GSM will probably be phased out after LTE. There's already talk of carriers alrady switching off their 3G networks but none would even dream of getting rid of GSM. GSM is too reliable and it's dirt cheap to deploy. It's a great fail safe.
Very true. An LTE only iPhone without GSM or CDMA for voice in the U.S. would be practically useless as a phone. There may come a time when voice over LTE is the de facto standard but that is many years away. The comment to which you replied was beyond idiotic because he actually thought he was prescient and in fact couldn't be more wrong.
Anyone doubting the difficulty of doing baseband (for technical and legal reasons) need only look to Intel to get a head-check. Even after acquiring Infineon's baseband group, Intel's baseband business is still 1/10th the size of Qualcomm's. The ratio is far worse if you narrow the focus to LTE.
Perhaps this also provides additional insight as to why Apple doesn't use Intel chips for iOS device CPUs?
If Apple can't get what it wants, it goes elsewhere. If Apple can't get it elsewhere, it makes it.
Based on Apple's history, this is nothing. Apple went from 68K to PowerPC to x86; it is perhaps the only mega cap tech company that is able to transition their core product's CPU architecture not once but twice. Every other so-called "high tech" company has failed: SGI, MIPS, Sun et al.
I suspect this has to do with some major "breakthrough" tech coming from Artemis Networks called pCell and Apple is just getting ready to incorporate this into their devices.
Stupid is as stupid does. Just another analyst talking out there arse about what they don't understand.
Gee nobody thought apple could shock the world with the first custom 64 bit mobile processor and full 64 bit Mobile os to go with it either but look where we are. Look at Touch ID Apple sure made that work too! Look at the pathetic attempt on the GS5 for a fingerprint sensor.
This is well within Apples scope to do this as is just about anything else. And they have the money to back it up and pay for it.
If apple succeeds at this, it's another integrated part in their wheelhouse. They can make it talk with their own services and hardware, they can push their agenda in this space, if they have a breakthrough idea - no one else will get it, unlike other manufacturers who all buy the same off the shelf parts. Any company that apple buys a part from will dictate their agenda, and sell the same tech to any other company. Hard to differentiate in that space.
Wow, you resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point?! You do not deserve a response.
Besides that, unsurprisingly, you missed the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
You're an idiot if you believe that. GSM will probably be phased out after LTE. There's already talk of carriers alrady switching off their 3G networks but none would even dream of getting rid of GSM. GSM is too reliable and it's dirt cheap to deploy. It's a great fail safe.
Another ad hominem attack, keep it up, you will receive no response or respect for that behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulsearcher
Very true. An LTE only iPhone without GSM or CDMA for voice in the U.S. would be practically useless as a phone. There may come a time when voice over LTE is the de facto standard but that is many years away. The comment to which you replied was beyond idiotic because he actually thought he was prescient and in fact couldn't be more wrong.
It would be in Apple's character to release an LTE/LTE-Advanced ONLY device. This would serve to move carriers forward with the full implementation of LTE/LTE-Advanced & VoLTE, of course such a device would favor carriers with the biggest LTE footprint, which looks like Verizon today... Removing legacy support could enable other features like more band support, size reduction, battery life savings and other benefits like speed.
Of course Apple would probably delay the release of the LTE centric device(s) until there is a bit more LTE penetration...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkzombie
Not to mention that an LTE only device could only be sold on very specific markets and would be way to unique to be sold.
It would be in Apple's character to release an LTE/LTE-Advanced ONLY device. This would serve to move carriers forward with the full implementation of LTE/LTE-Advanced & VoLTE, of course such a device would favor carriers with the biggest LTE footprint, which looks like Verizon today... Removing legacy support could enable other features like more band support, size reduction, battery life savings and other benefits like speed.
Of course Apple would probably delay the release of the LTE centric device(s) until there is a bit more LTE penetration...
Having Apple screw over their entire customer base just to get to MNOs to spend billions on furthering their LTE rollouts is not a sound solution. It would hurt Apple and customers. Even if this did cause MNOs to take immediate action it would be years before the rollout would cover every are at that '2G' GSM and CDMA now covers. On top of that, the chips are small, inexpensive and power efficient that that they cause amuck bigger downside for not being included than being included.
This would also means that the next iPhone wouldn't have any native voice capabilities as VoLTE isn't yet available. It would be FaceTime Audio calls for those that happen to be on an LTE or WiFi network. VoLTE will happen but there is absolutely no reason for it to happen now that make your desire for the destruction of the iPhone as a product and dissatisfaction of its users a desirable objective.
Oh for pete sake. Yes Most analysts are dump. But what is being said here is certainly not.
Yes, designing the baseband isn't harder then CPU. But it certainly is another area with its sets of engineering challenges that has many different trade off compare to CPU or even GPU. But do remember Apple did not design its CPU / GPU from scratch. Those were IPs bought and they made custom design to it. So yes, if they decide to make one from scratch it certainly is a herculean task
Then there is the front end, where for most parts is still Analog. a.k.a Qualcomm RF360 parts. You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it.
Apple could also buy IP just like they did with CPU and GPU. CEVA would certainly be the better option. But i dont see how the front end is going to play out. Because I dont see Apple going to make one themselves and test every god damn combination of wireless standard out there.
So as someone has pointed out, in an increasingly data oriented Mobile network, I see Apple likely making an LTE only option. And if that is the case, it will likely give carrier 2 years to make the move and improve, while they work on their own LTE parts.
So Apple will have some of the best minds working on baseband chips with a pretty much unlimited budget and they will fail how?
I can't see how it would take 5 years and 1,000 engineers. I assume the technology is already known. In order for the analyst to know what the requirements are, they would have to know Apple's intent.
For instance, Apple could use some IBM self-programming chips that change to morph into various Basebands -- allowing one phone to work in many different locations. The same tech has been used to create self-adapting antennas because one design does not work best for every frequency. The antenna breaks and adds connections in a pattern that is best designed for a specific signal -- so one antenna can be optimized for different carriers. I'm not absolutely sure this is in use -- but I was reading about the tech about 10 years ago.
My thought on Apple's goal here;
There's probably a lot of legacy cruft in the Baseband chips and a lot of functions that could be optimized that work for most cell phone systems -- reducing energy use and improving performance. Then Apple would have "images" of baseband configs that are connected or disconnected (via software PROM -- as is their style).
I'm not a Basband pro, but I suspect that most of the tech is FRAND now or not too expensive to license -- or else Apple wouldn't be trying to do this.
I'm betting Apple did their homework and the analyst has done less homework -- as most tech analysts in the media are about as accurate as monkeys with darts.
Comments
GSM will probably be phased out after LTE. There's already talk of carriers alrady switching off their 3G networks but none would even dream of getting rid of GSM. GSM is too reliable and it's dirt cheap to deploy. It's a great fail safe.
Very true. An LTE only iPhone without GSM or CDMA for voice in the U.S. would be practically useless as a phone. There may come a time when voice over LTE is the de facto standard but that is many years away. The comment to which you replied was beyond idiotic because he actually thought he was prescient and in fact couldn't be more wrong.
Anyone doubting the difficulty of doing baseband (for technical and legal reasons) need only look to Intel to get a head-check. Even after acquiring Infineon's baseband group, Intel's baseband business is still 1/10th the size of Qualcomm's. The ratio is far worse if you narrow the focus to LTE.
Perhaps this also provides additional insight as to why Apple doesn't use Intel chips for iOS device CPUs?
If Apple can't get what it wants, it goes elsewhere. If Apple can't get it elsewhere, it makes it.
Perhaps this also provides additional insight as to why Apple doesn't use Intel chips for iOS device CPUs?
If Apple can't get what it wants, it goes elsewhere. If Apple can't get it elsewhere, it makes it.
More likely because Intel didn't have suitable chips available when they started iOS. If they had, things might have been very different.
I suspect this has to do with some major "breakthrough" tech coming from Artemis Networks called pCell and Apple is just getting ready to incorporate this into their devices.
Demo here:
Stupid is as stupid does. Just another analyst talking out there arse about what they don't understand.
Gee nobody thought apple could shock the world with the first custom 64 bit mobile processor and full 64 bit Mobile os to go with it either but look where we are. Look at Touch ID Apple sure made that work too! Look at the pathetic attempt on the GS5 for a fingerprint sensor.
This is well within Apples scope to do this as is just about anything else. And they have the money to back it up and pay for it.
More likely because Intel didn't have suitable chips available when they started iOS. If they had, things might have been very different.
So now Apple is designing their own, suitable chips, which is exactly my point.
Or as the saying goes:
"If 'ifs' and 'buts' were soup and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas."
Who said anything about an unlimited budget?
Apple has the most unlimited budget in tech today, as long as they don't blow money on companies like Square or Netflix.
these "...guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in."
The CEO of Palm?
Brian Modoff, what if Apple started this project several years ago? Your premise that they haven't started yet is shortsighted.
Apple's track record over the last 17 years? Green lighted years ago.
Wow, you resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point?! You do not deserve a response.
Besides that, unsurprisingly, you missed the point.
Quote:
You're an idiot if you believe that. GSM will probably be phased out after LTE. There's already talk of carriers alrady switching off their 3G networks but none would even dream of getting rid of GSM. GSM is too reliable and it's dirt cheap to deploy. It's a great fail safe.
Another ad hominem attack, keep it up, you will receive no response or respect for that behavior.
Quote:
Very true. An LTE only iPhone without GSM or CDMA for voice in the U.S. would be practically useless as a phone. There may come a time when voice over LTE is the de facto standard but that is many years away. The comment to which you replied was beyond idiotic because he actually thought he was prescient and in fact couldn't be more wrong.
It would be in Apple's character to release an LTE/LTE-Advanced ONLY device. This would serve to move carriers forward with the full implementation of LTE/LTE-Advanced & VoLTE, of course such a device would favor carriers with the biggest LTE footprint, which looks like Verizon today... Removing legacy support could enable other features like more band support, size reduction, battery life savings and other benefits like speed.
Of course Apple would probably delay the release of the LTE centric device(s) until there is a bit more LTE penetration...
Quote:
Not to mention that an LTE only device could only be sold on very specific markets and would be way to unique to be sold.
I fully expect Apple to release an LTE/LTE Advanced ONLY device in the near future. You heard it here first.
Watch the carriers squirm.
That would make customers leave, and AAPL shareholders squirm. The phone needs to work reliably anywhere, after all.
Having Apple screw over their entire customer base just to get to MNOs to spend billions on furthering their LTE rollouts is not a sound solution. It would hurt Apple and customers. Even if this did cause MNOs to take immediate action it would be years before the rollout would cover every are at that '2G' GSM and CDMA now covers. On top of that, the chips are small, inexpensive and power efficient that that they cause amuck bigger downside for not being included than being included.
This would also means that the next iPhone wouldn't have any native voice capabilities as VoLTE isn't yet available. It would be FaceTime Audio calls for those that happen to be on an LTE or WiFi network. VoLTE will happen but there is absolutely no reason for it to happen now that make your desire for the destruction of the iPhone as a product and dissatisfaction of its users a desirable objective.
Oh for pete sake. Yes Most analysts are dump. But what is being said here is certainly not.
Yes, designing the baseband isn't harder then CPU. But it certainly is another area with its sets of engineering challenges that has many different trade off compare to CPU or even GPU. But do remember Apple did not design its CPU / GPU from scratch. Those were IPs bought and they made custom design to it. So yes, if they decide to make one from scratch it certainly is a herculean task
Then there is the front end, where for most parts is still Analog. a.k.a Qualcomm RF360 parts. You get much better results if both front and back end are from the same vendor. Simply because they optimize the heck out of it.
Apple could also buy IP just like they did with CPU and GPU. CEVA would certainly be the better option. But i dont see how the front end is going to play out. Because I dont see Apple going to make one themselves and test every god damn combination of wireless standard out there.
So as someone has pointed out, in an increasingly data oriented Mobile network, I see Apple likely making an LTE only option. And if that is the case, it will likely give carrier 2 years to make the move and improve, while they work on their own LTE parts.
PPS: @RichL, you're an idiot for making an ad hominem attack. Feel better now, @libertyforall?
I love you too, man.
So Apple will have some of the best minds working on baseband chips with a pretty much unlimited budget and they will fail how?
I can't see how it would take 5 years and 1,000 engineers. I assume the technology is already known. In order for the analyst to know what the requirements are, they would have to know Apple's intent.
For instance, Apple could use some IBM self-programming chips that change to morph into various Basebands -- allowing one phone to work in many different locations. The same tech has been used to create self-adapting antennas because one design does not work best for every frequency. The antenna breaks and adds connections in a pattern that is best designed for a specific signal -- so one antenna can be optimized for different carriers. I'm not absolutely sure this is in use -- but I was reading about the tech about 10 years ago.
My thought on Apple's goal here;
There's probably a lot of legacy cruft in the Baseband chips and a lot of functions that could be optimized that work for most cell phone systems -- reducing energy use and improving performance. Then Apple would have "images" of baseband configs that are connected or disconnected (via software PROM -- as is their style).
I'm not a Basband pro, but I suspect that most of the tech is FRAND now or not too expensive to license -- or else Apple wouldn't be trying to do this.
I'm betting Apple did their homework and the analyst has done less homework -- as most tech analysts in the media are about as accurate as monkeys with darts.