Anyway, regarding the subject material, the wait until 2020 for 5G isn't a bad thing. There isn't going to be a network to speak of, in much the same way that Apple waited until LTE was built out better.
You are not recognizing that this puts Apple in a real bind. On the one hand, yes, they will incur the additional cost of making the next iPhone compatible with what will surely be a partially implemented network. But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
How should Apple navigate this trade-off right after experiencing one of the toughest years they've had financially thanks to decelerating iPhone sales?
Btw, I don't think the two transitions (to LTE v. to 5G) are anywhere near the same thing. Moving from 3G to LTE was like moving from DSL to cable-based internet (for example, I routinely clock 290 mbps download speeds on my Comcast internet, while a DSL I had before that rarely cracked 5-8 mbps). Moving from LTE to 5G is more like moving from (early) dial-up to cable.
I agree. This does put Apple in a bind.
I am wondering if this bind will be enough to push them out of their annual September release cycle? That once a year major release has a lot of drawbacks in this market. They have to worry excessively about leaks while making sure that they have enough WOW! factor to impress the analysts and the media -- because, even if they present a really great product, if it isn't great enough to impress the media Apple will get hammered.
Perhaps releasing a 5G when it is ready (instead of waiting till September) would benefit everybody.
Anyway, regarding the subject material, the wait until 2020 for 5G isn't a bad thing. There isn't going to be a network to speak of, in much the same way that Apple waited until LTE was built out better.
You are not recognizing that this puts Apple in a real bind. On the one hand, yes, they will incur the additional cost of making the next iPhone compatible with what will surely be a partially implemented network. But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
How should Apple navigate this trade-off right after experiencing one of the toughest years they've had financially thanks to decelerating iPhone sales?
Btw, I don't think the two transitions (to LTE v. to 5G) are anywhere near the same thing. Moving from 3G to LTE was like moving from DSL to cable-based internet (for example, I routinely clock 290 mbps download speeds on my Comcast internet, while a DSL I had before that rarely cracked 5-8 mbps). Moving from LTE to 5G is more like moving from (early) dial-up to cable.
The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.
So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.
You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.
TELUS in Canada has been working with Huawei for a few years to prepare for the 5G rollout on their carrier networks. I wonder how that's changing given Huawei being in hot water lately. 2020 sounds realistic if they need to change equipment providers.
That spy-gate thing is coming under increasing suspicion by a number of countries. It's sounding like it was more a just MAGA thing.
anantksundaram said: But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
1) LTE will not be obsolete after an iPhone with '5G' is launched. Not figuratively, and certainly not technically. You'd be hard pressed to even argue that the existence of a '5G' iPhone will mean LTE is obsoleting since increased LTE build-out will still be happening for many years to come
2) Apple has offered many major advances and countless minor advances for each new iPhone so what why assume that the year they launch '5G' that it will be the only only reason to upgrade?
anantksundaram said: But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
1) LTE will not be obsolete after an iPhone with '5G' is launched. Not figuratively, and certainly not technically. You'd be hard pressed to even argue that the existence of a '5G' iPhone will mean LTE is obsoleting since increased LTE build-out will still be happening for many years to come
2) Apple has offered many major advances and countless minor advances for each new iPhone so what why assume that the year they launch '5G' that it will be the only only reason to upgrade?
I’d aver that the speed and quality of connectivity so that I can use the internet as my gateway to the world is the primary — actually the only — reason I buy my smartphone.
The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.
So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.
You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.
Not saying it is not true, but this is the first time I've heard the claims that I've bolded. Could you provide some credible cites/links? (Indeed, I am a bit surprised that this article did not include information similar to the claims you make -- it sounds like rather important contextual information, no?)
The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.
If 5G is as fast as I've read about, I may just cancel my home phone and home internet. "Their major advantage is that 5G networks achieve much higher data rates than previous cellular networks, up to 10 Gbps; which is faster than current cable internet, and 100 times faster than the previous cellular technology, 4G LTE.[7][8] "
Just think, you could have all this AND a 50GB cap!
Not true, at least as promised. See reply #28 above.
The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.
So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.
You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.
Not saying it is not true, but this is the first time I've heard the claims that I've bolded. Could you provide some credible cites/links? (Indeed, I am a bit surprised that this article did not include information similar to the claims you make -- it sounds like rather important contextual information, no?)
The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.
This is from DC, VA, and NYC planning docs regarding pole right of way and expected road closures. I'll see what I can find for public-facing links.
This will be a death blow to iPhone sales! Some minor camera update or whiz-bang features will not convince people to buy an obsolete device. People are now on a 3-5 year buying cycle for phones (I still use iPhone 6). So what if the network isn’t available yet, they want their phone to work for years into the future. Would I like a new phone, yes. Do I need a new phone right now, no. (In fact I was going to buy some XR phones until I noticed 5G was coming). So why would I buy a phone this year if I wait until it will work with the next network standards?
The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.
So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.
You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.
Not saying it is not true, but this is the first time I've heard the claims that I've bolded. Could you provide some credible cites/links? (Indeed, I am a bit surprised that this article did not include information similar to the claims you make -- it sounds like rather important contextual information, no?)
The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.
This is from DC, VA, and NYC planning docs regarding pole right of way and expected road closures. I'll see what I can find for public-facing links.
The NYT article has one or two factual sentences — e.g., the fact that refrigerator sized devices will need to be installed every 500 feet (which is not all that different from those ugly green boxes along our streets that bring coaxial cable into our homes) — and that was about it. Oh, and the fact that municipalities want to charge an annual ‘rent’ of many thousands of dollars FOR EACH box from the service providers — assuming this is true, who do you think is going to actually foot that bill? You think ATT will foot that bill? Verizon? Or each one of us?
The rest of the article was impressionistic garbage. Lots about community activists, 75 year old men, a Russian woman who think the US while be no different from the Soviet Union if it required some discipline on the part of local governments, and on and on. I am happy to cut and paste that stuff to show the sheer scale of it, if you’d like. I saw nothing about lots of pole climbing, but I might have missed it.
I was was truly hoping for something more substantive. I’ll wait for your public-facing links.
The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.
So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.
You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.
Not saying it is not true, but this is the first time I've heard the claims that I've bolded. Could you provide some credible cites/links? (Indeed, I am a bit surprised that this article did not include information similar to the claims you make -- it sounds like rather important contextual information, no?)
The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.
This is from DC, VA, and NYC planning docs regarding pole right of way and expected road closures. I'll see what I can find for public-facing links.
The NYT article has one or two factual sentences — e.g., the fact that refrigerator sized devices will need to be installed every 500 feet (which is not all that different from those ugly green boxes along our streets that bring coaxial cable into our homes) — and that was about it. Oh, and the fact that municipalities want to charge an annual ‘rent’ of many thousands of dollars FOR EACH box from the service providers — assuming this is true, who do you think is going to actually foot that bill? You think ATT will foot that bill? Verizon? Or each one of us?
The rest of the article was impressionistic garbage. Lots about community activists, 75 year old men, a Russian woman who think the US while be no different from the Soviet Union if it required some discipline on the part of local governments, and on and on. I am happy to cut and paste that stuff to show the sheer scale of it, if you’d like. I saw nothing about lots of pole climbing, but I might have missed it.
I was was truly hoping for something more substantive. I’ll wait for your public-facing links.
Feel free to Google the expected installations. The last I read, the carriers are looking at 300K - 500K new towers for 5G coverage. This is about equal and in addition to what's already up now and it has taken the last two decades for these buildups. mmwave propagation is different, and the tech is much shorter range than 4G per emitter -- which I expect you know already.
I'm not opposed to 5g at all. It just isn't going to be a simple install using existing aerials for the whole thing, and it isn't coming in 2020 or 2021 to more than a small percent of users.
anantksundaram said: But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
1) LTE will not be obsolete after an iPhone with '5G' is launched. Not figuratively, and certainly not technically. You'd be hard pressed to even argue that the existence of a '5G' iPhone will mean LTE is obsoleting since increased LTE build-out will still be happening for many years to come
2) Apple has offered many major advances and countless minor advances for each new iPhone so what why assume that the year they launch '5G' that it will be the only only reason to upgrade?
I’d aver that the speed and quality of connectivity so that I can use the internet as my gateway to the world is the primary — actually the only — reason I buy my smartphone.
Why do you buy an iPhone?
What do you need to do that legitimately requires speeds greater than LTE. As for quality, 5g has much poorer penetration and range than LTE, so there are likely to be more issues related to signal quality.
If 5G is as fast as I've read about, I may just cancel my home phone and home internet.
I believe this is the whole point. It's pretty revolutionary, as envisaged.
5G will not penetrate buildings. Everything I've read states you will need to have a modem/antennae on the outside of your building and then send the signal in. This also means for it to be a realistic broadband alternative, there will need to be a high density of 5g antennae in residential neighborhoods. I'm not expecting that to be widespread for 5-10 years minimum. Definitely not near term. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the capabilities of the iPhone (or any smart phone.)
I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to see a single person answer - what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of LTE speeds for a smart phone? Yes, 5G is theoretically faster, but LTE is fast enough for everything you do on a smart phone. It has lower latency, but latency isn't an issue for smart phone use either. It has higher bandwidth, but the majority of the time, the wireless bandwidth isn't the limiting factor. So I'm left to see 5g as a transition to something that allows future growth but has no current or near-term real-world use.
If 5G is as fast as I've read about, I may just cancel my home phone and home internet. "Their major advantage is that 5G networks achieve much higher data rates than previous cellular networks, up to 10 Gbps; which is faster than current cable internet, and 100 times faster than the previous cellular technology, 4G LTE.[7][8] "
The best fiber to the home advertises rates of 1gb/s. I'll be long gone before mobile speeds hit what QC's claim. There's simply no way a cell tower will provide that kind of bandwidth to every single wireless user in the next decade, if not longer.
Total marketing BS.
Why do you think there is a bandwidth difference in modulating a free space traveling electromagnetic field versus a bounded electromagnetic field in a fiber or any other waveguide?
I don't understand Apple Fanboys (I'm one of them - at least love my iPhone) to condemn other companies that bring 5G to their devices...
Why is it okay for Apple to wait another year - just because the network availability isn't 100%
When someone buying a device - they are not buying for 6 months an year- the devices last many years... so far devices to include the tech that's future-proofs them isn't a bad thing...
Whey are there 3D depths sensing cameras, or processors so powerful that current OSes don't utilize... it's simply because the hardware is available while other aspects of say AR, or processor usage may be higher in coming years...
So, I'm always on the side of more tech that not
If Apple had (or might just) decided to include 5G this year... all of the Apple Fanboys would be commenting positive... predicably...
5G modems aren't changing from 2019 to 2020... so there's no good explanation...
Having said that all - I really hope carriers work on doing their bit - and roll out 5G soon!!!
Qualcomm, go ahead keep your chips from Apple, sell to the Chinese and help them destroy Apple. The reality: networks won’t be operational until 2020 anyway - but fake news will report that Apple has lost its innovation (by not including costly technology components for a technology that customers can’t use?). Intel is in trouble - they always made big, energy sucking monolithic chips. They’ve failed to shrink their dies. Their radios are far behind Qualcomm. Apple needs a Plan B — hence movement to A processors in the Mac, an ongoing effort to develop their own radios, which is an incredibly difficult undertaking. This will take time - and this industry moves very fast. Apple still needs to figure out memory chips and displays. The Chinese have the advantage of government subsidies in these areas and Samsung has the memory and displays already figured out. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next 24 months.
anantksundaram said: But on the other hand, many people (like me) will wait until 2020 to upgrade, since there is zero reason to buy something that will be technologically obsolete a year later.
1) LTE will not be obsolete after an iPhone with '5G' is launched. Not figuratively, and certainly not technically. You'd be hard pressed to even argue that the existence of a '5G' iPhone will mean LTE is obsoleting since increased LTE build-out will still be happening for many years to come
2) Apple has offered many major advances and countless minor advances for each new iPhone so what why assume that the year they launch '5G' that it will be the only only reason to upgrade?
I’d aver that the speed and quality of connectivity so that I can use the internet as my gateway to the world is the primary — actually the only — reason I buy my smartphone.
Why do you buy an iPhone?
Overall, for its utility. Faster radios are nice (assuming that the carrier and the towers in my area support them), but it's not something so important that I've made a single purchase decision based on Intel v Qualcomm chips based on theoretical downlink speeds -or- considered moving to a Samsung device that offers more n×n MIMO or higher QAMs than what Apple is offering for LTE in their devices.
If "quality of connection" is truly important then why be so hellbent on a protocol that offers a much shorter range and considerably higher levels of obstruction due to the much higher frequencies it will use?
Are you getting anywhere near 3 Gibps (as shown in Category 8, below) to feel that you've hit a wall with LTE that you absolutely need an unproven, unfinished tech with a shorter wavelength that won't reach a build-out tipping point for many years to come? Do you not recall all the issues with '3G' build-out with the early iPhones due to all the hurdles to get towers built in many places?
Sad and this is how American tech companies starts to fall behind those in East Asia. Guess what, 5G networks have already sprung up there in Sth Korea and China. Although still patchy but they are there and operating. Yes, there won't be a US 5G network to talk about for some time yet, but Apple's iPhone should be a world beater product. With this delay, probably inevitable with various political restrictions implemented by the US government, Apple will just have to join the rest of the US mobile network companies and play catch up. Good luck once the lucrative East Asia market is lost, there's no return... Once upon a time, Apple's iPhones were right up there with mobile network advance.
Comments
I am wondering if this bind will be enough to push them out of their annual September release cycle? That once a year major release has a lot of drawbacks in this market. They have to worry excessively about leaks while making sure that they have enough WOW! factor to impress the analysts and the media -- because, even if they present a really great product, if it isn't great enough to impress the media Apple will get hammered.
Perhaps releasing a 5G when it is ready (instead of waiting till September) would benefit everybody.
2) Apple has offered many major advances and countless minor advances for each new iPhone so what why assume that the year they launch '5G' that it will be the only only reason to upgrade?
Why do you buy an iPhone?
The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.
I believe this is the whole point. It's pretty revolutionary, as envisaged.
Not true, at least as promised. See reply #28 above.
The rest of the article was impressionistic garbage. Lots about community activists, 75 year old men, a Russian woman who think the US while be no different from the Soviet Union if it required some discipline on the part of local governments, and on and on. I am happy to cut and paste that stuff to show the sheer scale of it, if you’d like. I saw nothing about lots of pole climbing, but I might have missed it.
I was was truly hoping for something more substantive. I’ll wait for your public-facing links.
Also: https://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?type=webcontent&articleId=1967403
And you believe that? I've got a wonderful Windows Phone to sell you...
5G will not penetrate buildings. Everything I've read states you will need to have a modem/antennae on the outside of your building and then send the signal in. This also means for it to be a realistic broadband alternative, there will need to be a high density of 5g antennae in residential neighborhoods. I'm not expecting that to be widespread for 5-10 years minimum. Definitely not near term. Regardless, it's irrelevant to the capabilities of the iPhone (or any smart phone.)
I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to see a single person answer - what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of LTE speeds for a smart phone? Yes, 5G is theoretically faster, but LTE is fast enough for everything you do on a smart phone. It has lower latency, but latency isn't an issue for smart phone use either. It has higher bandwidth, but the majority of the time, the wireless bandwidth isn't the limiting factor. So I'm left to see 5g as a transition to something that allows future growth but has no current or near-term real-world use.
If "quality of connection" is truly important then why be so hellbent on a protocol that offers a much shorter range and considerably higher levels of obstruction due to the much higher frequencies it will use?
Are you getting anywhere near 3 Gibps (as shown in Category 8, below) to feel that you've hit a wall with LTE that you absolutely need an unproven, unfinished tech with a shorter wavelength that won't reach a build-out tipping point for many years to come? Do you not recall all the issues with '3G' build-out with the early iPhones due to all the hurdles to get towers built in many places?