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.
Those column inches will be read by those on Wall St that speak out of what they sit on and APPL will get marked down accordingly.
The shorters will make a few billion in the process.
That is the risk that Apple has to face up to. Not us the customer but us, the stockholder are the people they serve.
I see a lean couple of years for Apple from September 2019 to September 2021.
If I were Tim Cook (and I'm glad I'm not) I'd be making sure that there was a lot of other product ready to go on sale until they get a full 5G (ratified to the standard) phone on the market.
But once again, Wall St will ignore everything but the iPhone sales (or lack of...) but at least a steady stream of new product that is not a Phone will keep us (customers) relatively happy and us(stockholders) ready to buy APPL at appropriate times.
I'm not a holder of APPL stock at this point in time and the above is not investment advice in any way shape or form. It is just my opinion. YMMV
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.
Actually, that article highlights two minor impediments to 5G - neither of them technical. The first is local control for appearance and profit -- especially profit. The second is the urban / rural divide that is already splitting this country apart politically.
The first will likely be steam-rolled over. Any concerns of appearance will be given all the attention it deserves. And, any town that holds back 5G to extort money from the carriers will be shooting itself in the foot.
The second is, and has been, a real problem that dates back 100 years: For-profit utilities simply have no incentive to serve the rural areas. That started in the early 20th century with electricity -- where the Federal Government stepped in with the the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electric to Appalachia. And we see it playing out again in the last decades with cable not being strung into rural areas.
The irony of it is: The Republican controlled rural areas tend to hate any and all government intervention. Yet, that is the only way they are likely to get quality internet service (or any internet for that matter). Aside from a shift of political views, the only thing that might save them is that 5G will likely be strung along major highways -- so they might be able to piggy back off of that to some limited degree.
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.
You didn't miss the pole climbing thing. It wasn't there. But, even if it was, it would be irrelevant. That's pretty much what pole climbers do for a living: climb poles. Actually, they don't even do that very much anymore. They just park the truck and jump into the cherry picker.
Adding 5G to telephone poles will be far less effort than rolling out either cable or the 1-4G which requires separate towers. For putting 5G on telephone poles, 90% of the work has already been done for them. The analogy is the more recent FiOS rollout: They just climbed the poles and strung their cable right beside the old electric, telephone and cable lines -- and the same when you wanted it added to your house.
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.
If that were true, we wouldn't have Verizon FiOS as a major provider. It's the same kind of process using the same existing infrastructure already in place for electric, street lighting, copper telephone, coax cable and FiOS.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
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.
Apple could tap into those markets -- the largest, fastest growing in the world, by using Huawei modems in Asia. Unfortunately, if they tried it here, they would get a Trump-Tweet.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
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.
Actually, that article highlights two minor impediments to 5G - neither of them technical. The first is local control for appearance and profit -- especially profit. The second is the urban / rural divide that is already splitting this country apart politically.
The first will likely be steam-rolled over. Any concerns of appearance will be given all the attention it deserves. And, any town that holds back 5G to extort money from the carriers will be shooting itself in the foot.
The second is, and has been, a real problem that dates back 100 years: For-profit utilities simply have no incentive to serve the rural areas. That started in the early 20th century with electricity -- where the Federal Government stepped in with the the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electric to Appalachia. And we see it playing out again in the last decades with cable not being strung into rural areas.
The irony of it is: The Republican controlled rural areas tend to hate any and all government intervention. Yet, that is the only way they are likely to get quality internet service (or any internet for that matter). Aside from a shift of political views, the only thing that might save them is that 5G will likely be strung along major highways -- so they might be able to piggy back off of that to some limited degree.
Yes rural republican areas bitch about socialism and then complain when they don't get their piece whether cheap power from the TVA or subsidized communication whether cable or internet (its nearly always subsidized by city subscribers) . And of the original socialism Rural Free Delivery of Mail. I bet you my mailman in the city delivers more mail in one day than rural mailpersons deliver in a week as they drive between mailboxes widely spaced. Ironic now that their republican representatives are causing many rural post offices to be closed.
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.
It is foolish to assume that just because you don't see a real need doesn't mean that it will not be utilized. No one could image using a phone for real time streaming of videos just a few years ago.
There are real needs and perceived needs (or wants). Do people really need mini video clips for ever picture they take, do they need bokeh effect on their pictures, do they need to video conference multiple friends, etc.... It all comes down to marketing the latest technology when you are expecting people to pay $1,000+ for a phone. People need to feel that their old phone is no longer good enough and that they "need" the latest technology. The next big jump in technology (out side of camera tricks) is 5G. People hold onto their phones for several years and they will not be interested upgrading to the next iPhone if it is considered obsolete. It will be considered obsolete if it doesn't have 5G, because customers have been told it is coming soon.
The reason for Apple to ship an iPhone with a 5G this year is future proofing it. The network will come. I won’t be buying one on my normal two year schedule if it doesn’t have 5G!
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.
Those column inches will be read by those on Wall St that speak out of what they sit on and APPL will get marked down accordingly.
The shorters will make a few billion in the process.
That is the risk that Apple has to face up to. Not us the customer but us, the stockholder are the people they serve.
I see a lean couple of years for Apple from September 2019 to September 2021.
If I were Tim Cook (and I'm glad I'm not) I'd be making sure that there was a lot of other product ready to go on sale until they get a full 5G (ratified to the standard) phone on the market.
But once again, Wall St will ignore everything but the iPhone sales (or lack of...) but at least a steady stream of new product that is not a Phone will keep us (customers) relatively happy and us(stockholders) ready to buy APPL at appropriate times.
I'm not a holder of APPL stock at this point in time and the above is not investment advice in any way shape or form. It is just my opinion. YMMV
Apple stopped disclosing unit sales because they knew that declining iphones sales was coming. They expected growing services and accessories business to cover up the fall in I phone revenue
Even though I think 5G will take a while to make a significant impact I believe that Apple should switch back to QualComm modems. The apple fanboys think that Apple can be late to the party with 5G but show up in the most fashionable dress but I think they are ignoring some points.
1. QualComm's X55 modem is built with a 7nm process. This will probably help battery life giving people who buy 5G phones the false belief that their phone is more better because it's 5G. I doubt if intel will get their modems that small and energy efficient. Look at how much they are behind with their i series chips.
2. When apple originally implemented LTE they were considered behind the times like now. But the difference is that Apple implemented LTE using QualComm modems which had the benefit of A. coming from the developer of LTE technologies and B. Qualcomm had a couple years of experience with developing modems in Android devices to improve their technology to Apples benefit. Apple won't have those benefits now. Intel's 5G modems like their 4G modems will be both late and substandard and when they do come out QualComm's third generation will perform much better than Intel. If Apple is working to develop their own modems now I'm sure they will eventually get better but don't expect them to be that good right out of the gate.
3. Many people believe that the switch to 5G will take years (probably years in the US) but it may actually go faster in other countries like China. I expect Huawei to push strongly into 5G since they both make the Telecom infrastructure and cell phones. Big urban centers in China will probably see this shift faster than Americans. Apple phones will be even more unattractive compared to Android phones and Sales will continue to fall off even more. Apple could respond by installing Huawei modems in their Chinese models but that would probably undercut the privacy benefits of Apple phones in China even more.
4. Even if it takes two years to 5G to penetrate American Cities phone models created this year with the X55 like the Samsung S10 will still be a viable phone when selling two years from now while the iPhone XR2 (Apple's 2019 model) will be fall off in value in 2021 because it won't have 5G.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
No, you did not answer it. You specifically stated it was so stupid you wouldn't answer it. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm far from an Apple Fanboy, but I am very practical. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - I see no current use for 5G in a cell phone. And again I ask for an example. Are you so daft as to not get that?
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.
It is foolish to assume that just because you don't see a real need doesn't mean that it will not be utilized. No one could image using a phone for real time streaming of videos just a few years ago.
There are real needs and perceived needs (or wants). Do people really need mini video clips for ever picture they take, do they need bokeh effect on their pictures, do they need to video conference multiple friends, etc.... It all comes down to marketing the latest technology when you are expecting people to pay $1,000+ for a phone. People need to feel that their old phone is no longer good enough and that they "need" the latest technology. The next big jump in technology (out side of camera tricks) is 5G. People hold onto their phones for several years and they will not be interested upgrading to the next iPhone if it is considered obsolete. It will be considered obsolete if it doesn't have 5G, because customers have been told it is coming soon.
I don't deny that some heretofore unconsidered application may arise. There are plenty of examples of that in technology. My point is that there is no current use. 5G is not a technology that is rolling out to finally make cellphones do what people have been trying to do but haven't been able to because of technology limitations. That being the case, any future, real-world uses for the technology in cell phones will take at least a few years to develop and won't even start to develop until there is some semblance of availability of 5G. We're looking at at least mid to late 2020, likely 2021 at the earliest for that to happen, any of these unknown uses will likely not become widespread until 2022 or 2023 at the earliest. at that point, we're 4 years out. Add to that that the 5G standards haven't even been finalized and the fact that the first people who actually (try) to make use of new features like this tend to be early adopters that upgrade their phones more frequently. The end conclusion that I draw is that not only is including a 5G modem in a 2019 phone essentially useless, there may well be drawbacks due to the fact that the standards, technology and chip designs are all still developing.
It would seem the biggest reason to include 5G is so you can claim that you have it, not because it's actually necessary. I've been around long enough not to care about things like that.
Edit: If other countries roll out the technology faster than here in the US, that could change the development equation and would certainly affect the iPhone's marketability in those countries. My view is an admittedly America-Centric one.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
No, you did not answer it. You specifically stated it was so stupid you wouldn't answer it. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm far from an Apple Fanboy, but I am very practical. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - I see no current use for 5G in a cell phone. And again I ask for an example. Are you so daft as to not get that?
The more that important players in the telecom ecosystem get on board, the faster this technology will deploy. There are few more important players in the telecom ecosystem than Apple. It’s really as simply as that.
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.
It is foolish to assume that just because you don't see a real need doesn't mean that it will not be utilized. No one could image using a phone for real time streaming of videos just a few years ago.
There are real needs and perceived needs (or wants). Do people really need mini video clips for ever picture they take, do they need bokeh effect on their pictures, do they need to video conference multiple friends, etc.... It all comes down to marketing the latest technology when you are expecting people to pay $1,000+ for a phone. People need to feel that their old phone is no longer good enough and that they "need" the latest technology. The next big jump in technology (out side of camera tricks) is 5G. People hold onto their phones for several years and they will not be interested upgrading to the next iPhone if it is considered obsolete. It will be considered obsolete if it doesn't have 5G, because customers have been told it is coming soon.
I don't deny that some heretofore unconsidered application may arise. There are plenty of examples of that in technology. My point is that there is no current use. 5G is not a technology that is rolling out to finally make cellphones do what people have been trying to do but haven't been able to because of technology limitations. That being the case, any future, real-world uses for the technology in cell phones will take at least a few years to develop and won't even start to develop until there is some semblance of availability of 5G. We're looking at at least mid to late 2020, likely 2021 at the earliest for that to happen, any of these unknown uses will likely not become widespread until 2022 or 2023 at the earliest. at that point, we're 4 years out. Add to that that the 5G standards haven't even been finalized and the fact that the first people who actually (try) to make use of new features like this tend to be early adopters that upgrade their phones more frequently. The end conclusion that I draw is that not only is including a 5G modem in a 2019 phone essentially useless, there may well be drawbacks due to the fact that the standards, technology and chip designs are all still developing.
It would seem the biggest reason to include 5G is so you can claim that you have it, not because it's actually necessary. I've been around long enough not to care about things like that.
Edit: If other countries roll out the technology faster than here in the US, that could change the development equation and would certainly affect the iPhone's marketability in those countries. My view is an admittedly America-Centric one.
This is sheer laziness in not wanting to inform yourself. Seriously.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
No, you did not answer it. You specifically stated it was so stupid you wouldn't answer it. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm far from an Apple Fanboy, but I am very practical. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - I see no current use for 5G in a cell phone. And again I ask for an example. Are you so daft as to not get that?
The more that important players in the telecom ecosystem get on board, the faster this technology will deploy. There are few more important players in the telecom ecosystem than Apple. It’s really as simply as that.
Yes - I've seen all of those uses. I'm not performing remote surgery with my iPhone. With the possible exception of VR, none of them involve smart phones. I have read plenty of articles about 5G. all touting the improvements of the technology and listing potential uses. None of which significantly impact the average smart phone user. At this point, every article I read is repeating points made by other articles.
As I've said, I'm not saying I'm against 5G as a technology, simply saying that its near-term importance for mobile phones is being over hyped.
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.
It is foolish to assume that just because you don't see a real need doesn't mean that it will not be utilized. No one could image using a phone for real time streaming of videos just a few years ago.
There are real needs and perceived needs (or wants). Do people really need mini video clips for ever picture they take, do they need bokeh effect on their pictures, do they need to video conference multiple friends, etc.... It all comes down to marketing the latest technology when you are expecting people to pay $1,000+ for a phone. People need to feel that their old phone is no longer good enough and that they "need" the latest technology. The next big jump in technology (out side of camera tricks) is 5G. People hold onto their phones for several years and they will not be interested upgrading to the next iPhone if it is considered obsolete. It will be considered obsolete if it doesn't have 5G, because customers have been told it is coming soon.
I don't deny that some heretofore unconsidered application may arise. There are plenty of examples of that in technology. My point is that there is no current use. 5G is not a technology that is rolling out to finally make cellphones do what people have been trying to do but haven't been able to because of technology limitations. That being the case, any future, real-world uses for the technology in cell phones will take at least a few years to develop and won't even start to develop until there is some semblance of availability of 5G. We're looking at at least mid to late 2020, likely 2021 at the earliest for that to happen, any of these unknown uses will likely not become widespread until 2022 or 2023 at the earliest. at that point, we're 4 years out. Add to that that the 5G standards haven't even been finalized and the fact that the first people who actually (try) to make use of new features like this tend to be early adopters that upgrade their phones more frequently. The end conclusion that I draw is that not only is including a 5G modem in a 2019 phone essentially useless, there may well be drawbacks due to the fact that the standards, technology and chip designs are all still developing.
It would seem the biggest reason to include 5G is so you can claim that you have it, not because it's actually necessary. I've been around long enough not to care about things like that.
Edit: If other countries roll out the technology faster than here in the US, that could change the development equation and would certainly affect the iPhone's marketability in those countries. My view is an admittedly America-Centric one.
I think you are being too smug in your assessment of the technology. The cell phone market (really should call it handheld computers) is all above selling competitive advantages and 5G is a major perceived competitive advance. New infrastructure improvement initiatives could be launch at anytime.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
No, you did not answer it. You specifically stated it was so stupid you wouldn't answer it. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm far from an Apple Fanboy, but I am very practical. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - I see no current use for 5G in a cell phone. And again I ask for an example. Are you so daft as to not get that?
The more that important players in the telecom ecosystem get on board, the faster this technology will deploy. There are few more important players in the telecom ecosystem than Apple. It’s really as simply as that.
Yes - I've seen all of those uses. I'm not performing remote surgery with my iPhone. With the possible exception of VR, none of them involve smart phones. I have read plenty of articles about 5G. all touting the improvements of the technology and listing potential uses. None of which significantly impact the average smart phone user. At this point, every article I read is repeating points made by other articles.
As I've said, I'm not saying I'm against 5G as a technology, simply saying that its near-term importance for mobile phones is being over hyped.
You’re suggesting that autonomous vehicles have no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; drone control has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; internet-based haptic feedback has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; internet of things has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case.
.... 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?
...
I will ask the same question: " what legitimate need is there to have speeds in excess of what a horse can travel?"
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
You repeatedly make false comparisons and dismiss the question as an excuse for not answering. If the question is so trivial, then by all means answer it. You repeatedly make loud protestations as to the obsolescence of any phone without 5G capabilities, but are completely unwilling or unable to explain why you might use connectivity better than true LTE speed on your smart phone. The only conclusion I can draw is that you don’t have an answer. I will say again, if you have an answer, please give it. If not, stop the complaining.
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
I did answer it. But you insist on proclaiming that 5G has "no actual use" -- probably because Apple won't have it till they can develop their own modem rather than any kind of facts or logic. Instead you offer fan boy logic: "If Apple doesn't have it, it's worthless".
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
No, you did not answer it. You specifically stated it was so stupid you wouldn't answer it. If you read my posts, you will see that I'm far from an Apple Fanboy, but I am very practical. And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying - I see no current use for 5G in a cell phone. And again I ask for an example. Are you so daft as to not get that?
The more that important players in the telecom ecosystem get on board, the faster this technology will deploy. There are few more important players in the telecom ecosystem than Apple. It’s really as simply as that.
Yes - I've seen all of those uses. I'm not performing remote surgery with my iPhone. With the possible exception of VR, none of them involve smart phones. I have read plenty of articles about 5G. all touting the improvements of the technology and listing potential uses. None of which significantly impact the average smart phone user. At this point, every article I read is repeating points made by other articles.
As I've said, I'm not saying I'm against 5G as a technology, simply saying that its near-term importance for mobile phones is being over hyped.
You’re suggesting that autonomous vehicles have no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; drone control has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; internet-based haptic feedback has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case; internet of things has no mobile phone (or iOS) use case.
Just one word: wow.
I will just pick up on the drone comment to flesh it out a little with a little speculation.
Late last year Honor presented the Magic 2 and demoed a voice controlled drone. The same phone came with a digital assistant that could sit between calls and act as a real time, two-way interpreter between people speaking different languages.
In both cases (which were LTE based), improvements in speed and latency could have a massive impact on performance. 5G (at least on paper) could bring that speed and low latency.
Imagine getting on your bike and having your voice controlled 5G drone record you as you go and use 5G to avoid collisions with other 5G drones in the vecinity.
No doubt, Amazon's own drone plans would also benefit from 5G.
I agree that huge potential is there and some countries are actively accelerating their 5G rollouts but MpIsP is also correct in that if the country where you live is slow to pick up on 5G there is not a lot that can be done.
The problem is that countries like China will be seeking real world consumer and commercial use cases to learn from, and then export their successes. That will put some countries and companys at a disadvantage if they are late to market.
Comments
The first is local control for appearance and profit -- especially profit.
The second is the urban / rural divide that is already splitting this country apart politically.
The first will likely be steam-rolled over. Any concerns of appearance will be given all the attention it deserves. And, any town that holds back 5G to extort money from the carriers will be shooting itself in the foot.
The second is, and has been, a real problem that dates back 100 years: For-profit utilities simply have no incentive to serve the rural areas. That started in the early 20th century with electricity -- where the Federal Government stepped in with the the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electric to Appalachia. And we see it playing out again in the last decades with cable not being strung into rural areas.
The irony of it is: The Republican controlled rural areas tend to hate any and all government intervention. Yet, that is the only way they are likely to get quality internet service (or any internet for that matter). Aside from a shift of political views, the only thing that might save them is that 5G will likely be strung along major highways -- so they might be able to piggy back off of that to some limited degree.
Adding 5G to telephone poles will be far less effort than rolling out either cable or the 1-4G which requires separate towers. For putting 5G on telephone poles, 90% of the work has already been done for them. The analogy is the more recent FiOS rollout: They just climbed the poles and strung their cable right beside the old electric, telephone and cable lines -- and the same when you wanted it added to your house.
Some questions are so stupid, they don't deserve an answer. (And, by the way, nobody is saying that 5G will be restricted to smart phones)
As for 5G not being limited to cell phones, I’m well aware of that, but the current discussion pertains to the expected absence of a 5G modem in the iphone (and how this will undoubtedly doom the iphone and Apple’s entire existence.) I have no opposition to 5G, and I’m sure iPHones will eventually have a 5G modem. Maybe there will even be a legitimate need for it then. Until then, it seems like a pointless spec race with no true impact on actual use.
There are real needs and perceived needs (or wants). Do people really need mini video clips for ever picture they take, do they need bokeh effect on their pictures, do they need to video conference multiple friends, etc.... It all comes down to marketing the latest technology when you are expecting people to pay $1,000+ for a phone. People need to feel that their old phone is no longer good enough and that they "need" the latest technology. The next big jump in technology (out side of camera tricks) is 5G. People hold onto their phones for several years and they will not be interested upgrading to the next iPhone if it is considered obsolete. It will be considered obsolete if it doesn't have 5G, because customers have been told it is coming soon.
Apple stopped disclosing unit sales because they knew that declining iphones sales was coming. They expected growing services and accessories business to cover up the fall in I phone revenue
Even though I think 5G will take a while to make a significant impact I believe that Apple should switch back to QualComm modems.
The apple fanboys think that Apple can be late to the party with 5G but show up in the most fashionable dress but I think they are ignoring some points.
1. QualComm's X55 modem is built with a 7nm process. This will probably help battery life giving people who buy 5G phones the false belief that their phone is more better because it's 5G. I doubt if intel will get their modems that small and energy efficient. Look at how much they are behind with their i series chips.
2. When apple originally implemented LTE they were considered behind the times like now. But the difference is that Apple implemented LTE using QualComm modems which had the benefit of A. coming from the developer of LTE technologies and B. Qualcomm had a couple years of experience with developing modems in Android devices to improve their technology to Apples benefit. Apple won't have those benefits now. Intel's 5G modems like their 4G modems will be both late and substandard and when they do come out QualComm's third generation will perform much better than Intel. If Apple is working to develop their own modems now I'm sure they will eventually get better but don't expect them to be that good right out of the gate.
3. Many people believe that the switch to 5G will take years (probably years in the US) but it may actually go faster in other countries like China. I expect Huawei to push strongly into 5G since they both make the Telecom infrastructure and cell phones. Big urban centers in China will probably see this shift faster than Americans. Apple phones will be even more unattractive compared to Android phones and Sales will continue to fall off even more. Apple could respond by installing Huawei modems in their Chinese models but that would probably undercut the privacy benefits of Apple phones in China even more.
4. Even if it takes two years to 5G to penetrate American Cities phone models created this year with the X55 like the Samsung S10 will still be a viable phone when selling two years from now while the iPhone XR2 (Apple's 2019 model) will be fall off in value in 2021 because it won't have 5G.
I don't deny that some heretofore unconsidered application may arise. There are plenty of examples of that in technology. My point is that there is no current use. 5G is not a technology that is rolling out to finally make cellphones do what people have been trying to do but haven't been able to because of technology limitations. That being the case, any future, real-world uses for the technology in cell phones will take at least a few years to develop and won't even start to develop until there is some semblance of availability of 5G. We're looking at at least mid to late 2020, likely 2021 at the earliest for that to happen, any of these unknown uses will likely not become widespread until 2022 or 2023 at the earliest. at that point, we're 4 years out. Add to that that the 5G standards haven't even been finalized and the fact that the first people who actually (try) to make use of new features like this tend to be early adopters that upgrade their phones more frequently. The end conclusion that I draw is that not only is including a 5G modem in a 2019 phone essentially useless, there may well be drawbacks due to the fact that the standards, technology and chip designs are all still developing.
It would seem the biggest reason to include 5G is so you can claim that you have it, not because it's actually necessary. I've been around long enough not to care about things like that.
Edit: If other countries roll out the technology faster than here in the US, that could change the development equation and would certainly affect the iPhone's marketability in those countries. My view is an admittedly America-Centric one.
The more that important players in the telecom ecosystem get on board, the faster this technology will deploy. There are few more important players in the telecom ecosystem than Apple. It’s really as simply as that.
This is sheer laziness in not wanting to inform yourself. Seriously.
As I've said, I'm not saying I'm against 5G as a technology, simply saying that its near-term importance for mobile phones is being over hyped.
Just one word: wow.
Late last year Honor presented the Magic 2 and demoed a voice controlled drone. The same phone came with a digital assistant that could sit between calls and act as a real time, two-way interpreter between people speaking different languages.
In both cases (which were LTE based), improvements in speed and latency could have a massive impact on performance. 5G (at least on paper) could bring that speed and low latency.
Imagine getting on your bike and having your voice controlled 5G drone record you as you go and use 5G to avoid collisions with other 5G drones in the vecinity.
No doubt, Amazon's own drone plans would also benefit from 5G.
I agree that huge potential is there and some countries are actively accelerating their 5G rollouts but MpIsP is also correct in that if the country where you live is slow to pick up on 5G there is not a lot that can be done.
The problem is that countries like China will be seeking real world consumer and commercial use cases to learn from, and then export their successes. That will put some countries and companys at a disadvantage if they are late to market.