the iPhone to come out Of course, with Apple in bed with Qualcomm it doesn't mean there won't be an intermediary solution for Apple. After all, the current Gobi chip in the iPhone 4S was unique. Plus, I think there is a strong case for a larger iPhone so using two chips might not be a big deal.
The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
Mmm? em? What if it wasn't?
Just? what if Apple drops the Wi-Fi only model and lowers the price of the 3G models? So the iPad 3 would start at $549 for a 16GB Wi-Fi+3G model and the iPad 2 would stay on at $499.
Quote:
The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
Is 4G coverage now greater or less than the amount of 3G coverage that existed when the iPhone 3G came out in aught eight? Because AT&T's 3G was anemic then, just as it remainsish today.
Quote:
Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable.
I can see Apple using the iPad as a testbed for LTE before it gets finalized in the iPhone 6, sure.
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
Apple will add LTE to the iPad and iPhone when it has the power management issue solved. because LTE service is spreading rapidly now in prime metro areas. none of us here know if it does or does not. I'd still bet against it, with maybe a 40% chance, because no other OEM is close yet. but certitude either way is unwarranted. Apple is tops at power management. we'll find out next week.
THose are all valid points and consdieration but let me counter with these...
'4G' will continue to use more power than '3G" the same way '3G' uses more power than '2G'.
The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
In regards to the iPad, it could be a way for Apple to field test their LTE more thoroughly.
In regards to the iPad, there is plenty of space for LTE unlike in the current iPhone with last generation LTE.
The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
In regards to the iPad, we're talking about Apple trying to iPod-ify the tablet market and waiting until March 2013 to release LTE for the iPad might not be the most advantageous strategy.
In regards to the iPad, adding LTE might be a way for Apple to maintain the $129 cellular card cost while adding functionality.
The newest LTE will get the iPhone as-is with power usage that is better than the first iPhone with 3G. And by October 2012 AT&T and Verizon will probably have about the same UMTS and EV-DO Rev. A (Note I didn't say '3G') coverage as they did in June 2008. That tells me that it's time.
Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable. And remember, if Apple includes LTE on the optional cellular HW it's not like a user has to turn it on, but it will likely help for their resale value in a year or two.
The only problem i see is that yields won't begin sampling until Q4 2012 which is right when I expect the iPhone to come out Of course, with Apple in bed with Qualcomm it doesn't mean there won't be an intermediary solution for Apple. After all, the current Gobi chip in the iPhone 4S was unique. Plus, I think there is a strong case for a larger iPhone so using two chips might not be a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Mmm? em? What if it wasn't?
Just? what if Apple drops the Wi-Fi only model and lowers the price of the 3G models? So the iPad 3 would start at $549 for a 16GB Wi-Fi+3G model and the iPad 2 would stay on at $499.
Is 4G coverage now greater or less than the amount of 3G coverage that existed when the iPhone 3G came out in aught eight? Because AT&T's 3G was anemic then, just as it remainsish today.
I can see Apple using the iPad as a testbed for LTE before it gets finalized in the iPhone 6, sure.
There is a major difference between the global 3G coverage situation in 2008 and the global 4G coverage situation in 2012. There is virtually no LTE coverage in Europe. In 2008, the iPhone lacking 3G was a legitimate if overplayed criticism. 3G coverage was ok, not great back then, but it was rolling out rapidly. LTE is not. The US may be Apple's biggest market, but it's not big enough for them to spoil the usefulness of a product for most of its customers in order to accommodate this new technology. The Lumia 900 is cutting edge, and it still adds massive bulk to have LTE. I mention it because it can be directly compared to its much smaller, non-LTE brother, the Lumia 800.
Of course, I could be very wrong, but if I am I will be disappointed in Apple. To my mind it would be a point of concern. Steve Jobs famously said that focus was 'saying no'. Right now, it's still time to say no to LTE.
Apple could release a Wifi model, a 3G model and a separate 4G model, but I think we'd all find that very un-Apple-like. Apple keeps things simple, and LTE adds complication without any real-world benefit for a massive majority of its customers at this time.
Apple could release a Wifi model, a 3G model and a separate 4G model, but I think we'd all find that very un-Apple-like. Apple keeps things simple, and LTE adds complication without any real-world benefit for a massive majority of its customers at this time.
They release a Verizon CDMA model, a Sprint CDMA model and an AT&T GSM model in the US so I don't think that having LTE for the US and not having LTE for countries that don't yet support LTE is a big deal.
I understand your point and I think it's valid in one aspect but invalid if your solution is to wait for all countries that sell the iPhone to get LTE before Apple offers it in an iDevice. The reason '3G' wasn't in the original iPhone wasn't because of the cellular coverage but because the chips were too poor to be viable. Now we're at 3rd generation LTE and I would bet money that the power draw is better than the '3G' in the 2nd gen iPhone.
They release a Verizon CDMA model, a Sprint CDMA model and an AT&T GSM model in the US so I don't think that having LTE for the US and not having LTE for countries that don't yet support LTE is a big deal.
I understand your point and I think it's valid in one aspect but invalid if your solution is to wait for all countries that sell the iPhone to get LTE before Apple offers it in an iDevice. The reason '3G' wasn't in the original iPhone wasn't because of the cellular coverage but because the chips were too poor to be viable. Now we're at 3rd generation LTE and I would bet money that the power draw is better than the '3G' in the 2nd gen iPhone.
Are the CDMA and GSM iPads not the same using a universal chip? I just assumed so, but here in the UK we don't have the two rival systems so I haven't seen this in the wild. Apple worked towards that solution with the iPhone because they wanted simplicity and therefore economy of scale benefits.
I agree a US-only LTE model is possible, but I just find it unlikely in the extreme. I'm also not convinced that such a model could be made without adding more than 0.81mm of bulk and hurting battery life. I'm not convinced the latest chips are such game-changers, but I defer to you if you know better. However, bear in mind that this new iPad is widely expected to have a double-resolution display. That will also hurt battery life and add bulk in itself. Adding LTE at the same time is a double-whammy of design hurt. That's an awful lot of new tech to squeeze in only adding 0.81mm...This is Apple though, so who knows.
I don't expect Apple to wait for LTE to be widely available globally before it creates a 4G iDevice, I just don't think this launch is the time for it. Even in the US 4G is not anywhere near as widely available as the carriers would have you believe.
In the summer we may see a 4G iPhone. I think this for two reasons:
1) Apple actually has competition in the phone sector. 4G Androids may be utter vanity but Joe Public doesn't know that. Competitors, aided by the carriers who they are in bed with, will push the rival 4G phones as more advanced by virtue of this currently useless technology. I swear it already happens here in the UK where there is zero 4G coverage. That might induce Apple to bring this functionality to the iPhone earlier than they otherwise would. That said, Apple have shown remarkable resilience to such pressure in the past, refreshingly so.
2) The next iPhone will likely be a new design. From what I've read I get the impression Steve Jobs worked on it himself and didn't have a lot to do with the iterative upgrade that was the 4S. The new shape will be designed to last 2 years one would have thought. Within that product cycle, LTE will make sense. I find it hard to think that Apple would plan ahead to 2014 without LTE in an iPhone so the 2012 chassis would be designed to accommodate it.
I guess we'll soon see. I just think Apple is under no pressure with the iPad whatsoever and will do what is best for its design. For me, that's not adding LTE yet.
Are the CDMA and GSM iPads not the same using a universal chip? I just assumed so, but here in the UK we don't have the two rival systems so I haven't seen this in the wild. Apple worked towards that solution with the iPhone because they wanted simplicity and therefore economy of scale benefits.
In the iPhone 4S the chip is "world mode" but you can't just walk into an Apple Store and get a generic iPhone 4S. CDMA is different than GSM-based networks. The basebands are flashed for the carrier at the factory. I know of know way to change this after the fact with CDMA. That means your Sprint iPhone will stay on Sprint and your Verizon on Verizon until some savvy hacker can figure out something. So that means 3 iPhone (one for each MNO) multipled by each capacity for the US.
We'll see what they do for the iPad. As of right now there are 18 iPad SKUs for the US market. 3 capacities x 3 types (AT&T/Verizon/WiFi-only) x 2 colours. If they Sprint that brings it 24.
Also, look at the iPhone 4. There is one for AT&T and one for Verizon that was mid-cycle release. They did that without issue.
Quote:
I agree a US-only LTE model is possible, but I just find it unlikely in the extreme. I'm also not convinced that such a model could be made without adding more than 0.81mm of bulk and hurting battery life. I'm not convinced the latest chips are such game-changers, but I defer to you if you know better. However, bear in mind that this new iPad is widely expected to have a double-resolution display. That will also hurt battery life and add bulk in itself. Adding LTE at the same time is a double-whammy of design hurt. That's an awful lot of new tech to squeeze in only adding 0.81mm...This is Apple though, so who knows.
The additional thickness comes from the battery, not the chip itself. There is plenty of room in an iPad for this especially when you're talking about 3rd gen LTE, not 1st or 2nd.
Now look at the size of the battery in a smartphone and how much they increased the WHr for LTE. The iPad already has a much bigger battery. Cellular will not be the most power hungry component. Now look at how a smartphone and tablet with data differ in their cellular connection. The iPad do 10 hours of book reading, 10 hours of WiFi connectivity or 9 hours of cellular data. The fact that the cellular HW isn't in the same type of always on state like a cellphone helps here.
If you could get 7 hours of LTE (if you decide not to turn it off) I think that is worthwhile. However, i would expect to be a bit higher than that. I also expect the '3G' data to improve if the iPad total usage time improves.
Again, I'm not saying that they will release LTE with the iPad only that they could. I still expect LTE to be best released with the iPhone since it's their flagship product in 2012 as the go to feature. The big feature for the iPad should be the display which I think runs a new IPS panel type that appears to be pricey but also reduces power draw over the previous version. This could offset the battery drain somewhat.
Comments
2012 is ripe for Apple to add LTE to their iPad and/or iPhone. There are other devices using new LTE chips that are fairly power efficient, certainly more so than between Apple's first and second iPhone where they went from EDGE to UMTS data.
That is not to say that Apple will launch LTE with the iPad before the iPhone but there is no real technical issue at this point that would be make it an unlikely prospect.
You DO realize the second wave of LTE chips is entering production, right? The ones with much better power draw?
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
THose are all valid points and consdieration but let me counter with these...
- '4G' will continue to use more power than '3G" the same way '3G' uses more power than '2G'.
- The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
- In regards to the iPad, it could be a way for Apple to field test their LTE more thoroughly.
- In regards to the iPad, there is plenty of space for LTE unlike in the current iPhone with last generation LTE.
- The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
- In regards to the iPad, we're talking about Apple trying to iPod-ify the tablet market and waiting until March 2013 to release LTE for the iPad might not be the most advantageous strategy.
- In regards to the iPad, adding LTE might be a way for Apple to maintain the $129 cellular card cost while adding functionality.
The newest LTE will get the iPhone as-is with power usage that is better than the first iPhone with 3G. And by October 2012 AT&T and Verizon will probably have about the same UMTS and EV-DO Rev. A (Note I didn't say '3G') coverage as they did in June 2008. That tells me that it's time.Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable. And remember, if Apple includes LTE on the optional cellular HW it's not like a user has to turn it on, but it will likely help for their resale value in a year or two.
edit: Qualcomm released this yesterday: http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releas...a-release-10-l
The only problem i see is that yields won't begin sampling until Q4 2012 which is right when I expect the iPhone to come out Of course, with Apple in bed with Qualcomm it doesn't mean there won't be an intermediary solution for Apple. After all, the current Gobi chip in the iPhone 4S was unique. Plus, I think there is a strong case for a larger iPhone so using two chips might not be a big deal.
The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
Mmm? em? What if it wasn't?
Just? what if Apple drops the Wi-Fi only model and lowers the price of the 3G models? So the iPad 3 would start at $549 for a 16GB Wi-Fi+3G model and the iPad 2 would stay on at $499.
The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
Is 4G coverage now greater or less than the amount of 3G coverage that existed when the iPhone 3G came out in aught eight? Because AT&T's 3G was anemic then, just as it remainsish today.
Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable.
I can see Apple using the iPad as a testbed for LTE before it gets finalized in the iPhone 6, sure.
Even with advances in these chips, the fact remains that LTE will draw more power than 3G. That might be worthwhile if 50%+ of customers Apple's main markets could make use of this new technology. They can't. Nowhere near.
LTE is simply not available in the vast majority of Apple's markets. I live in the UK and the bands for 4G haven't even been licensed yet. We're years from LTE (doesn't stop the Android 4G phone branding of course!). It's a white elephant in 2012.
Power consumption is not the only issue. There is another: bulk.
Look at the Lumia 800 next to the Lumia 900. The difference? LTE. All LTE phones are huge. It's been suggested that this is in fact the reason for the increase in Android screen sizes over the last few years. The phones had to be larger so might as well have a nice big display on the front.
LTE would mean more bulk and less battery life. It would only benefit a tiny fraction (and I mean tiny) of Apple's customers and so it just won't happen in iPad3.
Apple will add LTE to the iPad and iPhone when it has the power management issue solved. because LTE service is spreading rapidly now in prime metro areas. none of us here know if it does or does not. I'd still bet against it, with maybe a 40% chance, because no other OEM is close yet. but certitude either way is unwarranted. Apple is tops at power management. we'll find out next week.
THose are all valid points and consdieration but let me counter with these...
- '4G' will continue to use more power than '3G" the same way '3G' uses more power than '2G'.
- The iPad the cellular card is an option, not a requirement.
- In regards to the iPad, it could be a way for Apple to field test their LTE more thoroughly.
- In regards to the iPad, there is plenty of space for LTE unlike in the current iPhone with last generation LTE.
- The US, Apple's primary and still most profitable market, has enough coverage for LTE to make it viable today.
- In regards to the iPad, we're talking about Apple trying to iPod-ify the tablet market and waiting until March 2013 to release LTE for the iPad might not be the most advantageous strategy.
- In regards to the iPad, adding LTE might be a way for Apple to maintain the $129 cellular card cost while adding functionality.
The newest LTE will get the iPhone as-is with power usage that is better than the first iPhone with 3G. And by October 2012 AT&T and Verizon will probably have about the same UMTS and EV-DO Rev. A (Note I didn't say '3G') coverage as they did in June 2008. That tells me that it's time.Whether the iPad gets LTE before the iPhone is very questionable from a marketing position but from a technical position it's doable. And remember, if Apple includes LTE on the optional cellular HW it's not like a user has to turn it on, but it will likely help for their resale value in a year or two.
edit: Qualcomm released this yesterday: http://www.qualcomm.com/media/releas...a-release-10-l
The only problem i see is that yields won't begin sampling until Q4 2012 which is right when I expect the iPhone to come out Of course, with Apple in bed with Qualcomm it doesn't mean there won't be an intermediary solution for Apple. After all, the current Gobi chip in the iPhone 4S was unique. Plus, I think there is a strong case for a larger iPhone so using two chips might not be a big deal.
Mmm? em? What if it wasn't?
Just? what if Apple drops the Wi-Fi only model and lowers the price of the 3G models? So the iPad 3 would start at $549 for a 16GB Wi-Fi+3G model and the iPad 2 would stay on at $499.
Is 4G coverage now greater or less than the amount of 3G coverage that existed when the iPhone 3G came out in aught eight? Because AT&T's 3G was anemic then, just as it remainsish today.
I can see Apple using the iPad as a testbed for LTE before it gets finalized in the iPhone 6, sure.
There is a major difference between the global 3G coverage situation in 2008 and the global 4G coverage situation in 2012. There is virtually no LTE coverage in Europe. In 2008, the iPhone lacking 3G was a legitimate if overplayed criticism. 3G coverage was ok, not great back then, but it was rolling out rapidly. LTE is not. The US may be Apple's biggest market, but it's not big enough for them to spoil the usefulness of a product for most of its customers in order to accommodate this new technology. The Lumia 900 is cutting edge, and it still adds massive bulk to have LTE. I mention it because it can be directly compared to its much smaller, non-LTE brother, the Lumia 800.
Of course, I could be very wrong, but if I am I will be disappointed in Apple. To my mind it would be a point of concern. Steve Jobs famously said that focus was 'saying no'. Right now, it's still time to say no to LTE.
Apple could release a Wifi model, a 3G model and a separate 4G model, but I think we'd all find that very un-Apple-like. Apple keeps things simple, and LTE adds complication without any real-world benefit for a massive majority of its customers at this time.
Apple could release a Wifi model, a 3G model and a separate 4G model, but I think we'd all find that very un-Apple-like. Apple keeps things simple, and LTE adds complication without any real-world benefit for a massive majority of its customers at this time.
They release a Verizon CDMA model, a Sprint CDMA model and an AT&T GSM model in the US so I don't think that having LTE for the US and not having LTE for countries that don't yet support LTE is a big deal.
I understand your point and I think it's valid in one aspect but invalid if your solution is to wait for all countries that sell the iPhone to get LTE before Apple offers it in an iDevice. The reason '3G' wasn't in the original iPhone wasn't because of the cellular coverage but because the chips were too poor to be viable. Now we're at 3rd generation LTE and I would bet money that the power draw is better than the '3G' in the 2nd gen iPhone.
They release a Verizon CDMA model, a Sprint CDMA model and an AT&T GSM model in the US so I don't think that having LTE for the US and not having LTE for countries that don't yet support LTE is a big deal.
I understand your point and I think it's valid in one aspect but invalid if your solution is to wait for all countries that sell the iPhone to get LTE before Apple offers it in an iDevice. The reason '3G' wasn't in the original iPhone wasn't because of the cellular coverage but because the chips were too poor to be viable. Now we're at 3rd generation LTE and I would bet money that the power draw is better than the '3G' in the 2nd gen iPhone.
Are the CDMA and GSM iPads not the same using a universal chip? I just assumed so, but here in the UK we don't have the two rival systems so I haven't seen this in the wild. Apple worked towards that solution with the iPhone because they wanted simplicity and therefore economy of scale benefits.
I agree a US-only LTE model is possible, but I just find it unlikely in the extreme. I'm also not convinced that such a model could be made without adding more than 0.81mm of bulk and hurting battery life. I'm not convinced the latest chips are such game-changers, but I defer to you if you know better. However, bear in mind that this new iPad is widely expected to have a double-resolution display. That will also hurt battery life and add bulk in itself. Adding LTE at the same time is a double-whammy of design hurt. That's an awful lot of new tech to squeeze in only adding 0.81mm...This is Apple though, so who knows.
I don't expect Apple to wait for LTE to be widely available globally before it creates a 4G iDevice, I just don't think this launch is the time for it. Even in the US 4G is not anywhere near as widely available as the carriers would have you believe.
In the summer we may see a 4G iPhone. I think this for two reasons:
1) Apple actually has competition in the phone sector. 4G Androids may be utter vanity but Joe Public doesn't know that. Competitors, aided by the carriers who they are in bed with, will push the rival 4G phones as more advanced by virtue of this currently useless technology. I swear it already happens here in the UK where there is zero 4G coverage. That might induce Apple to bring this functionality to the iPhone earlier than they otherwise would. That said, Apple have shown remarkable resilience to such pressure in the past, refreshingly so.
2) The next iPhone will likely be a new design. From what I've read I get the impression Steve Jobs worked on it himself and didn't have a lot to do with the iterative upgrade that was the 4S. The new shape will be designed to last 2 years one would have thought. Within that product cycle, LTE will make sense. I find it hard to think that Apple would plan ahead to 2014 without LTE in an iPhone so the 2012 chassis would be designed to accommodate it.
I guess we'll soon see. I just think Apple is under no pressure with the iPad whatsoever and will do what is best for its design. For me, that's not adding LTE yet.
Are the CDMA and GSM iPads not the same using a universal chip? I just assumed so, but here in the UK we don't have the two rival systems so I haven't seen this in the wild. Apple worked towards that solution with the iPhone because they wanted simplicity and therefore economy of scale benefits.
In the iPhone 4S the chip is "world mode" but you can't just walk into an Apple Store and get a generic iPhone 4S. CDMA is different than GSM-based networks. The basebands are flashed for the carrier at the factory. I know of know way to change this after the fact with CDMA. That means your Sprint iPhone will stay on Sprint and your Verizon on Verizon until some savvy hacker can figure out something. So that means 3 iPhone (one for each MNO) multipled by each capacity for the US.
We'll see what they do for the iPad. As of right now there are 18 iPad SKUs for the US market. 3 capacities x 3 types (AT&T/Verizon/WiFi-only) x 2 colours. If they Sprint that brings it 24.
Also, look at the iPhone 4. There is one for AT&T and one for Verizon that was mid-cycle release. They did that without issue.
I agree a US-only LTE model is possible, but I just find it unlikely in the extreme. I'm also not convinced that such a model could be made without adding more than 0.81mm of bulk and hurting battery life. I'm not convinced the latest chips are such game-changers, but I defer to you if you know better. However, bear in mind that this new iPad is widely expected to have a double-resolution display. That will also hurt battery life and add bulk in itself. Adding LTE at the same time is a double-whammy of design hurt. That's an awful lot of new tech to squeeze in only adding 0.81mm...This is Apple though, so who knows.
The additional thickness comes from the battery, not the chip itself. There is plenty of room in an iPad for this especially when you're talking about 3rd gen LTE, not 1st or 2nd.
Now look at the size of the battery in a smartphone and how much they increased the WHr for LTE. The iPad already has a much bigger battery. Cellular will not be the most power hungry component. Now look at how a smartphone and tablet with data differ in their cellular connection. The iPad do 10 hours of book reading, 10 hours of WiFi connectivity or 9 hours of cellular data. The fact that the cellular HW isn't in the same type of always on state like a cellphone helps here.
If you could get 7 hours of LTE (if you decide not to turn it off) I think that is worthwhile. However, i would expect to be a bit higher than that. I also expect the '3G' data to improve if the iPad total usage time improves.
Again, I'm not saying that they will release LTE with the iPad only that they could. I still expect LTE to be best released with the iPhone since it's their flagship product in 2012 as the go to feature. The big feature for the iPad should be the display which I think runs a new IPS panel type that appears to be pricey but also reduces power draw over the previous version. This could offset the battery drain somewhat.