"That it isn't supplying modems to Apple"? LOL... No, of course not. Rather I was challenging the article's allegation that it's chairman's offer to sell/license its modems to Apple (and only Apple) was as the the article put it " a loud PR move" rather than a legitimate, honest offer to a U.S. company in trouble. And, yes. their CEO did clarify the offer the next day saying that it was strictly an offer -- that they were not in talks with Apple. If it was purely a " a loud PR move".as the article alleges, they would not have had the honesty and decency to clarify it without any prompting.
Okay, here are the facts:
1) The DOD has a block on Huawei assets going back to the previous administration in 2012. Maybe earlier, I forget at the moment. 2) The federal government as a whole has a newer block. 3) The US Federal government has been in Apple's top 10 buyer's list for 15 years, and possibly a lot longer. 4) Should Apple go with Huawei for a modem, products with it will get put on a no-buy list. 5) Huawei knows this.
"That it isn't supplying modems to Apple"? LOL... No, of course not. Rather I was challenging the article's allegation that it's chairman's offer to sell/license its modems to Apple (and only Apple) was as the the article put it " a loud PR move" rather than a legitimate, honest offer to a U.S. company in trouble. And, yes. their CEO did clarify the offer the next day saying that it was strictly an offer -- that they were not in talks with Apple. If it was purely a " a loud PR move".as the article alleges, they would not have had the honesty and decency to clarify it without any prompting.
Okay, here are the facts:
1) The DOD has a block on Huawei assets going back to the previous administration in 2012. Maybe earlier, I forget at the moment. 2) The federal government as a whole has a newer block. 3) The US Federal government has been in Apple's top 10 buyer's list for 15 years, and possibly a lot longer. 4) Should Apple go with Huawei for a modem, products with it will get put on a no-buy list. 5) Huawei knows this.
Conclude what you want.
I conclude that Trump's smear campaign is working well for him. (As for the years old stuff (#1) -- it was "if's" and "maybe's" and "possibly in the future"... Which, being the only so called "evidence", is why the EU is calling bull. They don't want their networks set back by his nationalist, protectionist nonsense)
Hang on, woah nellie, let me get this straight -- the Great and Powerful Psychic Ming-Chi Kuo says that the 5G iPhones will be ... popular??? And that they'll launch in the SECOND HALF of the year like they do EVERY YEAR??
I was surprised that iPhone XS sales were so high given the high cost as it offered few real tangible benefits to most customers but I think many are on a 2-year phone contract (very common in the UK at least).
I wonder what Apple can offer users to entice them to upgrade to a new iPhone in 2019 knowing that a 5G iPhone will arrive in 2020.
I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but cellular companies separated the phone from the cellular service contract several years ago. Many will offer cheap or free financing, but as long as you have your old phone paid off you’re free to upgrade whenever you want.
Yes, the U.S. is behind in rolling out 5G (even though Verizon plans to have it in 30 cities before 2020). But, that is because of politics.
30 Cities is likely cities that all have great coverage of 4g already, I wouldn’t consider it a decent rollout until it’s at 100 cities. Also almost all goals have been missed this far, so I wouldn’t bet on that claim.
Politics is an influence since at least on the T-Mobile/ Sprint side they are waiting on the status of the pending merger before they rollout their network(s). I don’t think there is anything in particular holding back AT&T and Verizon beyond bad experience from customers thus far.
Minneapolis officially has 5G service, so it’s one of those 30. Granted it only has it in about 10 square blocks, and the speeds are about the same as 4G speeds, but we have it, for whatever it’s worth. The cellular companies are playing a marketing game; we will need to have solid coverage over the majority of the city and in a majority of the metropolitan areas in the US before 5G can even start to be developed as a technology.
It is common sense that next desirable tech jump in wireless mobile smartphone is WiFi 6 and 5G. So, anticipating 2020 iPhone with 5G will attract many to upgrade and by that time not lots of 5G coverage but enough to justify to buy 5G phone.
Totally disagree. Nobody wants WiFi 6 or 5G. As a feature, it won’t get enough people to upgrade and shorten ownership cycles.
If there was actual demand for more gigabit per second bandwidths, landline fiber rollouts would be going a lot faster, and ownership cycles for cell phones would be shorter. WiFi has long outrun cable modem or fiber service, and not many people are clamoring for that either.
I think people are happy with regular 50 megabit per second LTE as long as they can get it. LTE-A which can get up to 250 to 500 megabit per second hasn’t been enough to get people to upgrade and keep phone cycles short. What’s 5G going to to do?
If 5G came with unlimited data plans, actual unlimited, maybe that’ll get people to upgrade, but people aren’t upgrading for 5G in this scenario. They are upgrading for unlimited data.
Well, GeorgeB wants it. He’s not really clear what he’ll do with it, but he wants it, anyway. I think a lot of people will ‘want’ 5G, not because they truly need it or even know what it can do for them, rather because it’s the newest technology and it’s faster and better, so therefore they have to have it. I can only imagine what happens when they get their first 5G bill from Verizon - they’ll be looking for a way to turn it off!
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
I was surprised that iPhone XS sales were so high given the high cost as it offered few real tangible benefits to most customers but I think many are on a 2-year phone contract (very common in the UK at least).
I wonder what Apple can offer users to entice them to upgrade to a new iPhone in 2019 knowing that a 5G iPhone will arrive in 2020.
Hopefully some of those phones being sold in 2019 are to new customers moving from Android. People on a two year contract or yearly upgrade program are also potential buyers. So tired of people comparing iPhone sales to prior years. My investment strategy in Apple is not based on the past, its long term.
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
Isn’t this the same two benefits for LTE-A over LTE? And LTE over HSPA?
I would like to have better performance at a highly crowded venue. These technologies don’t really address poor performance at a concert or game or a festival though, right. For these things, the carrier has to bring in portable towers (or activate dormant ones), support basically all the frequencies, and then hope.
Maybe it will be better for hotels and urban areas, assuming the penetration is there.
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
Isn’t this the same two benefits for LTE-A over LTE? And LTE over HSPA?
I would like to have better performance at a highly crowded venue. These technologies don’t really address poor performance at a concert or game or a festival though, right. For these things, the carrier has to bring in portable towers (or activate dormant ones), support basically all the frequencies, and then hope.
Maybe it will be better for hotels and urban areas, assuming the penetration is there.
I’m not sure if LTE-A allows more devices per tower or not. Maybe someone else can chime in about that.
One important limitation of 5G is that it doesn’t penetrate buildings well (The descriptions I’ve read have said that even having a tree in the way will significantly degrade performance) That would mean that hotels would be out and even being in a highly crowded area with a lot of bodies may affect the signal. Again, if allows consistent 4G speeds to more devices, people will be happy. I suspect that in many of these circumstances the underlying infrastructure will be overwhelmed, making it a moot point anyway.
I assume at best we are still only talking a Massive Monster iPhone SuperMax for a single 5G model and anything remotely normal sized a few years away and wearables potentially a decade away.
Everything would suggest 4G LTE is here to stay for another 20 years and will likely be used for more interesting things than 5G.
Yes, the U.S. is behind in rolling out 5G (even though Verizon plans to have it in 30 cities before 2020). But, that is because of politics.
30 Cities is likely cities that all have great coverage of 4g already, I wouldn’t consider it a decent rollout until it’s at 100 cities. Also almost all goals have been missed this far, so I wouldn’t bet on that claim.
Politics is an influence since at least on the T-Mobile/ Sprint side they are waiting on the status of the pending merger before they rollout their network(s). I don’t think there is anything in particular holding back AT&T and Verizon beyond bad experience from customers thus far.
Minneapolis officially has 5G service, so it’s one of those 30. Granted it only has it in about 10 square blocks, and the speeds are about the same as 4G speeds, but we have it, for whatever it’s worth. The cellular companies are playing a marketing game; we will need to have solid coverage over the majority of the city and in a majority of the metropolitan areas in the US before 5G can even start to be developed as a technology.
It is common sense that next desirable tech jump in wireless mobile smartphone is WiFi 6 and 5G. So, anticipating 2020 iPhone with 5G will attract many to upgrade and by that time not lots of 5G coverage but enough to justify to buy 5G phone.
Totally disagree. Nobody wants WiFi 6 or 5G. As a feature, it won’t get enough people to upgrade and shorten ownership cycles.
If there was actual demand for more gigabit per second bandwidths, landline fiber rollouts would be going a lot faster, and ownership cycles for cell phones would be shorter. WiFi has long outrun cable modem or fiber service, and not many people are clamoring for that either.
I think people are happy with regular 50 megabit per second LTE as long as they can get it. LTE-A which can get up to 250 to 500 megabit per second hasn’t been enough to get people to upgrade and keep phone cycles short. What’s 5G going to to do?
If 5G came with unlimited data plans, actual unlimited, maybe that’ll get people to upgrade, but people aren’t upgrading for 5G in this scenario. They are upgrading for unlimited data.
Well, GeorgeB wants it. He’s not really clear what he’ll do with it, but he wants it, anyway. I think a lot of people will ‘want’ 5G, not because they truly need it or even know what it can do for them, rather because it’s the newest technology and it’s faster and better, so therefore they have to have it. I can only imagine what happens when they get their first 5G bill from Verizon - they’ll be looking for a way to turn it off!
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
LTE transformed the iPhone into something that not even Jobs expected. It's why he hung on to the 4" form factor for so long -- because as he said, it's best for a PHONE. But LTE made the smart phone into something unexpected: a pocket sized computer and relegated its phone function to a relatively minor role.
Significant advances in communications tend to do that: They open up doors that many didn't even know existed.
All experts both in and out of the industry predict that 5G will do the same. The only arguments against that seem to be on this pro-Apple forum because Apple has been struggling to keep up with the industry. And, most of the arguments center around "We don't need no stinkin' 5G!" or, "So what if 5G helps me do what I have been doing a little faster". They are essentially marginalization arguments.
But, both arguments are out of sync with what world wide experts are predicting. And it's not just a casual prediction: it is causing multiple countries to sink tens and hundreds of billions of dollars into it and even spawned a divide between the U.S. and Europe over whether Chinese companies should be allowed to participate.
So, on this, I'll go with the experts. Further, I think Apple will have a 5G phone announcement long before September 2020. Probably this year. There was no other real reason for them to link back up with Qualcomm than to get their 5G modem. Now they have it and all they have to do is get it into an iPhone. And that will enable that phone to participate in the world of 5G -- whatever that is and wherever it takes us.
That is quite the prediction of Ming. That an iPhone would be released in 2nd half of a year (who would have thunk it), and that Apple might sell about 200M iPhones in a year (which is a bit below the average of the last number of years). Ah, to be an exalted analyst...
Yes, the U.S. is behind in rolling out 5G (even though Verizon plans to have it in 30 cities before 2020). But, that is because of politics.
30 Cities is likely cities that all have great coverage of 4g already, I wouldn’t consider it a decent rollout until it’s at 100 cities. Also almost all goals have been missed this far, so I wouldn’t bet on that claim.
Politics is an influence since at least on the T-Mobile/ Sprint side they are waiting on the status of the pending merger before they rollout their network(s). I don’t think there is anything in particular holding back AT&T and Verizon beyond bad experience from customers thus far.
Minneapolis officially has 5G service, so it’s one of those 30. Granted it only has it in about 10 square blocks, and the speeds are about the same as 4G speeds, but we have it, for whatever it’s worth. The cellular companies are playing a marketing game; we will need to have solid coverage over the majority of the city and in a majority of the metropolitan areas in the US before 5G can even start to be developed as a technology.
It is common sense that next desirable tech jump in wireless mobile smartphone is WiFi 6 and 5G. So, anticipating 2020 iPhone with 5G will attract many to upgrade and by that time not lots of 5G coverage but enough to justify to buy 5G phone.
Totally disagree. Nobody wants WiFi 6 or 5G. As a feature, it won’t get enough people to upgrade and shorten ownership cycles.
If there was actual demand for more gigabit per second bandwidths, landline fiber rollouts would be going a lot faster, and ownership cycles for cell phones would be shorter. WiFi has long outrun cable modem or fiber service, and not many people are clamoring for that either.
I think people are happy with regular 50 megabit per second LTE as long as they can get it. LTE-A which can get up to 250 to 500 megabit per second hasn’t been enough to get people to upgrade and keep phone cycles short. What’s 5G going to to do?
If 5G came with unlimited data plans, actual unlimited, maybe that’ll get people to upgrade, but people aren’t upgrading for 5G in this scenario. They are upgrading for unlimited data.
Well, GeorgeB wants it. He’s not really clear what he’ll do with it, but he wants it, anyway. I think a lot of people will ‘want’ 5G, not because they truly need it or even know what it can do for them, rather because it’s the newest technology and it’s faster and better, so therefore they have to have it. I can only imagine what happens when they get their first 5G bill from Verizon - they’ll be looking for a way to turn it off!
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
LTE transformed the iPhone into something that not even Jobs expected. It's why he hung on to the 4" form factor for so long -- because as he said, it's best for a PHONE. But LTE made the smart phone into something unexpected: a pocket sized computer and relegated its phone function to a relatively minor role.
Significant advances in communications tend to do that: They open up doors that many didn't even know existed.
All experts both in and out of the industry predict that 5G will do the same. The only arguments against that seem to be on this pro-Apple forum because Apple has been struggling to keep up with the industry. And, most of the arguments center around "We don't need no stinkin' 5G!" or, "So what if 5G helps me do what I have been doing a little faster". They are essentially marginalization arguments.
But, both arguments are out of sync with what world wide experts are predicting. And it's not just a casual prediction: it is causing multiple countries to sink tens and hundreds of billions of dollars into it and even spawned a divide between the U.S. and Europe over whether Chinese companies should be allowed to participate.
So, on this, I'll go with the experts. Further, I think Apple will have a 5G phone announcement long before September 2020. Probably this year. There was no other real reason for them to link back up with Qualcomm than to get their 5G modem. Now they have it and all they have to do is get it into an iPhone. And that will enable that phone to participate in the world of 5G -- whatever that is and wherever it takes us.
I have no doubt that 5G will enable new applications, but before it can do that It has to have enough coverage to make it useful and there have to be enough devices to take advantage of it. At that point, real development will start to occur, but it will take time people to develop and implement the ideas. This process will take years, not months, and remember that the final specs for 5G haven’t even been published yet and the technology that is currently being rolled out does not achieve the promised capabilities of 5G
Look at the development of 4G - it was finalized in 2008, started rolling out in 2009, but it was 2012 before the first LTE-capable iPhone was released, and even at that point the 4G networks still had a lot of holes in them. It was easily a few years after that before there were applications that truly required 4G capabilities, and even now we haven’t achieved the full potential of it. Even if the roll-out of 5G is twice as fast as 4G we still have plenty of time.
As for the capabilities, experience has taught me to be very skeptical of all the promises made by 'experts.' Invariably, they look at the maximum theoretical capabilities dictated by the specs whereas the real world capabilities come up far short. Beyond that, very rarely do any of the great uses theorized by these people ahead of time actually come to fruition, and if they do, they are years later than promised (see above).
Add to all this the fact that 5G also doesn’t penetrate buildings (or even make it through trees according to many reports). Any great new advance that requires 5G will only be usable in limited spaces outside with a clear line of site to the antenna, severely limiting its usefulness.
So no, I’m not at all worried about 5G capabilities in my smartphone. If and when there’s actually a use for them in a smartphone most smartphones, including iPhones, will have 5G modems.
Yes, the U.S. is behind in rolling out 5G (even though Verizon plans to have it in 30 cities before 2020). But, that is because of politics.
30 Cities is likely cities that all have great coverage of 4g already, I wouldn’t consider it a decent rollout until it’s at 100 cities. Also almost all goals have been missed this far, so I wouldn’t bet on that claim.
Politics is an influence since at least on the T-Mobile/ Sprint side they are waiting on the status of the pending merger before they rollout their network(s). I don’t think there is anything in particular holding back AT&T and Verizon beyond bad experience from customers thus far.
Minneapolis officially has 5G service, so it’s one of those 30. Granted it only has it in about 10 square blocks, and the speeds are about the same as 4G speeds, but we have it, for whatever it’s worth. The cellular companies are playing a marketing game; we will need to have solid coverage over the majority of the city and in a majority of the metropolitan areas in the US before 5G can even start to be developed as a technology.
It is common sense that next desirable tech jump in wireless mobile smartphone is WiFi 6 and 5G. So, anticipating 2020 iPhone with 5G will attract many to upgrade and by that time not lots of 5G coverage but enough to justify to buy 5G phone.
Totally disagree. Nobody wants WiFi 6 or 5G. As a feature, it won’t get enough people to upgrade and shorten ownership cycles.
If there was actual demand for more gigabit per second bandwidths, landline fiber rollouts would be going a lot faster, and ownership cycles for cell phones would be shorter. WiFi has long outrun cable modem or fiber service, and not many people are clamoring for that either.
I think people are happy with regular 50 megabit per second LTE as long as they can get it. LTE-A which can get up to 250 to 500 megabit per second hasn’t been enough to get people to upgrade and keep phone cycles short. What’s 5G going to to do?
If 5G came with unlimited data plans, actual unlimited, maybe that’ll get people to upgrade, but people aren’t upgrading for 5G in this scenario. They are upgrading for unlimited data.
Well, GeorgeB wants it. He’s not really clear what he’ll do with it, but he wants it, anyway. I think a lot of people will ‘want’ 5G, not because they truly need it or even know what it can do for them, rather because it’s the newest technology and it’s faster and better, so therefore they have to have it. I can only imagine what happens when they get their first 5G bill from Verizon - they’ll be looking for a way to turn it off!
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
LTE transformed the iPhone into something that not even Jobs expected. It's why he hung on to the 4" form factor for so long -- because as he said, it's best for a PHONE. But LTE made the smart phone into something unexpected: a pocket sized computer and relegated its phone function to a relatively minor role.
Significant advances in communications tend to do that: They open up doors that many didn't even know existed.
All experts both in and out of the industry predict that 5G will do the same. The only arguments against that seem to be on this pro-Apple forum because Apple has been struggling to keep up with the industry. And, most of the arguments center around "We don't need no stinkin' 5G!" or, "So what if 5G helps me do what I have been doing a little faster". They are essentially marginalization arguments.
But, both arguments are out of sync with what world wide experts are predicting. And it's not just a casual prediction: it is causing multiple countries to sink tens and hundreds of billions of dollars into it and even spawned a divide between the U.S. and Europe over whether Chinese companies should be allowed to participate.
So, on this, I'll go with the experts. Further, I think Apple will have a 5G phone announcement long before September 2020. Probably this year. There was no other real reason for them to link back up with Qualcomm than to get their 5G modem. Now they have it and all they have to do is get it into an iPhone. And that will enable that phone to participate in the world of 5G -- whatever that is and wherever it takes us.
I have no doubt that 5G will enable new applications, but before it can do that It has to have enough coverage to make it useful and there have to be enough devices to take advantage of it. At that point, real development will start to occur, but it will take time people to develop and implement the ideas. This process will take years, not months, and remember that the final specs for 5G haven’t even been published yet and the technology that is currently being rolled out does not achieve the promised capabilities of 5G
Look at the development of 4G - it was finalized in 2008, started rolling out in 2009, but it was 2012 before the first LTE-capable iPhone was released, and even at that point the 4G networks still had a lot of holes in them. It was easily a few years after that before there were applications that truly required 4G capabilities, and even now we haven’t achieved the full potential of it. Even if the roll-out of 5G is twice as fast as 4G we still have plenty of time.
As for the capabilities, experience has taught me to be very skeptical of all the promises made by 'experts.' Invariably, they look at the maximum theoretical capabilities dictated by the specs whereas the real world capabilities come up far short. Beyond that, very rarely do any of the great uses theorized by these people ahead of time actually come to fruition, and if they do, they are years later than promised (see above).
Add to all this the fact that 5G also doesn’t penetrate buildings (or even make it through trees according to many reports). Any great new advance that requires 5G will only be usable in limited spaces outside with a clear line of site to the antenna, severely limiting its usefulness.
So no, I’m not at all worried about 5G capabilities in my smartphone. If and when there’s actually a use for them in a smartphone most smartphones, including iPhones, will have 5G modems.
Yes, it is true that large scale coverage of 5G will take years instead of months. But then iPhones now last years instead of months. So, unless you trade in your phone after a year and/or live out in a remote rural area (that doesn't yet even have adequate LTE coverage!) you probably don't want to invest in a non-5G phone.
For myself, I live in a densely populated area (southern suburbs of Pittsburgh) and expect to have 5G coverage within the next year or at most two. Plus, I plan to keep whatever phone I buy for 4-5 years. So, buying a phone that can't access 5G sounds like a short sighted, dumb move.
And, I dismiss the speculative technical arguments on how 5G won't work or isn't yet ready for prime time. The hundreds of billions being poured into it undermine those arguments.
Actually what I am really looking forward to is consolidating my Comcast cable and T-Mobile cell bills into one single plan and carrier. But, I also expect that competition from 5G will force Comcast (and FiOS) to lower their exorbitant rates -- which might make keeping two carriers advantageous for the immediate future. But, having the option will be nice.
Pretty much everything about 5G is speculative at this point, so to dismiss an argument as speculative is a bit specious. The only thing concrete we have right now is a handful of 5G islands - we have one in Minneapolis, and by the reports the performance it's thoroughly underwhelming.
After reading the above 2 articles, I'm more convinced than ever that 5G phones are currently a bit of a boondoggle. The specifications are not yet complete, the actual real world capabilities are not clear, and there are major technological hurdles to providing complete coverage. Add to that the fact that none of the current 5g devices on the market are actually true 5G. Qualcomm itself even recommends putting multiple antennae in a device because your hand can block the signal if you only have one antenna. Even ignoring the arguments and debate about whether there is actually any true use for 5G capabilities in a smartphone, do you really think the first generation of devices are going to have decent performance? If designing a 5g modem were easy, there would be several on the market already. It will take at least a few, likely several generations to get it right. I would argue that buying a 5g phone this year or next year would actually be a foolish move as you are likely to get a first generation device with incomplete capabilities and/or poor performance with no network to speak of for the next 2 years.
The article touches on this, but the promise of 5G is wireless, but not necessarily mobile. it may well be able to replace broadband service eventually, but that requires the infrastructure be rolled out. Assuming that takes place, you will need to have an external antenna on your house to receive the signal since it can't penetrate the building, so you couldn't even use your phone as mobile hot spot.
Pretty much everything about 5G is speculative at this point, so to dismiss an argument as speculative is a bit specious. The only thing concrete we have right now is a handful of 5G islands - we have one in Minneapolis, and by the reports the performance it's thoroughly underwhelming.
After reading the above 2 articles, I'm more convinced than ever that 5G phones are currently a bit of a boondoggle. The specifications are not yet complete, the actual real world capabilities are not clear, and there are major technological hurdles to providing complete coverage. Add to that the fact that none of the current 5g devices on the market are actually true 5G. Qualcomm itself even recommends putting multiple antennae in a device because your hand can block the signal if you only have one antenna. Even ignoring the arguments and debate about whether there is actually any true use for 5G capabilities in a smartphone, do you really think the first generation of devices are going to have decent performance? If designing a 5g modem were easy, there would be several on the market already. It will take at least a few, likely several generations to get it right. I would argue that buying a 5g phone this year or next year would actually be a foolish move as you are likely to get a first generation device with incomplete capabilities and/or poor performance with no network to speak of for the next 2 years.
The article touches on this, but the promise of 5G is wireless, but not necessarily mobile. it may well be able to replace broadband service eventually, but that requires the infrastructure be rolled out. Assuming that takes place, you will need to have an external antenna on your house to receive the signal since it can't penetrate the building, so you couldn't even use your phone as mobile hot spot.
If you trade in your phone every year then your "it isn't ready for prime time" theory works. But not if you keep it or hand it down.
And, the "not able to penetrate a building" objection only pertains to the tightest, fastest waves. But, even if it requires an antenna to boost the signal, I would happily go there if it eliminated a cable bill.
For myself, when I sink money into new equipment, I want it to meet my needs over its expected lifespan. It is doubtful that a 4G phone purchased at the end of 2019 would be able to do that. Apple knows that. It's why they swallowed their pride and made a deal with the devil.
Pretty much everything about 5G is speculative at this point, so to dismiss an argument as speculative is a bit specious. The only thing concrete we have right now is a handful of 5G islands - we have one in Minneapolis, and by the reports the performance it's thoroughly underwhelming.
After reading the above 2 articles, I'm more convinced than ever that 5G phones are currently a bit of a boondoggle. The specifications are not yet complete, the actual real world capabilities are not clear, and there are major technological hurdles to providing complete coverage. Add to that the fact that none of the current 5g devices on the market are actually true 5G. Qualcomm itself even recommends putting multiple antennae in a device because your hand can block the signal if you only have one antenna. Even ignoring the arguments and debate about whether there is actually any true use for 5G capabilities in a smartphone, do you really think the first generation of devices are going to have decent performance? If designing a 5g modem were easy, there would be several on the market already. It will take at least a few, likely several generations to get it right. I would argue that buying a 5g phone this year or next year would actually be a foolish move as you are likely to get a first generation device with incomplete capabilities and/or poor performance with no network to speak of for the next 2 years.
The article touches on this, but the promise of 5G is wireless, but not necessarily mobile. it may well be able to replace broadband service eventually, but that requires the infrastructure be rolled out. Assuming that takes place, you will need to have an external antenna on your house to receive the signal since it can't penetrate the building, so you couldn't even use your phone as mobile hot spot.
If you trade in your phone every year then your "it isn't ready for prime time" theory works. But not if you keep it or hand it down.
And, the "not able to penetrate a building" objection only pertains to the tightest, fastest waves. But, even if it requires an antenna to boost the signal, I would happily go there if it eliminated a cable bill.
For myself, when I sink money into new equipment, I want it to meet my needs over its expected lifespan. It is doubtful that a 4G phone purchased at the end of 2019 would be able to do that. Apple knows that. It's why they swallowed their pride and made a deal with the devil.
Yes - that's what I've read. Home broadband uses would require an external antenna/cellular modem. Probably not a huge deal- we buy cable modems and dishes to get cable broadband and satellite TV service. This would be no different. You wouldn't be able to use your phone as high-speed hotspot inside the house, though.
I get not wanting to buy a phone and not have it fill your needs, but I have yet to read anything that makes me think 5G on smartphones will be anywhere near ubiquitous in the next 4 years. On the contrary, most of what I've read indicates that anything purchased in the next 2 years will likely be '1st generation' equipment that doesn't really meat all the stated capabilities, so this isn't a 'trading your phone every year' deal; I don't do that either. This is looking long term.
Pretty much everything about 5G is speculative at this point, so to dismiss an argument as speculative is a bit specious. The only thing concrete we have right now is a handful of 5G islands - we have one in Minneapolis, and by the reports the performance it's thoroughly underwhelming.
After reading the above 2 articles, I'm more convinced than ever that 5G phones are currently a bit of a boondoggle. The specifications are not yet complete, the actual real world capabilities are not clear, and there are major technological hurdles to providing complete coverage. Add to that the fact that none of the current 5g devices on the market are actually true 5G. Qualcomm itself even recommends putting multiple antennae in a device because your hand can block the signal if you only have one antenna. Even ignoring the arguments and debate about whether there is actually any true use for 5G capabilities in a smartphone, do you really think the first generation of devices are going to have decent performance? If designing a 5g modem were easy, there would be several on the market already. It will take at least a few, likely several generations to get it right. I would argue that buying a 5g phone this year or next year would actually be a foolish move as you are likely to get a first generation device with incomplete capabilities and/or poor performance with no network to speak of for the next 2 years.
The article touches on this, but the promise of 5G is wireless, but not necessarily mobile. it may well be able to replace broadband service eventually, but that requires the infrastructure be rolled out. Assuming that takes place, you will need to have an external antenna on your house to receive the signal since it can't penetrate the building, so you couldn't even use your phone as mobile hot spot.
If you trade in your phone every year then your "it isn't ready for prime time" theory works. But not if you keep it or hand it down.
And, the "not able to penetrate a building" objection only pertains to the tightest, fastest waves. But, even if it requires an antenna to boost the signal, I would happily go there if it eliminated a cable bill.
For myself, when I sink money into new equipment, I want it to meet my needs over its expected lifespan. It is doubtful that a 4G phone purchased at the end of 2019 would be able to do that. Apple knows that. It's why they swallowed their pride and made a deal with the devil.
Yes - that's what I've read. Home broadband uses would require an external antenna/cellular modem. Probably not a huge deal- we buy cable modems and dishes to get cable broadband and satellite TV service. This would be no different. You wouldn't be able to use your phone as high-speed hotspot inside the house, though.
I get not wanting to buy a phone and not have it fill your needs, but I have yet to read anything that makes me think 5G on smartphones will be anywhere near ubiquitous in the next 4 years. On the contrary, most of what I've read indicates that anything purchased in the next 2 years will likely be '1st generation' equipment that doesn't really meat all the stated capabilities, so this isn't a 'trading your phone every year' deal; I don't do that either. This is looking long term.
Yeh, I get what your saying. But living in an area where 5G is likely to be early (but not first) roll-out effects the equation for me. Plus, I always feel burned when I buy something that isn't quite up-to-snuf. So, even if it is '1st Gen equipment', I figure in 2020, 2021, 2022 or so I would prefer 1st gen to no gen.
Comments
1) The DOD has a block on Huawei assets going back to the previous administration in 2012. Maybe earlier, I forget at the moment.
2) The federal government as a whole has a newer block.
3) The US Federal government has been in Apple's top 10 buyer's list for 15 years, and possibly a lot longer.
4) Should Apple go with Huawei for a modem, products with it will get put on a no-buy list.
5) Huawei knows this.
Conclude what you want.
(As for the years old stuff (#1) -- it was "if's" and "maybe's" and "possibly in the future"... Which, being the only so called "evidence", is why the EU is calling bull. They don't want their networks set back by his nationalist, protectionist nonsense)
Maybe you should try reading this site instead of just commenting on it.
HOW DOES HE DO IT???
The one area where 5G could potentially make a difference for mobile users is not with latency or Gigabit speeds but with the increased number of connections. If there are more towers or nodes and those nodes allow more connections that could *potentially* alleviate a bottleneck at the cellular tower and actually allow more people to get decent 4G speeds. (This assumes that the backbone infrastructure underneath the tower can actually handle the amount of traffic, something that isn’t guaranteed.) It’s also not clear to me if this benefit will be limited to 5G devices or if 4G devices will benefit from this as well.
I would like to have better performance at a highly crowded venue. These technologies don’t really address poor performance at a concert or game or a festival though, right. For these things, the carrier has to bring in portable towers (or activate dormant ones), support basically all the frequencies, and then hope.
Maybe it will be better for hotels and urban areas, assuming the penetration is there.
One important limitation of 5G is that it doesn’t penetrate buildings well (The descriptions I’ve read have said that even having a tree in the way will significantly degrade performance) That would mean that hotels would be out and even being in a highly crowded area with a lot of bodies may affect the signal. Again, if allows consistent 4G speeds to more devices, people will be happy. I suspect that in many of these circumstances the underlying infrastructure will be overwhelmed, making it a moot point anyway.
But, both arguments are out of sync with what world wide experts are predicting. And it's not just a casual prediction: it is causing multiple countries to sink tens and hundreds of billions of dollars into it and even spawned a divide between the U.S. and Europe over whether Chinese companies should be allowed to participate.
So, on this, I'll go with the experts.
Further, I think Apple will have a 5G phone announcement long before September 2020. Probably this year. There was no other real reason for them to link back up with Qualcomm than to get their 5G modem. Now they have it and all they have to do is get it into an iPhone. And that will enable that phone to participate in the world of 5G -- whatever that is and wherever it takes us.
For myself, I live in a densely populated area (southern suburbs of Pittsburgh) and expect to have 5G coverage within the next year or at most two. Plus, I plan to keep whatever phone I buy for 4-5 years. So, buying a phone that can't access 5G sounds like a short sighted, dumb move.
And, I dismiss the speculative technical arguments on how 5G won't work or isn't yet ready for prime time. The hundreds of billions being poured into it undermine those arguments.
Actually what I am really looking forward to is consolidating my Comcast cable and T-Mobile cell bills into one single plan and carrier. But, I also expect that competition from 5G will force Comcast (and FiOS) to lower their exorbitant rates -- which might make keeping two carriers advantageous for the immediate future. But, having the option will be nice.
This article was posted by someone in another thread:https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-5g-everything-you-need-to-know/
This one was also linked in the above article: https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-5g-wireless-devices-will-do-that-4g-cannot/ ;
After reading the above 2 articles, I'm more convinced than ever that 5G phones are currently a bit of a boondoggle. The specifications are not yet complete, the actual real world capabilities are not clear, and there are major technological hurdles to providing complete coverage. Add to that the fact that none of the current 5g devices on the market are actually true 5G. Qualcomm itself even recommends putting multiple antennae in a device because your hand can block the signal if you only have one antenna. Even ignoring the arguments and debate about whether there is actually any true use for 5G capabilities in a smartphone, do you really think the first generation of devices are going to have decent performance? If designing a 5g modem were easy, there would be several on the market already. It will take at least a few, likely several generations to get it right. I would argue that buying a 5g phone this year or next year would actually be a foolish move as you are likely to get a first generation device with incomplete capabilities and/or poor performance with no network to speak of for the next 2 years.
The article touches on this, but the promise of 5G is wireless, but not necessarily mobile. it may well be able to replace broadband service eventually, but that requires the infrastructure be rolled out. Assuming that takes place, you will need to have an external antenna on your house to receive the signal since it can't penetrate the building, so you couldn't even use your phone as mobile hot spot.
And, the "not able to penetrate a building" objection only pertains to the tightest, fastest waves. But, even if it requires an antenna to boost the signal, I would happily go there if it eliminated a cable bill.
For myself, when I sink money into new equipment, I want it to meet my needs over its expected lifespan. It is doubtful that a 4G phone purchased at the end of 2019 would be able to do that. Apple knows that. It's why they swallowed their pride and made a deal with the devil.
I get not wanting to buy a phone and not have it fill your needs, but I have yet to read anything that makes me think 5G on smartphones will be anywhere near ubiquitous in the next 4 years. On the contrary, most of what I've read indicates that anything purchased in the next 2 years will likely be '1st generation' equipment that doesn't really meat all the stated capabilities, so this isn't a 'trading your phone every year' deal; I don't do that either. This is looking long term.