Apple won't have gigabit downloads on 'iPhone 8' because of Intel modems - report

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 54
    bsimpsenbsimpsen Posts: 398member
    rob53 said:
    Stupid analysts who haven't the faintest idea how this will (actually won't) work clobbered AAPL today.
    Apple (-3.9%) was clobbered by sector rotation, not this news. Qualcomm was down nearly 1.8%, Google 3.4%, Amazon, 3.2%.
  • Reply 22 of 54
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    So here I am using my home's business-class 100mb/s Internet connection and realizing my future iPhone8 can't hit 1Gb/s?

    Oh wait... I don't care.  Sorry.

    Anyone making the silly comparison to real-world differences between Qualcomm's and Intel's broadband chips honestly needs to stop watching so much porn on their iPhones.

    Having such speeds on a phone would be incredible to say the least, but seriously.  1gb/s speeds is the realm of fiber optic speeds to the home, which is still a luxury if not a dream for most.  What the hell are people doing in order to be complaining about not having 1gb/s on their phone?!!
    hmmtmayjkichlinecornchiplkrupppscooter63
  • Reply 23 of 54
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 338member
     I could care less about throughput  Tell me about latency. In a perfect world with a perfect condition you will fill your 128 GB phone in 7 min. 
    Soli
  • Reply 24 of 54
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Although Apple already has access to Qualcomm modems with gigabit download speeds, it won't enable that bandwidth in upcoming iPhones due to its use of Intel chips as well, according to a report.




    Intel is working on gigabit-capable modems, but they won't be ready in time for the "iPhone 8" and "7s" this fall, Bloomberg sources said on Friday. As with the iPhone 7, Apple is expected to use a split of Qualcomm and Intel modems, but throttle the performance of the Qualcomm parts to keep experiences consistent across devices.

    Earlier this month a report claimed that Apple is shifting to a 50-50 mix of Qualcomm and Intel.

    Apple could in theory return to using Qualcomm as an exclusive supplier, but the two businesses are locked in an intense legal battle over royalties. Apple has accused Qualcomm of withholding money, abusing its market dominance, and forcing chip buyers to sign licensing agreements.

    Rival phones with gigabit speeds are already on the market, such as the Samsung Galaxy S8 and the HTC U11. Reduced bandwidth is unlikely to have any major impact on iPhone buyers this year, however -- 1 gigabit per second is the theoretical maximum of LTE Advanced and extremely rare, requiring perfect conditions, including compatible towers. It may become an issue as LTE-A becomes more commonplace and the industry eventually migrates to 5G technology.
    I don't care about the unnoticeable speed difference but since Apple's withholding money, how do we know that Qualcomm wouldn't just withhold the modems? That would be tens of millions of iPhones that could not ship and that would fuck up Apple's bottom line much worse than any stock manipulation.
  • Reply 25 of 54
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    sergioz said:
     I could care less about throughput  Tell me about latency. In a perfect world with a perfect condition you will fill your 128 GB phone in 7 min. 
    you "couldn't" care less...
    lorin schultzpscooter63mwhiteavon b7stevenoz
  • Reply 26 of 54
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    What countries, carriers, cities, and specific locations even offer those kind of speeds if they were using Qualcomm's best radios in the iPhone?

    Bottom line: Does this actually affect anyone's bandwidth?
    Austin Tx is one of the first if not the first US cities, already offered by ATT. Apparently New Orleans also has it available thru a different carrier, perhaps T-Mo? 
    (EDIT: Nope. In New Orleans it's Sprint offering Gigabit service.) 

    Indianapolis will be the next ATT city to receive Gigabit service. Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco (supposedly a couple of others) will join the trials in the next few months.

    Verizon announced Gigabit trial service in Ann Arbor, Atlanta, Bernardsville, N.J., Brockton, Mass., Dallas, Denver, Houston, Miami, Sacramento, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. with other cities following later this year.  

    Worldwide there's 15 carriers in 11 different countries already offering Gigabit LTE. For instance Telstra is currently deploying it in Sydney, Australia. There's also another 47 carriers that have Gigabit systems in various stages of prep. 
    It is happening for sure, however it is still not ready for mass adoption and won't be for quite some time. Plenty of time for Apple to fully adopt. They will capitalize on it when it's ready. This has happened before.
  • Reply 27 of 54
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    sergioz said:
    In a perfect world with a perfect condition you will fill your 128 GB phone in 7 min. 
    +1 for accounting for the conversion.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 28 of 54
    My guess is that these modems aren't the most power efficient ones that Apple can get. And Apple will probably opt for good but not the best network speeds if it gives better battery life.
  • Reply 29 of 54
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    My guess is that these modems aren't the most power efficient ones that Apple can get. And Apple will probably opt for good but not the best network speeds if it gives better battery life.
    That's certainly a metric that needs to be addressed, as well as cost, TDP, and size. If Apple wants to put in a chip that uses more power, creates more heat, costs more, and is is larger so that only a fraction of users in small number of areas over the sales cycle of the device will be able to utilize this feature, then it's probably not a good way to go. One could argue that they could simply limit that upper bandwidth to reduce heat and battery drain, but then whey pay the extra cost if you're not going to use it. That isn't to say that other Qualcomm chips aren't better suited over Intel chips, only that the first generation or two of gibibit chips aren't likely a great option for Apple. I believe they did this with 3G and 4G, too.
  • Reply 30 of 54
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    maestro64 said:
    I think this was a story planted by Qcom to hurt Apple's stock.
    Qcom flew close to the Sun with their Apple shenanigans, their Icarus moment will come you can be sure of that.
  • Reply 31 of 54
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Soli said:
    My guess is that these modems aren't the most power efficient ones that Apple can get. And Apple will probably opt for good but not the best network speeds if it gives better battery life.
    That's certainly a metric that needs to be addressed, as well as cost, TDP, and size. If Apple wants to put in a chip that uses more power, creates more heat, costs more, and is is larger so that only a fraction of users in small number of areas over the sales cycle of the device will be able to utilize this feature, then it's probably not a good way to go. One could argue that they could simply limit that upper bandwidth to reduce heat and battery drain, but then whey pay the extra cost if you're not going to use it. That isn't to say that other Qualcomm chips aren't better suited over Intel chips, only that the first generation or two of gibibit chips aren't likely a great option for Apple. I believe they did this with 3G and 4G, too.
    At least when the X16 modem is integrated with the Snapdragon 835 it's claimed to use 25% LESS power. But even as a standalone modem it's still smaller and more integrated than the Qualcomm modem Apple is currently using (X12), so "larger size" is not part of the equation. Apple will therefor gain a bit more board space for "other" stuff by using the newer Qualcomm X16. And the 10nm X20 is right around the corner too. I think it may be awhile before Intel can match up.

    ... and BTW the modem that Intel had hoped to have ready for this fall's iPhone is also a 4G Gigabit LTE one so I wouldn't really expect Apple would throttle both for the possible gains you mentioned. Wouldn't really make much sense to use them in the first place if that were the case, right?  

     Of course that doesn't mean Apple might not choose to use another chip instead of Qualcomm's X16 that IS larger and requires more power.  :)

    EDIT: Qualcomm is also mentioning improved thermal efficiency so heat might be less of an issue too. 
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 32 of 54
    I can hardly get, if ever, the 50Mbps promised by my phone operator. Coverage is so spotty in general that sometimes is good that I get 3G if not even EDGE. And sometimes it is so bad. E.g. In a supermarket, that I can hardly make a phone call.
    On trains and highways the same thing.
    Where do I live? A third world country you say? No. Munich, Germany.
    So, no matter what the operators here promise, 1Gbps missing from the iPhone 8 not really going to ruin my day.
    And as noted in other posts, operators need the bandwidth on the back end (e.g. Internet) to fill the bandwidth over the air to the mobile, and need the bandwidth of LTE to service more users per cell (but at lower bandwidths) since they have issues installing new tower, as ignorant people think that more cells means more "cancer" (quite the opposite actually)...
  • Reply 33 of 54
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    My guess is that these modems aren't the most power efficient ones that Apple can get. And Apple will probably opt for good but not the best network speeds if it gives better battery life.
    That's certainly a metric that needs to be addressed, as well as cost, TDP, and size. If Apple wants to put in a chip that uses more power, creates more heat, costs more, and is is larger so that only a fraction of users in small number of areas over the sales cycle of the device will be able to utilize this feature, then it's probably not a good way to go. One could argue that they could simply limit that upper bandwidth to reduce heat and battery drain, but then whey pay the extra cost if you're not going to use it. That isn't to say that other Qualcomm chips aren't better suited over Intel chips, only that the first generation or two of gibibit chips aren't likely a great option for Apple. I believe they did this with 3G and 4G, too.
    At least when the X16 modem is integrated with the Snapdragon 835 it's claimed to use 25% LESS power. But even as a standalone modem it's still smaller and more integrated than the Qualcomm modem Apple is currently using (X12), so "larger size" is not part of the equation. Apple will therefor gain a bit more board space for "other" stuff by using the newer Qualcomm X16. And the 10nm X20 is right around the corner too. I think it may be awhile before Intel can match up.

    ... and BTW the modem that Intel had hoped to have ready for this fall's iPhone is also a 4G Gigabit LTE one so I wouldn't really expect Apple would throttle both for the possible gains you mentioned. Wouldn't really make much sense to use them in the first place if that were the case, right?  

     Of course that doesn't mean Apple might not choose to use another chip instead of Qualcomm's X16 that IS larger and requires more power.  :)

    EDIT: Qualcomm is also mentioning improved thermal efficiency so heat might be less of an issue too. 
    1) If they're using a smaller chip and less power we can assume that the thermals will be lower, right?

    2) I wonder if Apple will be building their modems into to chips. Perhaps I should be asking when.
  • Reply 34 of 54
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    Carriers in the US can't give us speeds that max out the current phones we have now. Houston will never see blazing fast speeds. I'd rather be at home on wifi. 
    Totally agree. My Verizon coverage is low where I live so I use cellular over WiFi for calls and WiFi for all other communications (at home as long as Comcast stays up). I just ran a speedtest on my 6s and my Blast Pro! (250Mbps) network is maxed out. I got 235.41Mbps download and I wasn't next to the router. I'd rather see Verizon work on delivering something close to that speed using my (almost) two year old iPhone before worrying about gigabit speeds that will never find my town. 
  • Reply 35 of 54
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member

    gatorguy said:
    irun262 said:
    And why did AI not report this until now?  I wondered most of the morning why AAPL stock was plummeting and had no clue.  I thought they were supposed to be ahead of everybody else (the insider their name implies). 
    This had ZERO effect on Apple's stock price today. 

    Depends on which anal yst you talk to. Bloomberg's crew feels it does, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/apple-s-new-iphones-said-to-miss-out-on-higher-speed-data-links but they're also just pushing the Galaxy 8.
  • Reply 36 of 54
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    You mean the modem speed I'm not having 1/10 the speed of in any circumstance right now, and that if I actually had it, would bust my cap in minutes... We can't have that... Well that is distressing... Not.

    Unless the towers are converted, which they won't be, not seeing the drama here. I just feel lucky to not have garbage connections most of the time. Let everyone of them work on that instead.

    This whole thing looks like some kind of Samsung/Qualcom bot attack; we now know that sure does work and I've seem more and more of those blanket single minded posts on particular subject all over the internet.

    The main advantage for most people would be improvement in battery life and latency, not speed, if it even occured.

    This is mostly PR and marketing spin.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 37 of 54
    zimmermannzimmermann Posts: 324member
    foggyhill said:
    You mean the modem speed I'm not having 1/10 the speed of in any circumstance right now, and that if I actually had it, would bust my cap in minutes... We can't have that... Well that is distressing... Not.

    Unless the towers are converted, which they won't be, not seeing the drama here. I just feel lucky to not have garbage connections most of the time. Let everyone of them work on that instead.

    This whole thing looks like some kind of Samsung/Qualcom bot attack; we now know that sure does work and I've seem more and more of those blanket single minded posts on particular subject all over the internet.

    The main advantage for most people would be improvement in battery life and latency, not speed, if it even occured.

    This is mostly PR and marketing spin.
    foggyhill said:
    You mean the modem speed I'm not having 1/10 the speed of in any circumstance right now, and that if I actually had it, would bust my cap in minutes... We can't have that... Well that is distressing... Not.

    Unless the towers are converted, which they won't be, not seeing the drama here. I just feel lucky to not have garbage connections most of the time. Let everyone of them work on that instead.

    This whole thing looks like some kind of Samsung/Qualcom bot attack; we now know that sure does work and I've seem more and more of those blanket single minded posts on particular subject all over the internet.

    The main advantage for most people would be improvement in battery life and latency, not speed, if it even occured.

    This is mostly PR and marketing spin.
    Still, imagine that someone finds a way to un-throttle the Qualcom modem, and suddenly you are faster than your unlucky neighbour. I would go for that...
  • Reply 38 of 54
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    jungmark said:
    Unverified reports about an unannounce phone claim Apple won't be able produce by an unannounced date. 
    That’s how the stock market works or didn’t you know that. There are only two things you need to know about how the stock market works... Fear and Greed, that’s it. By the way, the entire tech sector got clobbered yesterday with some tech stocks down as much as 15%. This “report” didn’t cause AAPL to drop by itself, just the usual FUD.
  • Reply 39 of 54
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    foggyhill said:
    You mean the modem speed I'm not having 1/10 the speed of in any circumstance right now, and that if I actually had it, would bust my cap in minutes... We can't have that... Well that is distressing... Not.

    Unless the towers are converted, which they won't be, not seeing the drama here. I just feel lucky to not have garbage connections most of the time. Let everyone of them work on that instead.

    This whole thing looks like some kind of Samsung/Qualcom bot attack; we now know that sure does work and I've seem more and more of those blanket single minded posts on particular subject all over the internet.

    The main advantage for most people would be improvement in battery life and latency, not speed, if it even occured.

    This is mostly PR and marketing spin.
    foggyhill said:
    You mean the modem speed I'm not having 1/10 the speed of in any circumstance right now, and that if I actually had it, would bust my cap in minutes... We can't have that... Well that is distressing... Not.

    Unless the towers are converted, which they won't be, not seeing the drama here. I just feel lucky to not have garbage connections most of the time. Let everyone of them work on that instead.

    This whole thing looks like some kind of Samsung/Qualcom bot attack; we now know that sure does work and I've seem more and more of those blanket single minded posts on particular subject all over the internet.

    The main advantage for most people would be improvement in battery life and latency, not speed, if it even occured.

    This is mostly PR and marketing spin.
    Still, imagine that someone finds a way to un-throttle the Qualcom modem, and suddenly you are faster than your unlucky neighbour. I would go for that...
    So were you one those spec monkeys that wanted a TSMC processor in your iPhone instead of the Samsung one? Unlucky neighbor my ass. Faster at what? Streaming a video that takes the same amount of time to watch no matter how fast your connection is? 
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 40 of 54
    Amazed nobody has pointed out that even *if* you could actually get 1 Gbps in real-world conditions, which you can't, it would not matter at all, because of obvious facts like: 1) There are basically no sites, services or servers that could push 1 Gbps to you anyway, and 2) Basically all cell users would burn through their data allotment in one minute or less at such a speed. We're talking about 6 GB/minute, here. Even users with "unlimited" plans would get their speed throttled down to a tiny fraction of 1Gbps within a few minutes, maximum. So even in unicorn conditions which do not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future, this would matter for 1-4 minutes per month. Maximum.
    tallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.