Apple's brawny 5G iPhone family will require larger, pricey motherboards

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 99
    One thing’s for sure: Apple won’t be adding $400 for 5G. We’re not going to see a $1,099 iPhone 11S, a $1,399 11S Pro or a $1,499 11S Pro Max. 
    Hah! I forgot next year should be an S cycle year. Be interesting to see what they do. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 99
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,227member
    DAalseth said:
    ITGUYINSD said:
    I've yet to be convinced that this whole "5G thing" isn't really a fleecing of consumers because carriers (and phone manufacturers) have run out of ways to innovate and need a revenue stream in the coming years.

    It's going to be spotty coverage.  It doesn't penetrate buildings well.  Short distance.  And, most of all, who needs that sort of speed on a phone?  You're not going to watch a 2 hour movie any faster!  Not to say some people won't have some reason to validate ridiculously fast speeds on a phone, but for 99% of us, isn't the existing 4GLTE system plenty fast?   If the carriers just worked on filling in the dead spots for that, who needs 5G?  The other day, on AT&T, I was getting 100 down/50 up.  Why would I need anything faster on my iPhone?

    And now, 5G devices will be more expensive, bigger, hotter, etc.  Not convinced.

    Exactly right. And that’s why I’m getting an 11. Here in the land of heavy rain, thick forests, and long distances, it will be a looooong time before we get 5G, and even then I don’t expect much if any benefit. (Heck, i still run into spots of 3G around here.) I’ll use my 11 for 3-5 years and then see what things look like. If I need a big or fast download, nearly every office, coffee shop, or house around here has Shaw Open wifi. I’m very much not waiting for, or even that excited about 5G. I see through the hype.
    I'll be staying with my iPhone 8+ for awhile longer. No big rush. My heavy duty work is on my 5K iMac even if I have an iPad Pro. I have Rogers for my cell and everything else is Telus.
    I agree with you guys. I had the iPhone X Max and traded in for the iPhone 11 Max Pro and couldn’t be happier. Rarely do I encounter a dead zone and its download speeds are more than adequate for me. 5G will clearly be more expensive (Apple and the carriers), but to be honest, if Apple was to redesign of the 2020 model, I still may choose to upgrade.
    edited November 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 99
    Lots of hand-wringing and speculation here over the hand-wringing and speculation of an analyst who has often been wrong in the past.
  • Reply 44 of 99
    frantisek said:
    lkrupp said:
    tht said:
    Sounds like Apple could wait until 2021 for a 5G phone. Sheesh. It is a lose-lose-lose. More power consumption, means more heat, means bigger battery, means bigger devices, leading to a more expensive phone, for a cellular functionality that I won’t really experience unless I’m packed in a room with 50,000 of my closest friends. 

    Is 5 nm going be enough to make 5G functionality worthwhile?
    And remember that other 5G phone makers are experiencing the exact same issues. This is not an Apple exclusive. 5G is apparently a battery hog right now and it looks like Apple’s penchant for thinness has bumped up against engineering reality when it comes to 5G. We’ll see how this pans out but Apple has pulled a rabbit out of its hat a number of times in the past. It also points out that the Achilles Heel of all these great inventions is battery technology itself which doesn’t seem to be making as much progress as is needed. Pushing electrons around in a circuit is an almost 200 year old endeavor with Volta inventing the first true battery in 1800 . The chemistry involved is difficult and sometimes dangerous as smartphone and laptop owners have found out the hard way. Watch one of those videos where e-cig vapers have their pants blow up.
    First battery was know at early medieval age or even earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery
    The article you linked to explains that while there was a theory it may have been a battery this has been disproven. On several occasions. 
  • Reply 45 of 99
    gilly33 said:
    One thing’s for sure: Apple won’t be adding $400 for 5G. We’re not going to see a $1,099 iPhone 11S, a $1,399 11S Pro or a $1,499 11S Pro Max. 
    Hah! I forgot next year should be an S cycle year. Be interesting to see what they do. 
    It is, but with rumors claiming the notch will be smaller, the bezels smaller and other design changes, along with the new sizes 5.4/6.7” displays, the 6.1 switching to OLED—and of course the 5G support—I actually expect them to go straight to 12. I only wrote 11S to be clear I meant 2020 and not 2021. 
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 46 of 99
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 253member
    I really would not want one of those towers in my neighbourhood. I measured the radiation coming out of a 4G mast opposite a shopping centre (as I walked out the shopping mall), and it was shockingly high - the highest level I have measured anywhere - and this is not something next to your body, but coming from a top a building on the other side of the street. Imagine the people exposed to this everyday, sitting in their offices, being radiated 24 x 7!?  And that was 4G.
  • Reply 47 of 99
    sdw2001 said:
    Why would the 5G phones be “brawny?”  
    Why would you write a comment asking a question without reading the article? I assume that’s what you did, since the article answers your question.
    muthuk_vanalingamMplsP
  • Reply 48 of 99
    I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 
  • Reply 49 of 99
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,681member
    Yup. Definitely seems like a lose-lose-lose proposition. More expensive, worse battery life, larger, more complex all for capabilities no one really needs and virtually no one has access to. Where can I sign up?

    There is no reason to pay a premium for a 5G phone right now, unless you’re one of those people for whom it’s important to have the latest tech. Even if you want to ‘future proof’ your purchase, the technology is still evolving, so you’ll be stuck with a device that performs worse than future devices. If you ask the vast majority of users whether they would pay an extra $400 for a 5G phone they would say No in a heartbeat. 

    The only reason for Apple to make a 5G phone right now is simply to keep up with the other makers so they can keep their image up. 

    I have yet to see a true use of 5G that is relevant to cell phones. 5G‘s benefits are going to be primarily with other devices besides cell phones for the near-term, and for those who are fretting that the U.S. is falling behind, there’s nothing that says the carriers need a 5G iPhone before they upgrade the networks. Also, I’m pretty sure my LTE iPhone will continue to work just fine. Beyond that, since much of the upgrades needed for 5G affect the infrastructure backbone, 4G/LTE users will likely se benefits, too. 

    No thanks, I’ll let someone else pay the extra $400 for a feature they can’t use but compromises the performance of their device. 
  • Reply 50 of 99
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    wozwoz said:
    I really would not want one of those towers in my neighbourhood. I measured the radiation coming out of a 4G mast opposite a shopping centre (as I walked out the shopping mall), and it was shockingly high - the highest level I have measured anywhere - and this is not something next to your body, but coming from a top a building on the other side of the street. Imagine the people exposed to this everyday, sitting in their offices, being radiated 24 x 7!?  And that was 4G.
    Towers for 4G and earlier blasted their signal in all directions (omnidirectionally), but 5G promises to electronically steer (beamform) the signal only in the direction of the user. So theoretically, there is less "splatter" to non-users (such as yourself walking by a tower) and more energy to the user.

    This technology is definitely needed with mmWave frequencies (the speedy portion of 5G) that will already have poor line-of-sight attenuation (due to rain, walls, plants, etc.).
    netmage
  • Reply 51 of 99
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,396member
    larryjw said:
    I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 
    If implementation works out, 5G means much faster speeds, much lower latency, and the ability to connect vastly more devices. Downloading movies faster isn't really what 5G would be about. Once you're able to download a high-resolution movie faster than you can watch it, the extra speed doesn't really mean anything to you.

    5G is going to be about the things that haven't been invented yet. When iPhone 1 was introduced, it didn't even have GPS built in. Then they added it. Apple farmed out maps to Google at first, until they realized that Google was using location information to do more things than deliver a GPS map program. The whole abrupt Apple maps introduction/fiasco happened precisely because even Apple hadn't initially realized the full implications of putting an active GPS device in everyone's pocket. Then they realized this add-on tech was going to be a core function. Now a very few short years later, a selling point for iPhones is that Apple is more attentive about making sure you can prevent all the various sundry apps loaded on your device from using your location data without your knowledge or permission, because lots of people have thought of new and interesting ways to use location data that didn't even exist a few years ago. 

    So if 5G delivers huge bandwidth, extremely low latency, and the ability to simultaneously connect a huge number of devices, you suddenly have the ability to have lots of separate devices doing things in concert, in real time and orchestrated precisely. Thinking about those GPS maps, consider the following. Right now, if you're driving with a GPS app delivering your proposed route, you can get pretty good ETA info, and in cities that have it, you can get traffic information baked in. If a jam forms up ahead and it gets big and slow enough, your map program will offer an alternative route. Pretty cool, but it's still based on rudimentary data. There's a traffic jam on the route slowing traffic to below a certain speed range. At some threshold, the mapping app will generate an alternate route, based mostly on existing stock info on traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Also, everyone else will get the same info at the same time, causing lots of people to choose the same alternate route, creating a second traffic jam. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

    That scenario with 5G could be very different. The cars that get into the accident instantly relay that info outward. So do most of the cars that have to stop behind the accident. Alternate routes start popping up in real time. If multiple alternates are available, different cars will get different recommendations, creating optimal distributed routing around the accident, minimizing secondary traffic jams. Add an increasing percentage of self-driving cars that respond instantly to these changes, and traffic becomes a whole new experience. That's just an obvious use case. It's the stuff that few or no people have thought of yet that will be truly remarkable.

    Of course, there will also be the unintended consequences along with the sociopathic implementations that we'll also have to deal with, but there you go.
    edited November 2019 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 52 of 99
    netmagenetmage Posts: 314member
    Too many here are still conflating 5G with mmWave and higher speeds as if that is a it offers. 

    1. 5G supports all the existing frequencies and the same range as 4g, but with lower latency and more devices at lower speeds, supporting an IoT future and reducing congestion impacts in crowded spots like sports stadiums.
    2. 5G supports mmWave which provides for higher speeds but much shorter range, and will likely only be rolled out in urban areas where high population density will get the most advantage return, but will make little.difference to individual end users who will still be limited by Internet throughput and server capabilities at the other end. 

    BTW, I have coax cable internet at 250Mbps down, not 10 - all fiber would get me is faster uploads.
    edited November 2019 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 53 of 99
    netmagenetmage Posts: 314member
    BTW, I have coax cable internet at 259Mbps down, not 10 - all fiber would get me is faster uploads.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 54 of 99
    AI_liasAI_lias Posts: 428member
    tht said:
    Sounds like Apple could wait until 2021 for a 5G phone. Sheesh. It is a lose-lose-lose. More power consumption, means more heat, means bigger battery, means bigger devices, leading to a more expensive phone, for a cellular functionality that I won’t really experience unless I’m packed in a room with 50,000 of my closest friends. 

    Is 5 nm going be enough to make 5G functionality worthwhile?
    Don't forget more and more powerful radiation for the users' brains.
  • Reply 55 of 99
    sdw2001 said:
    Why would the 5G phones be “brawny?”  
    Wait, isn’t that a paper towel??
  • Reply 56 of 99
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    Yup. Definitely seems like a lose-lose-lose proposition. More expensive, worse battery life, larger, more complex all for capabilities no one really needs and virtually no one has access to. Where can I sign up?

    There is no reason to pay a premium for a 5G phone right now, unless you’re one of those people for whom it’s important to have the latest tech. Even if you want to ‘future proof’ your purchase, the technology is still evolving, so you’ll be stuck with a device that performs worse than future devices. If you ask the vast majority of users whether they would pay an extra $400 for a 5G phone they would say No in a heartbeat. 

    The only reason for Apple to make a 5G phone right now is simply to keep up with the other makers so they can keep their image up. 

    I have yet to see a true use of 5G that is relevant to cell phones. 5G‘s benefits are going to be primarily with other devices besides cell phones for the near-term, and for those who are fretting that the U.S. is falling behind, there’s nothing that says the carriers need a 5G iPhone before they upgrade the networks. Also, I’m pretty sure my LTE iPhone will continue to work just fine. Beyond that, since much of the upgrades needed for 5G affect the infrastructure backbone, 4G/LTE users will likely se benefits, too. 

    No thanks, I’ll let someone else pay the extra $400 for a feature they can’t use but compromises the performance of their device. 
    While new technology always starts out at premium prices, do not mistake the U.S. where 5G technology is being blocked for political reasons for the rest of the world where it is racing ahead.  

    True, today 5G has limited viability in most areas.  That will change quickly and anyone holding an LTE phone will be left behind,  It's one of the reasons why Apple dropped from a 7% market share in China to 5% as China rolls out nationwide 5G coverage. 

    No, rolling out a 5G phone is not keeping up "with the other makers so they can keep their image up", it is keeping up with technology.
    But you are correct that your "LTE iPhone will continue to work just fine".  But then so does my Core 2 Duo laptop and it's modem port -- but it's uses are limited.   Your choice.
  • Reply 57 of 99
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    AppleZulu said:
    larryjw said:
    I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 
    If implementation works out, 5G means much faster speeds, much lower latency, and the ability to connect vastly more devices. Downloading movies faster isn't really what 5G would be about. Once you're able to download a high-resolution movie faster than you can watch it, the extra speed doesn't really mean anything to you.

    5G is going to be about the things that haven't been invented yet. When iPhone 1 was introduced, it didn't even have GPS built in. Then they added it. Apple farmed out maps to Google at first, until they realized that Google was using location information to do more things than deliver a GPS map program. The whole abrupt Apple maps introduction/fiasco happened precisely because even Apple hadn't initially realized the full implications of putting an active GPS device in everyone's pocket. Then they realized this add-on tech was going to be a core function. Now a very few short years later, a selling point for iPhones is that Apple is more attentive about making sure you can prevent all the various sundry apps loaded on your device aren't using your location data without your knowledge or permission, because lots of people have thought of new and interesting ways to use location data that didn't even exist a few years ago. 

    So if 5G delivers huge bandwidth, extremely low latency, and the ability to simultaneously connect a huge number of devices, you suddenly have the ability to have lots of separate devices doing things in concert, in real time and orchestrated precisely. Thinking about those GPS maps, consider the following. Right now, if you're driving with a GPS app delivering your proposed route, you can get pretty good ETA info, and in cities that have it, you can get traffic information baked in. If a jam forms up ahead and it gets big and slow enough, your map program will offer an alternative route. Pretty cool, but it's still based on rudimentary data. There's a traffic jam on the route slowing traffic to below a certain speed range. At some threshold, the mapping app will generate an alternate route, based mostly on existing stock info on traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Also, everyone else will get the same info at the same time, causing lots of people to choose the same alternate route, creating a second traffic jam. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

    That scenario with 5G could be very different. The cars that get into the accident instantly relay that info outward. So do most of the cars that have to stop behind the accident. Alternate routes start popping up in real time. If multiple alternates are available, different cars will get different recommendations, creating optimal distributed routing around the accident, minimizing secondary traffic jams. Add an increasing percentage of self-driving cars that respond instantly to these changes, and traffic becomes a whole new experience. That's just an obvious use case. It's the stuff that few or no people have thought of yet that will be truly remarkable.

    Of course, there will also be the unintended consequences along with the sociopathic implementations that we'll also have to deal with, but there you go.
    Well said and true!
    Historically major advances in communications technology have changed computing in profound and unexpected ways.  Those who judge it based on today's uses are left behind in the dust.  As you mentioned:  5G is not about downloading movies faster - although that is typically how it is portrayed and compared in the media and by those with limited vision.
  • Reply 58 of 99
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,396member
    MplsP said:
    Yup. Definitely seems like a lose-lose-lose proposition. More expensive, worse battery life, larger, more complex all for capabilities no one really needs and virtually no one has access to. Where can I sign up?

    There is no reason to pay a premium for a 5G phone right now, unless you’re one of those people for whom it’s important to have the latest tech. Even if you want to ‘future proof’ your purchase, the technology is still evolving, so you’ll be stuck with a device that performs worse than future devices. If you ask the vast majority of users whether they would pay an extra $400 for a 5G phone they would say No in a heartbeat. 

    The only reason for Apple to make a 5G phone right now is simply to keep up with the other makers so they can keep their image up. 

    I have yet to see a true use of 5G that is relevant to cell phones. 5G‘s benefits are going to be primarily with other devices besides cell phones for the near-term, and for those who are fretting that the U.S. is falling behind, there’s nothing that says the carriers need a 5G iPhone before they upgrade the networks. Also, I’m pretty sure my LTE iPhone will continue to work just fine. Beyond that, since much of the upgrades needed for 5G affect the infrastructure backbone, 4G/LTE users will likely se benefits, too. 

    No thanks, I’ll let someone else pay the extra $400 for a feature they can’t use but compromises the performance of their device. 
    While new technology always starts out at premium prices, do not mistake the U.S. where 5G technology is being blocked for political reasons for the rest of the world where it is racing ahead.  

    True, today 5G has limited viability in most areas.  That will change quickly and anyone holding an LTE phone will be left behind,  It's one of the reasons why Apple dropped from a 7% market share in China to 5% as China rolls out nationwide 5G coverage. 

    No, rolling out a 5G phone is not keeping up "with the other makers so they can keep their image up", it is keeping up with technology.
    But you are correct that your "LTE iPhone will continue to work just fine".  But then so does my Core 2 Duo laptop and it's modem port -- but it's uses are limited.   Your choice.
    Indeed. It is a little fascinating to read the "I see no use for this" commentary on an Apple-centric message board. Apple's history is replete with hugely successful things that other people initially saw as useless or irrelevant. Steve Jobs' legend is built on the creation of things people didn't know they needed. I suppose the fact that many (most?) people can't see it until it's created and becomes popular is precisely why a company like Apple can be so successful.

    The creation of electric utilities was probably initially seen by many as both dangerous and largely unnecessary. Even the early supporters of it at the time probably couldn't see any usefulness much beyond electric lights. Maybe radios, but you could get batteries for those, so you know. Who would've thought that there would be whole-house heat without coal or oil furnaces, televisions, kitchen appliances, air-conditioners, widespread and affordable use of telephones (built on the same infrastructure for electrical distribution), cable TV (built on the same infrastructure for electric and telephone lines), computers, and the list goes on. The home insulation industry exists because of electrification. Heck, for that matter, so does indoor plumbing. Pipes freeze and burst in the winter if you can't keep the whole house warm. If you can't consistently bring water in and send it back out, the privy will have to stay outside, thank you.

    Still, even without having the imagination to see exactly what a new thing like 5G could usher in, it's still a little mystifying to see the intellectual conservatism that yields confident declarations that such a thing is pointless. 

    Here's a little financial tip: it is possible to become wealthy by making bets with the people who make declarations that are variations on the idea that 'everything that can be invented has already been invented.'
    edited November 2019 muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 59 of 99
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,681member
    AppleZulu said:
    larryjw said:
    I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 
    If implementation works out, 5G means much faster speeds, much lower latency, and the ability to connect vastly more devices. Downloading movies faster isn't really what 5G would be about. Once you're able to download a high-resolution movie faster than you can watch it, the extra speed doesn't really mean anything to you.

    5G is going to be about the things that haven't been invented yet. When iPhone 1 was introduced, it didn't even have GPS built in. Then they added it. Apple farmed out maps to Google at first, until they realized that Google was using location information to do more things than deliver a GPS map program. The whole abrupt Apple maps introduction/fiasco happened precisely because even Apple hadn't initially realized the full implications of putting an active GPS device in everyone's pocket. Then they realized this add-on tech was going to be a core function. Now a very few short years later, a selling point for iPhones is that Apple is more attentive about making sure you can prevent all the various sundry apps loaded on your device aren't using your location data without your knowledge or permission, because lots of people have thought of new and interesting ways to use location data that didn't even exist a few years ago. 

    So if 5G delivers huge bandwidth, extremely low latency, and the ability to simultaneously connect a huge number of devices, you suddenly have the ability to have lots of separate devices doing things in concert, in real time and orchestrated precisely. Thinking about those GPS maps, consider the following. Right now, if you're driving with a GPS app delivering your proposed route, you can get pretty good ETA info, and in cities that have it, you can get traffic information baked in. If a jam forms up ahead and it gets big and slow enough, your map program will offer an alternative route. Pretty cool, but it's still based on rudimentary data. There's a traffic jam on the route slowing traffic to below a certain speed range. At some threshold, the mapping app will generate an alternate route, based mostly on existing stock info on traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Also, everyone else will get the same info at the same time, causing lots of people to choose the same alternate route, creating a second traffic jam. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

    That scenario with 5G could be very different. The cars that get into the accident instantly relay that info outward. So do most of the cars that have to stop behind the accident. Alternate routes start popping up in real time. If multiple alternates are available, different cars will get different recommendations, creating optimal distributed routing around the accident, minimizing secondary traffic jams. Add an increasing percentage of self-driving cars that respond instantly to these changes, and traffic becomes a whole new experience. That's just an obvious use case. It's the stuff that few or no people have thought of yet that will be truly remarkable.

    Of course, there will also be the unintended consequences along with the sociopathic implementations that we'll also have to deal with, but there you go.
    Well said and true!
    Historically major advances in communications technology have changed computing in profound and unexpected ways.  Those who judge it based on today's uses are left behind in the dust.  As you mentioned:  5G is not about downloading movies faster - although that is typically how it is portrayed and compared in the media and by those with limited vision.
    All of this may be true, but it completely ignores the fact that the vast majority applies to non-smartphone applications and there is little to nothing that requires your smartphone to have 5G capability at this point. It's interesting how the debate on this mirrors politics in the country right now - completely black and white with no room for grey. Everyone assumes that anyone who isn't 110% for 5G in every possible device as soon as humanly possible is automatically a total luddite (or an intellectual conservative) that is to myopic to see beyond dinnertime. Nowhere in my post did I say 5G shouldn't roll out. Nowhere did I say that there would never be any uses for it. Nowhere did I say smartphones should never have 5G capability. What I said is at this time (and for the near future) there are virtually no benefits to adding it to a smartphone and there are significant drawbacks. If you look at the history of tech evolution, this is abundantly clear. The rollouts always take longer than promised, the capabilities are always less than promised, and the actual uses are never what people initially envision. Look at 4G/LTE - even now we have not fully realized the promises made a decade ago. Looking at that history, the pace of the rollout so far in 2019 and the average life of a smartphone, I have absolutely no concerns about any smartphone being 'left behind' by 5G. 


    edited November 2019 thtmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 60 of 99
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,396member
    MplsP said:
    AppleZulu said:
    larryjw said:
    I can’t think of a technology more expense and less useful, even in the long run, than 5G. 
    If implementation works out, 5G means much faster speeds, much lower latency, and the ability to connect vastly more devices. Downloading movies faster isn't really what 5G would be about. Once you're able to download a high-resolution movie faster than you can watch it, the extra speed doesn't really mean anything to you.

    5G is going to be about the things that haven't been invented yet. When iPhone 1 was introduced, it didn't even have GPS built in. Then they added it. Apple farmed out maps to Google at first, until they realized that Google was using location information to do more things than deliver a GPS map program. The whole abrupt Apple maps introduction/fiasco happened precisely because even Apple hadn't initially realized the full implications of putting an active GPS device in everyone's pocket. Then they realized this add-on tech was going to be a core function. Now a very few short years later, a selling point for iPhones is that Apple is more attentive about making sure you can prevent all the various sundry apps loaded on your device aren't using your location data without your knowledge or permission, because lots of people have thought of new and interesting ways to use location data that didn't even exist a few years ago. 

    So if 5G delivers huge bandwidth, extremely low latency, and the ability to simultaneously connect a huge number of devices, you suddenly have the ability to have lots of separate devices doing things in concert, in real time and orchestrated precisely. Thinking about those GPS maps, consider the following. Right now, if you're driving with a GPS app delivering your proposed route, you can get pretty good ETA info, and in cities that have it, you can get traffic information baked in. If a jam forms up ahead and it gets big and slow enough, your map program will offer an alternative route. Pretty cool, but it's still based on rudimentary data. There's a traffic jam on the route slowing traffic to below a certain speed range. At some threshold, the mapping app will generate an alternate route, based mostly on existing stock info on traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Also, everyone else will get the same info at the same time, causing lots of people to choose the same alternate route, creating a second traffic jam. Lather, rinse and repeat. 

    That scenario with 5G could be very different. The cars that get into the accident instantly relay that info outward. So do most of the cars that have to stop behind the accident. Alternate routes start popping up in real time. If multiple alternates are available, different cars will get different recommendations, creating optimal distributed routing around the accident, minimizing secondary traffic jams. Add an increasing percentage of self-driving cars that respond instantly to these changes, and traffic becomes a whole new experience. That's just an obvious use case. It's the stuff that few or no people have thought of yet that will be truly remarkable.

    Of course, there will also be the unintended consequences along with the sociopathic implementations that we'll also have to deal with, but there you go.
    Well said and true!
    Historically major advances in communications technology have changed computing in profound and unexpected ways.  Those who judge it based on today's uses are left behind in the dust.  As you mentioned:  5G is not about downloading movies faster - although that is typically how it is portrayed and compared in the media and by those with limited vision.
    All of this may be true, but it completely ignores the fact that the vast majority applies to non-smartphone applications and there is little to nothing that requires your smartphone to have 5G capability at this point. It's interesting how the debate on this mirrors politics in the country right now - completely black and white with no room for grey. Everyone assumes that anyone who isn't 110% for 5G in every possible device as soon as humanly possible is automatically a total luddite (or an intellectual conservative) that is to myopic to see beyond dinnertime. Nowhere in my post did I say 5G shouldn't roll out. Nowhere did I say that there would never be any uses for it. Nowhere did I say smartphones should never have 5G capability. What I said is at this time (and for the near future) there are virtually no benefits to adding it to a smartphone and there are significant drawbacks. If you look at the history of tech evolution, this is abundantly clear. The rollouts always take longer than promised, the capabilities are always less than promised, and the actual uses are never what people initially envision. Look at 4G/LTE - even now we have not fully realized the promises made a decade ago. Looking at that history, the pace of the rollout so far in 2019 and the average life of a smartphone, I have absolutely no concerns about any smartphone being 'left behind' by 5G. 


    Sure, but the utility for 5G on phones doesn't emerge until it's available on phones. That's exactly the case demonstrated by my earlier reference to iPhone adding GPS as a feature. That example also demonstrated a case where Apple waited longer than they should have to realize the importance of that technology. It's quite typical for them not to get too worked up about being first with a particular feature, preferring instead to 'get it right.' Nonetheless, with GPS, they had to ditch Google in a hurry, and introduce Apple maps before it was ready, just to catch up with a rapidly growing location-based marketplace. So with 5G, they don't need to be the first ones pushing out hardware, but they can't afford to just sit on it and wait a few years to see what people do with it.

    So saying "the vast majority [of 5G utility] applies to non-smartphone applications and there is little to nothing that requires your smartphone to have 5G capability at this point" is very much an intellectually conservative stance to take on the subject. Your statement is only true so long as smartphones don't have 5G hardware. The 5G infrastructure is coming, and soon. I'm o.k that my current device doesn't have the feature, but I'd be concerned if Apple wasn't already loading it into the pipeline. GPS was added to iPhone in 2008, and Apple Maps pushed out both prematurely and way too late in 2012. The intervening four years saw the proliferation of the use of location data emerge in a decidedly non-Apple way. Apple booted google maps and rolled out Apple maps because they realized they were already way behind, and even though their own maps weren't ready, they couldn't make location services (and a privacy- and security-based implementation of it) a core part of iOS and still have Google right in the middle of it. 5G is going to be a big deal, and they can't afford to sit back for a few years to decide how they want to get into it. 

    P.S. Seriously. Smartphone tech that is already ubiquitous didn't exist thirteen years ago. Think about that. In 2007, Blackberry was the smartphone king, and served primarily a business niche market. The kids who had cellphones were texting each other using number keypads, and they were getting into trouble because their texting volume was blowing out their parents' phone plans, which had a monthly cap on the number of text messages. A kid born just before iPhones came out is just now old enough for her Bat Mitzvah. The timeline between "emerging technology" and being ubiquitous is very, very short.
    edited November 2019 GeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.