Samsung will have the bragging rights "We can do 1Gb. Apple Can't" Expect TV adverts all over the place saying this about the time of the phone release.
It won't matter one bit that the carrier infrastructure nor that the 5G standard is ratified, Apple will lose out. The Phone buying public will see that one phone can do it and the iPhone can't. They'll buy the one that can despite the fact that no one could use it this side of 2020.
Sorry apple but those are the fact of life. Personally, I don't care but Data speeds are important to quite a few people.
Just like Samsung advertise Bluetooth 5 even though android doesn't yet support it.
The Samsung Galaxy S8 has the hardware to support Bluetooth 5, but there are things missing, which means you can't access the Bluetooth 5 functionality yet.
Samsung will have the bragging rights "We can do 1Gb. Apple Can't" Expect TV adverts all over the place saying this about the time of the phone release.
It won't matter one bit that the carrier infrastructure nor that the 5G standard is ratified, Apple will lose out. The Phone buying public will see that one phone can do it and the iPhone can't. They'll buy the one that can despite the fact that no one could use it this side of 2020.
Sorry apple but those are the fact of life. Personally, I don't care but Data speeds are important to quite a few people.
Just like Samsung advertise Bluetooth 5 even though android doesn't yet support it.
The Samsung Galaxy S8 has the hardware to support Bluetooth 5, but there are things missing, which means you can't access the Bluetooth 5 functionality yet.
From your link: Bluetooth 5 will be officially supported in Android O. In fact it is already in the developer preview versions of Android O and the source code has been published in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Android O will support the new 2Mbps connection and the new CODED connection type (for that extra range). It will also support the new longer advertising packets.
So that's why the Galaxy S8 and several other upcoming smartphones will have hardware to offer it.
If Apple thinks people are going to shell out $1000 for a new phone that isn't as fast as the Samsung phone that was released months ago then they need a new management team. Maybe a $80 billion dollar loss in market cap in two days of trading will clue them into how serious a problem this is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone at Qualcomm is the source of the Bloomberg article, but regardless, Apple needs to fix this now!
So Samsung has a feature no one can use yet and somehow Apple needs a new management team over a phone that technically doesn't exist yet? Um, ok.
If Apple thinks people are going to shell out $1000 for a new phone that isn't as fast as the Samsung phone that was released months ago then they need a new management team. Maybe a $80 billion dollar loss in market cap in two days of trading will clue them into how serious a problem this is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone at Qualcomm is the source of the Bloomberg article, but regardless, Apple needs to fix this now!
So Samsung has a feature no one can use yet and somehow Apple needs a new management team over a phone that technically doesn't exist yet? Um, ok.
I think they can use it now with another 5G-enabled device. Just not yet supporting the '4 times the range" part until Android O is installed. But you are spot on with your comment about a not-yet-announced iPhone.
If Apple thinks people are going to shell out $1000 for a new phone that isn't as fast as the Samsung phone that was released months ago then they need a new management team. Maybe a $80 billion dollar loss in market cap in two days of trading will clue them into how serious a problem this is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone at Qualcomm is the source of the Bloomberg article, but regardless, Apple needs to fix this now!
LOL. Welcome to AI.
AAPL did not lose $80 billion because of a rumor about the modem in the next iPhone. And even if it did, it's based on a rumor and speculation, so how is that management's fault?
The problem with these technology standards like 4G and 5G is that the wireless carriers and device makers let marketing and hype override the engineering and implementation of the standards. The current 4G products never lived up to the original performance and functional requirements of the proposed 4G standard - but that didn't stop device makers and carriers from pushing out products marketed as "4G." Even the iPhone 4s should have said "Nearly 4G" on the device instead of "4G." The same marketing behavior will come with 5G, the companies will get their marketing machines turned on and start selling 5G as a competitive differentiation point before the standard is fully baked or devices actually exist that implement the 5G standard as proposed. While some folks with technical integrity will bristle at the marketing induced reality distortion - most buyers won't really care as long as they see that little "5G" badge at the top of their latest phone. They'll even think the device is running a tad bit faster simply by virtue of seeing the little 5G badge on their device. Not that I'd put all the blame on the marketing folks either, since engineering standards are notorious for taking forever to get finalized and ratified and are frequently revised throughout their lifetime. So it usually comes down to the initial, and possibly all, releases of products purported to comply with a standard being less than the intentions of the standard creators, the consumer market blindly going along with whatever ends up in the sales channel, and everything that didn't make it into the current version being snowplowed into the next version - which will obviously be the perfect version, at least until the real work on it has to start.
This article makes an argument why the lack of Gigabit LTE doesn't matter now, but it doesn't provide a reason for Apple to go to the trouble to disable a feature that is already built into the Qualcomm chipset. If it doesn't matter then why should Apple cripple the Qualcomm modems? Just leave the feature active and let the carriers offer it when feasible. If nobody can use the extra speed then there won't be any difference in the user experience. Is there some engineering issue I am unaware of and not addressed in the article, or is it like other articles have said and Apple just doesn't want to have one device that is more capable than another? All I'm getting so far is the argument that Gigabit LTE is not widely available "right now", but even the article admits it will be more common in 2018 - 2020 which is well within the expected service life of this phone which will be expected to be on sale until at least September 2018 and supported until 2021 at a minimum.
The discussion is a bit confusing at the moment. When did this become about 5G? AFAIK that's not even on the table for a couple more years. 4G Gigabit LTE on the other hand is a real thing, currently available to thousands of mobile handset users, and certainly expected to be more widely available before the 2018 iPhone models are ready to ship. Isn't that what the original news article that AI sourced referring to? While it's not any big deal if it takes a few seconds longer to download some particular file or media saying that it doesn't matter because the tech isn't ready isn't exactly true.
Perhaps the Qualcomm throttling (if true to begin with) can be reinstituted with a simple software update, but that would might create another issue altogether with the expected Intel modem used in some number of iPhones incapable of utilizing 4G Gigabit no matter what.
When a headline pops up on the CNBC ticker on TV at 8AM, saying that Apple's speed throttling of 4G Gigabit LTE and 5G in the next iPhone is what's causing the stock slide, you'd better believe it's about both.
Well it would actually be impossible for Apple to throttle anything related to 5G even if they wanted/needed to SINCE IT DOESN'T EXIST, so repeating something that's plainly not true simply confuses the issue that is. The article as written invites misunderstandings IMO.
Now does that mean I think it's a potential issue for most folks? Just as I intimated earlier, NOPE it really won't matter for most of 'em at least most of the time, but not for the reasons implied in the AI article. Faster 4G Gigabit LTE will be available and ready to use in a number of larger worldwide markets including many in the US within the next several months and any smartphone utilizing Qualcomm's 835 processor or X16 modem (the 835 has it integrated) will be able to take advantage of an available network. Heck it's live now in some markets.
I believe we covered the "it doesn't exist" in the U.S. part.
Neither does the next-gen iPhone or the rumored throttling. Both are just rumors at this point. But by the time the new iPhones start shipping out there will be 4G Gigabit LTE networks here unless the US carriers experience some major disaster this year.
Except... as we discussed elsewhere, gigabit doesn't matter, since no one will ever get those speeds. So it doesn't matter. If, as expected, the Intel radios will do 450, then that's enough! Why, because no will get those speeds either, so whatever radios Apple use, they will get the SAME real world max speeds.
man, this is getting tiring.
The Intel modems won't do 450, or even 300. Why? The Intel modems capable of supporting 4G Gigabit won't be ready in time, But they are coming so other companies might choose to use them later on.
The ones coming out this year will do 450, that's what I've been reading about them.
Then you should also have read that Intel won't have a modem capable of using a 4G Gigabit network in time for Apple's iPhone. Even IF an Intel modem could deliver 450MB service it wouldn't matter one whit without a way to access a supporting network. Qualcomm's currently available 835 chipset or X16 modem can. Intel will not be able to in time for Apple's use. Why do you think there's been an ongoing discussion about throttling?
Samsung will have the bragging rights "We can do 1Gb. Apple Can't" Expect TV adverts all over the place saying this about the time of the phone release.
It won't matter one bit that the carrier infrastructure nor that the 5G standard is ratified, Apple will lose out. The Phone buying public will see that one phone can do it and the iPhone can't. They'll buy the one that can despite the fact that no one could use it this side of 2020.
Sorry apple but those are the fact of life. Personally, I don't care but Data speeds are important to quite a few people.
Just like Samsung advertise Bluetooth 5 even though android doesn't yet support it.
The Samsung Galaxy S8 has the hardware to support Bluetooth 5, but there are things missing, which means you can't access the Bluetooth 5 functionality yet.
From your link: Bluetooth 5 will be officially supported in Android O. In fact it is already in the developer preview versions of Android O and the source code has been published in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Android O will support the new 2Mbps connection and the new CODED connection type (for that extra range). It will also support the new longer advertising packets.
So that's why the Galaxy S8 and several other upcoming smartphones will have hardware to offer it.
Yeah, and what's the likelihood that the S8 will get this OS update? Less than 50%, going by their past performance.
If Apple thinks people are going to shell out $1000 for a new phone that isn't as fast as the Samsung phone that was released months ago then they need a new management team. Maybe a $80 billion dollar loss in market cap in two days of trading will clue them into how serious a problem this is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone at Qualcomm is the source of the Bloomberg article, but regardless, Apple needs to fix this now!
LOL. Welcome to AI.
AAPL did not lose $80 billion because of a rumor about the modem in the next iPhone. And even if it did, it's based on a rumor and speculation, so how is that management's fault?
Because dumping on Cook, and the management team is a popular pastime for those who know nothing. It makes them feel as though they're knowledgeable, because it seems to be a cool thing to say.
This article makes an argument why the lack of Gigabit LTE doesn't matter now, but it doesn't provide a reason for Apple to go to the trouble to disable a feature that is already built into the Qualcomm chipset. If it doesn't matter then why should Apple cripple the Qualcomm modems? Just leave the feature active and let the carriers offer it when feasible. If nobody can use the extra speed then there won't be any difference in the user experience. Is there some engineering issue I am unaware of and not addressed in the article, or is it like other articles have said and Apple just doesn't want to have one device that is more capable than another? All I'm getting so far is the argument that Gigabit LTE is not widely available "right now", but even the article admits it will be more common in 2018 - 2020 which is well within the expected service life of this phone which will be expected to be on sale until at least September 2018 and supported until 2021 at a minimum.
The discussion is a bit confusing at the moment. When did this become about 5G? AFAIK that's not even on the table for a couple more years. 4G Gigabit LTE on the other hand is a real thing, currently available to thousands of mobile handset users, and certainly expected to be more widely available before the 2018 iPhone models are ready to ship. Isn't that what the original news article that AI sourced referring to? While it's not any big deal if it takes a few seconds longer to download some particular file or media saying that it doesn't matter because the tech isn't ready isn't exactly true.
Perhaps the Qualcomm throttling (if true to begin with) can be reinstituted with a simple software update, but that would might create another issue altogether with the expected Intel modem used in some number of iPhones incapable of utilizing 4G Gigabit no matter what.
When a headline pops up on the CNBC ticker on TV at 8AM, saying that Apple's speed throttling of 4G Gigabit LTE and 5G in the next iPhone is what's causing the stock slide, you'd better believe it's about both.
Well it would actually be impossible for Apple to throttle anything related to 5G even if they wanted/needed to SINCE IT DOESN'T EXIST, so repeating something that's plainly not true simply confuses the issue that is. The article as written invites misunderstandings IMO.
Now does that mean I think it's a potential issue for most folks? Just as I intimated earlier, NOPE it really won't matter for most of 'em at least most of the time, but not for the reasons implied in the AI article. Faster 4G Gigabit LTE will be available and ready to use in a number of larger worldwide markets including many in the US within the next several months and any smartphone utilizing Qualcomm's 835 processor or X16 modem (the 835 has it integrated) will be able to take advantage of an available network. Heck it's live now in some markets.
I believe we covered the "it doesn't exist" in the U.S. part.
Neither does the next-gen iPhone or the rumored throttling. Both are just rumors at this point. But by the time the new iPhones start shipping out there will be 4G Gigabit LTE networks here unless the US carriers experience some major disaster this year.
Except... as we discussed elsewhere, gigabit doesn't matter, since no one will ever get those speeds. So it doesn't matter. If, as expected, the Intel radios will do 450, then that's enough! Why, because no will get those speeds either, so whatever radios Apple use, they will get the SAME real world max speeds.
man, this is getting tiring.
The Intel modems won't do 450, or even 300. Why? The Intel modems capable of supporting 4G Gigabit won't be ready in time, But they are coming so other companies might choose to use them later on.
The ones coming out this year will do 450, that's what I've been reading about them.
Then you should also have read that Intel won't have a modem capable of using a 4G Gigabit network in time for Apple's iPhone. Even IF an Intel modem could deliver 450MB service it wouldn't matter one whit without a way to access a supporting network. Qualcomm's currently available 835 chipset or X16 modem can. Intel will not be able to in time for Apple's use. Why do you think there's been an ongoing discussion about throttling?
You noticed I already mentioned Intel was working on one. I also mentioned the 7650 won't be ready in time for this years new iPhone. What makes me think that? Intel said so at MWC. It won't appear in a retail product until 2018 according to them so I don't think we need to wait to see based on that, unless of course Apple really misses their regular release window into sometime next year. That would be another issue altogether.
If Apple thinks people are going to shell out $1000 for a new phone that isn't as fast as the Samsung phone that was released months ago then they need a new management team. Maybe a $80 billion dollar loss in market cap in two days of trading will clue them into how serious a problem this is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone at Qualcomm is the source of the Bloomberg article, but regardless, Apple needs to fix this now!
And if iPhone 8 does support it, Apple will pay higher royalties to Qualcomm. That will cut into profit margin. Apple has an obsession with profit margin, by the way.
The discussion is a bit confusing at the moment. When did this become about 5G? AFAIK that's not even on the table for a couple more years. 4G Gigabit LTE on the other hand is a real thing, currently available to thousands of mobile handset users, and certainly expected to be more widely available before the 2018 iPhone models are ready to ship. Isn't that what the original news article that AI sourced referring to? While it's not any big deal if it takes a few seconds longer to download some particular file or media saying that it doesn't matter because the tech isn't ready isn't exactly true.
Perhaps the Qualcomm throttling (if true to begin with) can be reinstituted with a simple software update, but that would might create another issue altogether with the expected Intel modem used in some number of iPhones incapable of utilizing 4G Gigabit no matter what.
When a headline pops up on the CNBC ticker on TV at 8AM, saying that Apple's speed throttling of 4G Gigabit LTE and 5G in the next iPhone is what's causing the stock slide, you'd better believe it's about both.
Well it would actually be impossible for Apple to throttle anything related to 5G even if they wanted/needed to SINCE IT DOESN'T EXIST, so repeating something that's plainly not true simply confuses the issue that is. The article as written invites misunderstandings IMO.
Now does that mean I think it's a potential issue for most folks? Just as I intimated earlier, NOPE it really won't matter for most of 'em at least most of the time, but not for the reasons implied in the AI article. Faster 4G Gigabit LTE will be available and ready to use in a number of larger worldwide markets including many in the US within the next several months and any smartphone utilizing Qualcomm's 835 processor or X16 modem (the 835 has it integrated) will be able to take advantage of an available network. Heck it's live now in some markets.
I believe we covered the "it doesn't exist" in the U.S. part.
Neither does the next-gen iPhone or the rumored throttling. Both are just rumors at this point. But by the time the new iPhones start shipping out there will be 4G Gigabit LTE networks here unless the US carriers experience some major disaster this year.
Except... as we discussed elsewhere, gigabit doesn't matter, since no one will ever get those speeds. So it doesn't matter. If, as expected, the Intel radios will do 450, then that's enough! Why, because no will get those speeds either, so whatever radios Apple use, they will get the SAME real world max speeds.
man, this is getting tiring.
The Intel modems won't do 450, or even 300. Why? The Intel modems capable of supporting 4G Gigabit won't be ready in time, But they are coming so other companies might choose to use them later on.
The ones coming out this year will do 450, that's what I've been reading about them.
Then you should also have read that Intel won't have a modem capable of using a 4G Gigabit network in time for Apple's iPhone. Even IF an Intel modem could deliver 450MB service it wouldn't matter one whit without a way to access a supporting network. Qualcomm's currently available 835 chipset or X16 modem can. Intel will not be able to in time for Apple's use. Why do you think there's been an ongoing discussion about throttling?
You noticed I already mentioned Intel was working on one. I also mentioned the 7650 won't be ready in time for this years new iPhone. What makes me think that? Intel said so at MWC. It won't appear in a retail product until 2018 according to them so I don't think we need to wait to see based on that, unless of course Apple really misses their regular release window into sometime next year. That would be another issue altogether.
The article notes that Apple may integrate the 7650 into it's A series SOC next year, which would be a big deal, so gaining the 7460 this year, while not at the caliber of the Snapdragon 835 X16, isn't going to leave Apple all that far behind in cellular network performance anyway, although the carriers are surely hyping this the Next Big Thing to get some favorable churn. Apple will likely be pushing iOS 11 on the new A11 versus the rest of the mobile industry, so it's likely a wash.
Note that Apple is just about finished with Qualcomm as a modem supplier, regardless of how any legal issues are resolved in the future. Me, I'm thinking that Qualcomm would rather not have Apple/Intel as a competitor in wireless networking generally, let alone mobile specifically, after 2018.
The discussion is a bit confusing at the moment. When did this become about 5G? AFAIK that's not even on the table for a couple more years. 4G Gigabit LTE on the other hand is a real thing, currently available to thousands of mobile handset users, and certainly expected to be more widely available before the 2018 iPhone models are ready to ship. Isn't that what the original news article that AI sourced referring to? While it's not any big deal if it takes a few seconds longer to download some particular file or media saying that it doesn't matter because the tech isn't ready isn't exactly true.
Perhaps the Qualcomm throttling (if true to begin with) can be reinstituted with a simple software update, but that would might create another issue altogether with the expected Intel modem used in some number of iPhones incapable of utilizing 4G Gigabit no matter what.
When a headline pops up on the CNBC ticker on TV at 8AM, saying that Apple's speed throttling of 4G Gigabit LTE and 5G in the next iPhone is what's causing the stock slide, you'd better believe it's about both.
Well it would actually be impossible for Apple to throttle anything related to 5G even if they wanted/needed to SINCE IT DOESN'T EXIST, so repeating something that's plainly not true simply confuses the issue that is. The article as written invites misunderstandings IMO.
Now does that mean I think it's a potential issue for most folks? Just as I intimated earlier, NOPE it really won't matter for most of 'em at least most of the time, but not for the reasons implied in the AI article. Faster 4G Gigabit LTE will be available and ready to use in a number of larger worldwide markets including many in the US within the next several months and any smartphone utilizing Qualcomm's 835 processor or X16 modem (the 835 has it integrated) will be able to take advantage of an available network. Heck it's live now in some markets.
I believe we covered the "it doesn't exist" in the U.S. part.
Neither does the next-gen iPhone or the rumored throttling. Both are just rumors at this point. But by the time the new iPhones start shipping out there will be 4G Gigabit LTE networks here unless the US carriers experience some major disaster this year.
Except... as we discussed elsewhere, gigabit doesn't matter, since no one will ever get those speeds. So it doesn't matter. If, as expected, the Intel radios will do 450, then that's enough! Why, because no will get those speeds either, so whatever radios Apple use, they will get the SAME real world max speeds.
man, this is getting tiring.
The Intel modems won't do 450, or even 300. Why? The Intel modems capable of supporting 4G Gigabit won't be ready in time, But they are coming so other companies might choose to use them later on.
The ones coming out this year will do 450, that's what I've been reading about them.
Then you should also have read that Intel won't have a modem capable of using a 4G Gigabit network in time for Apple's iPhone. Even IF an Intel modem could deliver 450MB service it wouldn't matter one whit without a way to access a supporting network. Qualcomm's currently available 835 chipset or X16 modem can. Intel will not be able to in time for Apple's use. Why do you think there's been an ongoing discussion about throttling?
You noticed I already mentioned Intel was working on one. I also mentioned the 7650 won't be ready in time for this years new iPhone. What makes me think that? Intel said so at MWC. It won't appear in a retail product until 2018 according to them so I don't think we need to wait to see based on that, unless of course Apple really misses their regular release window into sometime next year. That would be another issue altogether.
The article notes that Apple may integrate the 7650 into it's A series SOC next year, which would be a big deal, so gaining the 7460 this year, while not at the caliber of the Snapdragon 835 X16, isn't going to leave Apple all that far behind in cellular network performance anyway, although the carriers are surely hyping this the Next Big Thing to get some favorable churn. Apple will likely be pushing iOS 11 on the new A11 versus the rest of the mobile industry, so it's likely a wash.
Note that Apple is just about finished with Qualcomm as a modem supplier, regardless of how any legal issues are resolved in the future. Me, I'm thinking that Qualcomm would rather not have Apple/Intel as a competitor in wireless networking generally, let alone mobile specifically, after 2018.
And in general I'd agree with most of what you said.
The discussion is a bit confusing at the moment. When did this become about 5G? AFAIK that's not even on the table for a couple more years. 4G Gigabit LTE on the other hand is a real thing, currently available to thousands of mobile handset users, and certainly expected to be more widely available before the 2018 iPhone models are ready to ship. Isn't that what the original news article that AI sourced referring to? While it's not any big deal if it takes a few seconds longer to download some particular file or media saying that it doesn't matter because the tech isn't ready isn't exactly true.
Perhaps the Qualcomm throttling (if true to begin with) can be reinstituted with a simple software update, but that would might create another issue altogether with the expected Intel modem used in some number of iPhones incapable of utilizing 4G Gigabit no matter what.
When a headline pops up on the CNBC ticker on TV at 8AM, saying that Apple's speed throttling of 4G Gigabit LTE and 5G in the next iPhone is what's causing the stock slide, you'd better believe it's about both.
Well it would actually be impossible for Apple to throttle anything related to 5G even if they wanted/needed to SINCE IT DOESN'T EXIST, so repeating something that's plainly not true simply confuses the issue that is. The article as written invites misunderstandings IMO.
Now does that mean I think it's a potential issue for most folks? Just as I intimated earlier, NOPE it really won't matter for most of 'em at least most of the time, but not for the reasons implied in the AI article. Faster 4G Gigabit LTE will be available and ready to use in a number of larger worldwide markets including many in the US within the next several months and any smartphone utilizing Qualcomm's 835 processor or X16 modem (the 835 has it integrated) will be able to take advantage of an available network. Heck it's live now in some markets.
I believe we covered the "it doesn't exist" in the U.S. part.
Neither does the next-gen iPhone or the rumored throttling. Both are just rumors at this point. But by the time the new iPhones start shipping out there will be 4G Gigabit LTE networks here unless the US carriers experience some major disaster this year.
Except... as we discussed elsewhere, gigabit doesn't matter, since no one will ever get those speeds. So it doesn't matter. If, as expected, the Intel radios will do 450, then that's enough! Why, because no will get those speeds either, so whatever radios Apple use, they will get the SAME real world max speeds.
man, this is getting tiring.
The Intel modems won't do 450, or even 300. Why? The Intel modems capable of supporting 4G Gigabit won't be ready in time, But they are coming so other companies might choose to use them later on.
The ones coming out this year will do 450, that's what I've been reading about them.
Then you should also have read that Intel won't have a modem capable of using a 4G Gigabit network in time for Apple's iPhone. Even IF an Intel modem could deliver 450MB service it wouldn't matter one whit without a way to access a supporting network. Qualcomm's currently available 835 chipset or X16 modem can. Intel will not be able to in time for Apple's use. Why do you think there's been an ongoing discussion about throttling?
You noticed I already mentioned Intel was working on one. I also mentioned the 7650 won't be ready in time for this years new iPhone. What makes me think that? Intel said so at MWC. It won't appear in a retail product until 2018 according to them so I don't think we need to wait to see based on that, unless of course Apple really misses their regular release window into sometime next year. That would be another issue altogether.
Well, we don't know that yet. Apple has a history of getting new products from Intel months before anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does get this, and then intel markets it to everyone else in 2018. It wouldn't be the first time. And Apple is the major customer Intel is after right now.
Apple was never the one, who adopted the very latest technologies as the first one. They always wait for the technology to settle and than only use it. And in most cases (not all), it does better than the other. Apple does it quite for a while, with iPhones since 2007 - why the surprise in the discussion in 2017, hello? If the standard is not given yet, why to adopt it. It is only the end user who than suffers, because he buys something which becomes useless faster than he thought it would. From history we have few examples - VHS vs Betacam, HDDVD vs Bluray to name some... In Czech republic we are now starting to move from DVB-T to DVB-T2... You'd say - buy any TV supporting DVB-T2 standard... Well, no, because there will be slightly different codecs supported than eg in Germany (yes, the standard has few substandards), so you always have to check, if the TV you buy is supporting/compatible with the codecs that will be used here. So many people who bought their DVB-T2 TV before (or in Germany) may be those, who will simply have to throw it away or use set-top box... And that from my point of view is the same point for 5G support with Apple. Better to adopt later than make his customers angry they got something which is not working for them. BTW remember LTE adoption - different LTE versions accross the globe didn't make it any easier for Apple, right? And if you check what all wireless specs iPhones have to meet now to be able to work worldwide (and for the USA also US-wide) - that's insane... And as for 4G Gigabit - i don't know how is the situation in the US or Western Europe. But here, it doesn't matter anymore if you have LTE, or cable internet 240, 500 or 1000 Mbps - you are always limited with what all the serves are able to provide... So even if I upgraded my cable connection to higher speed, I can't see any speed improvement at the moment...
Do people with the means to purchase a Bugatti need to travel the road at 200+ MPH? Probably not. When it comes to class leading products, you're also selling the image of technology which is the best that's currently available.
Apple charges the most, why should we expect less than the best?
Do people with the means to purchase a Bugatti need to travel the road at 200+ MPH? Probably not. When it comes to class leading products, you're also selling the image of technology which is the best that's currently available.
Apple charges the most, why should we expect less than the best?
I don't know about the best, but Apple has more important considerations now than a tiny fraction of users being able to download at higher speeds.
This is is a Qualcomm created issue. They've been doing illegal licensing with their demands. Apple is fighting that, and, I imagine, trying to get out from under their yoke. So they need to use other cell radios. I believe that fight is an overriding consideration. It involves billions of dollars.
if downloading at 150Mb/s isn't good enough for you in a world where only a tiny fraction of smartphone users can get more than 50Mb/s, then go somewhere else. There's nothing else to be said.
Comments
Bluetooth 5 will be officially supported in Android O. In fact it is already in the developer preview versions of Android O and the source code has been published in the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Android O will support the new 2Mbps connection and the new CODED connection type (for that extra range). It will also support the new longer advertising packets.
So that's why the Galaxy S8 and several other upcoming smartphones will have hardware to offer it.
LOL. Welcome to AI.
AAPL did not lose $80 billion because of a rumor about the modem in the next iPhone. And even if it did, it's based on a rumor and speculation, so how is that management's fault?
This article makes an argument why the lack of Gigabit LTE doesn't matter now, but it doesn't provide a reason for Apple to go to the trouble to disable a feature that is already built into the Qualcomm chipset. If it doesn't matter then why should Apple cripple the Qualcomm modems? Just leave the feature active and let the carriers offer it when feasible. If nobody can use the extra speed then there won't be any difference in the user experience. Is there some engineering issue I am unaware of and not addressed in the article, or is it like other articles have said and Apple just doesn't want to have one device that is more capable than another? All I'm getting so far is the argument that Gigabit LTE is not widely available "right now", but even the article admits it will be more common in 2018 - 2020 which is well within the expected service life of this phone which will be expected to be on sale until at least September 2018 and supported until 2021 at a minimum.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2017/02/20/intel-grabs-mwc-by-the-horns-with-unique-5g-and-4g-gigabit-modems-supporting-cdma/#2bf99bc3b3d0
The new phones will work just fine either way.
Note that Apple is just about finished with Qualcomm as a modem supplier, regardless of how any legal issues are resolved in the future. Me, I'm thinking that Qualcomm would rather not have Apple/Intel as a competitor in wireless networking generally, let alone mobile specifically, after 2018.
If the standard is not given yet, why to adopt it. It is only the end user who than suffers, because he buys something which becomes useless faster than he thought it would. From history we have few examples - VHS vs Betacam, HDDVD vs Bluray to name some... In Czech republic we are now starting to move from DVB-T to DVB-T2... You'd say - buy any TV supporting DVB-T2 standard... Well, no, because there will be slightly different codecs supported than eg in Germany (yes, the standard has few substandards), so you always have to check, if the TV you buy is supporting/compatible with the codecs that will be used here. So many people who bought their DVB-T2 TV before (or in Germany) may be those, who will simply have to throw it away or use set-top box...
And that from my point of view is the same point for 5G support with Apple. Better to adopt later than make his customers angry they got something which is not working for them. BTW remember LTE adoption - different LTE versions accross the globe didn't make it any easier for Apple, right? And if you check what all wireless specs iPhones have to meet now to be able to work worldwide (and for the USA also US-wide) - that's insane...
And as for 4G Gigabit - i don't know how is the situation in the US or Western Europe. But here, it doesn't matter anymore if you have LTE, or cable internet 240, 500 or 1000 Mbps - you are always limited with what all the serves are able to provide... So even if I upgraded my cable connection to higher speed, I can't see any speed improvement at the moment...
Apple charges the most, why should we expect less than the best?
This is is a Qualcomm created issue. They've been doing illegal licensing with their demands. Apple is fighting that, and, I imagine, trying to get out from under their yoke. So they need to use other cell radios. I believe that fight is an overriding consideration. It involves billions of dollars.
if downloading at 150Mb/s isn't good enough for you in a world where only a tiny fraction of smartphone users can get more than 50Mb/s, then go somewhere else. There's nothing else to be said.