The headline is ambiguous since it open to two different interpretations instead of being written to be understood without interpretation. Regardless of style or tradition of 'the press' there should be no need for disambiguation.
The rest of the article has a major problem in that nothing is 'confirmed' except Apple's use of two different modems.
At this point the reason(s) given are pure speculation. Absolutely no factual evidence supports the speculation, so the use of 'confirmation' in any form is premature.
It could be that Apple in fact did this for parity so that critics. consumers, and manufactures wouldn't see them as the 'fast phone' and the 'slow phone'. That's opinion and speculation, not yet fact and confirmation. But so many people don't care about fact, and we get articles written about them and comments made by like minds.
Well, with this press release, would it make any Android using this model (or anything newer) from Qualcomm have faster performance than any Apple iPhone..?
Apple needs to just get back into the business of making high-end devices which substantiate Apple's premium price. Choosing a chip as a "winner" and then retarding a product to be on-par with another is probably because Intel is paying Apple (or giving them away) to do things like this.
Intel couldn't have worse PR than a news release like this. If true, it'd be difficult to see any phone manufacturer seriously consider "Intel Inside" a flagship phone.
I agree. I'm still trying to figure out why Apple would choose to use the Intel modem for two reasons 1) it's slower speed, 2) it's limited to GSM networks only.
I finally had a chance to talk to the father of my daughters classmate about this since her dad is a hardware engineer at Apple (a very well paid engineer, BTW) and my daughter attended a party with her. When I first heard he was an engineer years ago I hoped he might be part of something interesting, like the team behind their A Series processors. To be honest, I was kinda disappointed to find out he was a cellular radio engineer, as that's kind of a boring area nobody really talks about. Who knew he'd be privy to something that makes the news in tech blogs.
I always ask him about future Apple products, and he never cracks and gives me anything useful. However, he did talk a bit about that blog post from awhile ago comparing modems. He basically said:
"There are literally 101 different aspects to cellular performance. That blog took a single static test and tried to make a conclusion about which modem is better based on that one result. The overall performance of these modems is such that a user would never notice a difference in the real world, even though lab testing would show each having advantages in different situations."
I think I'll take his word over all the armchair engineers out there commenting on this.
He was almost upset when I brought it up as he was aware of that blog post and felt insulted by it. He almost sounded like he took it personally.
Has it been revealed to the trading public if Verizon requested (or even is causing) this, due to the sheer volume of iPhone users (relative to other types of handsets) and Verizon's delicate mix of backhaul and towers spread across LTE, legacy CDMA and "pre"-5G amidst their growing popularity? Isn't it true that iPhone is still performing much better on Verizon's network vs. their competitors (as opposed to merely running the same as their competitors). How can anyone be certain this is an Apple or iPhone issue?
Throttling seems like incorrect language for this.
I am thinking that Apple doesn't want to have to code a special subset of LTE parameters in order to enable the higher speeds for this qualcomm part. Admittedly I have not done the real research to verify this, but I am guessing they want the same code to run on all of the iPhones, so a special high speed mode that is only supported by one chip isn't enabled.
Comments
The rest of the article has a major problem in that nothing is 'confirmed' except Apple's use of two different modems.
At this point the reason(s) given are pure speculation. Absolutely no factual evidence supports the speculation, so the use of 'confirmation' in any form is premature.
It could be that Apple in fact did this for parity so that critics. consumers, and manufactures wouldn't see them as the 'fast phone' and the 'slow phone'. That's opinion and speculation, not yet fact and confirmation. But so many people don't care about fact, and we get articles written about them and comments made by like minds.
I finally had a chance to talk to the father of my daughters classmate about this since her dad is a hardware engineer at Apple (a very well paid engineer, BTW) and my daughter attended a party with her. When I first heard he was an engineer years ago I hoped he might be part of something interesting, like the team behind their A Series processors. To be honest, I was kinda disappointed to find out he was a cellular radio engineer, as that's kind of a boring area nobody really talks about. Who knew he'd be privy to something that makes the news in tech blogs.
I always ask him about future Apple products, and he never cracks and gives me anything useful. However, he did talk a bit about that blog post from awhile ago comparing modems. He basically said:
"There are literally 101 different aspects to cellular performance. That blog took a single static test and tried to make a conclusion about which modem is better based on that one result. The overall performance of these modems is such that a user would never notice a difference in the real world, even though lab testing would show each having advantages in different situations."
I think I'll take his word over all the armchair engineers out there commenting on this.
He was almost upset when I brought it up as he was aware of that blog post and felt insulted by it. He almost sounded like he took it personally.
I am thinking that Apple doesn't want to have to code a special subset of LTE parameters in order to enable the higher speeds for this qualcomm part. Admittedly I have not done the real research to verify this, but I am guessing they want the same code to run on all of the iPhones, so a special high speed mode that is only supported by one chip isn't enabled.
My 2c