I'd rather see Apple settle their lawsuit with Qualcomm and go back to using their modems. Their cellular modems are far ahead of anyone else.
Couldn’t agree more. The Intel modem in my XSMax is clearly inferior to past iPhones I’ve owned with QCOM modems. I hope Apple and Qualcomm settle their differences so that the latter’s modems will be in the 2020 iPhone.
I'd rather see Apple settle their lawsuit with Qualcomm and go back to using their modems. Their cellular modems are far ahead of anyone else.
Me too. I'm sticking on my iPhone 7plus and iphone 8plus till they return to QualComm. I wonder if Qualcomm will get their modem chips down to 7 nm anytime in the next two years.
Edit: I guess they are already there with X24 Chip.
I don’t think 5G will be super popular with cellphones in the beginning. As we develop new experiences and tech, demand will rise, but right now I don’t see why you would need access to 1 gigabit connection in you pocket? Plus as tricky 5G as a technology, even when it becomes widely available, it’ll be like the icing on the cake to have it.
The thing is, and what will make you understand why this matters is, that the gigabit is not for every individual device, but multiples of it (e.g. 4 or 8) are shared between many, many more subscribers. As data plans become increasingly more aware of increased media consumption (e.g. basic stuff as browsing, watching videos or streaming music), so do providers noticing that the higher data allowances result in increasing traffic in the existing mobile infrastructure.
The headroom that 4G technologies gave to 3G is exhausted, mobile broadband networks now face increasing cell congestion where there was plenty of capacity 3 or 4 years ago.
Continuing in existing cell topologies is no longer feasable, as in bigger cells, the ratio of available frequency spectrum (conclusively the available data rate) against subscriber count is rapidly going against unmaintainability of services in a useful manner and we are approaching a barrier which defines the maximum information density one can achieve with given parameters of a cell in traditional 4G.
5G is taking a different approach. Rather than creating big cells that have many clients share the same frequency spectrum like 4G and older technologies did, the concept of 5G is to create much, much smaller cells which have a much smaller range.
The obvious disadvantage is, that it's necessary to create more cells and it is much harder to coordinate this big amount of cells. Clients need to switch cells much more often and always maintain multiple connections to multiple cells nearby, which is its own challenge when it comes to energy consumption and the real-time requirements for the 5G backbone as all cells must cooperate.
But, as you might have understood from the explanation, the advantage of this approach is, that every cell can use the frequency spectrum it uses to transmit data in its much reduced range much more effectively, since less subscribers are active in each cell, providing much lower latency, much, much higher data rates as well as better quality of service to each customer.
The thing is, and many will be upset about this is, that the core benefits of 5G technology only apply to use-cases (or environments) where high cell congestion is an issue (e.g. airports, universities, cities, indoor areas). In areas outside of high population people will not see much change.
The message editor used on this site is a piece of junk. Any chance of someone taking a look at it? How about retraining one of the proof readers? They don’t seem to be that busy.
Yeah the commenting system is broken since iOS 12, it’s a nitemare to use, requiring workarounds and tricks. I messaged editor Mike who said he’d pass it on. Evidently nobody at AI actually uses the site.
i think they need a 5G iPhone in 2019, the iPhone would be a better investment then. I may just skip upgrading next year then. Would be a first, as usually I upgrade every other year.
If this year the XS, XSMax and XR follows the 6S sales pattern with lower sales than last year Apple will have to find something to generate sales next year. I do think that the biggest sellers will be the XSMax and then XR. I like the colors even if the I have no plans to get one. I don't want to deal with a substandard model and will stick with my 8Plus and 7Plus with QualComm. I think the next big thing (for me least ways) would be solid state batteries so that they could both lower the weight and raise the number of hours it lasts on a charge.
As if there were any real-world difference between the modems...you’re kidding yourself if you think you can tell a difference.
I'd rather see Apple settle their lawsuit with Qualcomm and go back to using their modems. Their cellular modems are far ahead of anyone else.
A business partner, like a friend, needs more than just a fancy product. It needs to be reliable, dependable and willing to work for mutual benefit. That ain't Qualcomm.
"reliable" Considering how long intel has taken to move to 10 nm one can't call them reliable. I'm sure Apple had to delay/redo many product plans. This is just Qualcomms greed vs. Apple Greed. Apple has shown them selves willing to shiv their business partners as fast as Microsoft in the Bill Gates days.
(various fact-based things peppered with tinfoil-hat material)
I notice you omitted any mention from that study of how much wireless radiation is required to achieve reliable issues. I'm not suggesting the whole concept is ridiculous and I'm not trying to be dismissive of this study at all, but context is everything -- and a blanket insinuation that radiation is bad would lead to no more x-rays, bananas, microwave ovens, carbon-dating, nuclear anything, or any sort of modern wireless service from FM to cell phones and beyond, so your quotes are missing (to put it mildly) supporting evidence that "5G" is any more harmful than any previous wireless standard, just for starters.
I'm reasonably sure even your scaremongering selective quotes weren't intended to be that extremist, since you're obviously using a computer with wireless capability of some sort to even participate here, but either present the data in context or wait until you have that context next time.
I don’t think 5G will be super popular with cellphones in the beginning. As we develop new experiences and tech, demand will rise, but right now I don’t see why you would need access to 1 gigabit connection in you pocket? Plus as tricky 5G as a technology, even when it becomes widely available, it’ll be like the icing on the cake to have it.
Incidentally, Elon Musk's satellite-based high-speed Internet service is being pushed very hard by him right now and they'll probably hit or come very close to their goal for unveiling a service in 2020.
I'd rather see Apple settle their lawsuit with Qualcomm and go back to using their modems. Their cellular modems are far ahead of anyone else.
A business partner, like a friend, needs more than just a fancy product. It needs to be reliable, dependable and willing to work for mutual benefit. That ain't Qualcomm.
"reliable" Considering how long intel has taken to move to 10 nm one can't call them reliable. I'm sure Apple had to delay/redo many product plans. This is just Qualcomms greed vs. Apple Greed. Apple has shown them selves willing to shiv their business partners as fast as Microsoft in the Bill Gates days.
Intel has production problems that they are working to resolve.
It is a false analogy to equate them to Qualcomm's extortion.
I'd rather see Apple settle their lawsuit with Qualcomm and go back to using their modems. Their cellular modems are far ahead of anyone else.
Couldn’t agree more. The Intel modem in my XSMax is clearly inferior to past iPhones I’ve owned with QCOM modems. I hope Apple and Qualcomm settle their differences so that the latter’s modems will be in the 2020 iPhone.
It's not about their modems. It's about their business practices.
Nobody likes to be robbed or extorted. Can Apple trust Qualcomm to act in a responsible way for mutual benefit? So far, Qualcomm's answer has been a solid NO!
(various fact-based things peppered with tinfoil-hat material)
I notice you omitted any mention from that study of how much wireless radiation is required to achieve reliable issues. I'm not suggesting the whole concept is ridiculous and I'm not trying to be dismissive of this study at all, but context is everything -- and a blanket insinuation that radiation is bad would lead to no more x-rays, bananas, microwave ovens, carbon-dating, nuclear anything, or any sort of modern wireless service from FM to cell phones and beyond, so your quotes are missing (to put it mildly) supporting evidence that "5G" is any more harmful than any previous wireless standard, just for starters.
I'm reasonably sure even your scaremongering selective quotes weren't intended to be that extremist, since you're obviously using a computer with wireless capability of some sort to even participate here, but either present the data in context or wait until you have that context next time.
I notice you actually read the linked article. Thank you. 99% of the time I get mean spirited replies like your's from people who never bothered to read the material I offered.
But, you are being mean spirited. "Tinfoil-hat material'. I prefer the term AFDB, aluminum foil deflector beanie. But that has nothing to do with what I personally said, does it. Attribute what you don't like to the actual source. What I did was offer the conclusion quote of the report, which was a profound statement by the authors. Go back and read it again. How could you disagree with its importance?
But you decided to call the whole thing 'scaremongering'. How Trumpian of you, well worth my ignoring seeing as you're promoting the case of ignorance.
And no, I'm not in charge of selecting what you read or of cherry picking or any other nonsense you wish I'd perpetrated. You got the link. You read the article. You make you your own mind. The scientists who created the report made up their mind and I posted their conclusion. That's not 'scaremongering', is it.
There, happy now? I replied and called you out. That was your entire point wasn't it, to have someone deservedly cut you down. That's called masochism. I happily oblige not for your sake, but for the sake of those you mislead with your rubbish.
Now, everyone, go read the article I linked. That was my entire intention. If you don't like the conclusion of the study, go talk to the authors about it. Not me. I didn't write it. Instead, I'm amazed how idiocracy rules human thought in these Trumpian days of deceptive 'truth'. Keep that problem to yourself please. Science is far preferable to dumbassery. (^_^)
The message editor used on this site is a piece of junk. Any chance of someone taking a look at it? How about retraining one of the proof readers? They don’t seem to be that busy.
A: Yes. As with "4G", there's a difference between the standard and what is implemented by the various companies involved. IOW: Baloney ahead. Be careful what you're actually buying. I find it useful to keep an eye on the changing history, description and specifications of 5G provided at Wikipedia: 5G@Wikipedia
Meanwhile: a) There's "5G NR" (New Radio), a preliminary standard from last December, being 'deployed' at a few places around the world. Whether these implementations will work within the finished standard is uncertain. b) There's Verizon's 'proprietary 5G', referred to in a link above, whatever that is. c) Testing continues of contrasting 5G send and receive hardware implementations in the field. d) Health problems potentially caused by exposure to 5G EM frequencies have become of critical concern.
“The $25 million US National Toxicology Program Study has proven again what other studies have shown us that wireless radiation is a Class 1 Human Carcinogen like cigarette smoke and asbestos and should be treated as such. The NTP study proved wireless radiation can cause cancer and it can damage our DNA which can lead to a host of serious diseases. We must warn people and minimize exposure. I along with more than 200 of my colleagues who are expert in the field have called for a moratorium on the roll out of 5G which promises to maximize our exposure to harmful wireless radiation...."
I added bolding for emphasis.
Conclusion:5G has problems. We're certainly not going to see the real thing in 2019. We may not see it in 2020. Considering the health implications, we may not see real 5G at all.
Well, ya know, we all gotta die of cancer sometime. 😏
Qualcomm has a, shall we say, nefarious history with intellectual property dating back to the CDMA days and their lawsuits lobbed at UMTS equipment producers like Ericsson and Nokia. I think some should dig back into that history. When you look back, it isn't surprising at all that QCOM tried to extort Apple, except it didn't work because they didn't realize Apple was the 6400 lb. gorilla in the room. Oops.
Comments
Edit: I guess they are already there with X24 Chip.
The headroom that 4G technologies gave to 3G is exhausted, mobile broadband networks now face increasing cell congestion where there was plenty of capacity 3 or 4 years ago.
Continuing in existing cell topologies is no longer feasable, as in bigger cells, the ratio of available frequency spectrum (conclusively the available data rate) against subscriber count is rapidly going against unmaintainability of services in a useful manner and we are approaching a barrier which defines the maximum information density one can achieve with given parameters of a cell in traditional 4G.
5G is taking a different approach. Rather than creating big cells that have many clients share the same frequency spectrum like 4G and older technologies did, the concept of 5G is to create much, much smaller cells which have a much smaller range.
The obvious disadvantage is, that it's necessary to create more cells and it is much harder to coordinate this big amount of cells. Clients need to switch cells much more often and always maintain multiple connections to multiple cells nearby, which is its own challenge when it comes to energy consumption and the real-time requirements for the 5G backbone as all cells must cooperate.
But, as you might have understood from the explanation, the advantage of this approach is, that every cell can use the frequency spectrum it uses to transmit data in its much reduced range much more effectively, since less subscribers are active in each cell, providing much lower latency, much, much higher data rates as well as better quality of service to each customer.
The thing is, and many will be upset about this is, that the core benefits of 5G technology only apply to use-cases (or environments) where high cell congestion is an issue (e.g. airports, universities, cities, indoor areas). In areas outside of high population people will not see much change.
I hope I could address your concerns accurately.
That’s a tall claim. Examples?
I'm reasonably sure even your scaremongering selective quotes weren't intended to be that extremist, since you're obviously using a computer with wireless capability of some sort to even participate here, but either present the data in context or wait until you have that context next time.
https://qz.com/1446024/elon-musk-fired-senior-leaders-on-spacexs-satellite-team/amp/
But, you are being mean spirited. "Tinfoil-hat material'. I prefer the term AFDB, aluminum foil deflector beanie. But that has nothing to do with what I personally said, does it. Attribute what you don't like to the actual source. What I did was offer the conclusion quote of the report, which was a profound statement by the authors. Go back and read it again. How could you disagree with its importance?
But you decided to call the whole thing 'scaremongering'. How Trumpian of you, well worth my ignoring seeing as you're promoting the case of ignorance.
And no, I'm not in charge of selecting what you read or of cherry picking or any other nonsense you wish I'd perpetrated. You got the link. You read the article. You make you your own mind. The scientists who created the report made up their mind and I posted their conclusion. That's not 'scaremongering', is it.
There, happy now? I replied and called you out. That was your entire point wasn't it, to have someone deservedly cut you down. That's called masochism. I happily oblige not for your sake, but for the sake of those you mislead with your rubbish.
Now, everyone, go read the article I linked. That was my entire intention. If you don't like the conclusion of the study, go talk to the authors about it. Not me. I didn't write it. Instead, I'm amazed how idiocracy rules human thought in these Trumpian days of deceptive 'truth'. Keep that problem to yourself please. Science is far preferable to dumbassery. (^_^)