Apple may leverage existing 5G market in South Korea with earlier launch

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple may launch its "iPhone 12" lineup in South Korea earlier than in past years to take advantage of the country's existing 5G services and users.

Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider
Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider


Although Apple hasn't announced a second fall keynote event, consensus agrees that an "iPhone 12" launch event will take place in October. According to leaker Jon Prosser, the keynote could be slated for Oct. 13, with new models shipping Oct. 23.

In past years, new iPhone models have hit shelves in South Korea about one month after they went on sale in other countries. But local telecom sources are telling The Korea Herald that Apple could release new 5G-equipped models in the country early, around late October or early November.

South Korea was the first country in the world to commercialize broadband service in 2019, The Korea Herald adds. There are about 8 million 5G users as of July 2020. That's compared to about 1.18 million 5G users in all of North America by the end of Q1 2020, according to analytics firm Omdia.

Additionally, South Korea may be one of a handful of countries to get access to new iPhone models equipped with faster mmWave service. TF Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo forecasts that all four "iPhone 12" models will get 5G compatibility, but only those sold in certain countries will get mmWave.

According to The Korea Herald, Apple's "iPhone 12" may also be the first smartphone in the country to support the faster 5G spectrum since none of Samsung's 5G devices currently do.

Apple is largely expected to release four "iPhone 12" models in 2020, including a 5.4-inch "iPhone 12 mini" and a 6.1-inch "iPhone 12." Rumors indicate that there will be two " iPhone 12 Pro" models, available in a 6.1-inch or 6.7-inch form factor.

The Cupertino tech giant is currently the number two smartphone brand in South Korea behind Samsung with a 19% share of the market, according to Counterpoint Research data.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    verne araseverne arase Posts: 460member
    Uggh.

    Apple should've sent out an announcement of the event earlier - as it is they're going to collide with Amazon's annual event.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 18
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 916member
    verne arase said:
    Uggh.

    Apple should've sent out an announcement of the event earlier - as it is they're going to collide with Amazon's annual event.
    Why would it matter?  Apple is having a product announcement.  Amazon is having a sale.  Neither of those things have anything to do with one another.  One could literally be shopping during prime day on a Mac while watching the product announcement on an iPhone, iPad, another window on the aforementioned Mac.  Besides Amazon's event is two days long.  Someone more interested in the Apple event could stop shopping for an hour or two.  It's no big deal imo. 
    bageljoeymuthuk_vanalingamAndy.HardwakeBart YBeats
  • Reply 3 of 18
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    Smart - no sense in putting expensive components in a US based iPhone that no one will use for years (potentially), whereas if South Korea has a built out 5G network, Apple must include this technology to be competitive.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 18
    tokyojimutokyojimu Posts: 529member
    “South Korea was the first country in the world to commercialize broadband service in 2019,”

    Huh?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,667member
    If you have to focus on specific markets due to possible supply constraints or model variations, such a move would make sense, although it would make much more sense to include China too. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 6 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,925member
    Fatman said:
    Smart - no sense in putting expensive components in a US based iPhone that no one will use for years (potentially), whereas if South Korea has a built out 5G network, Apple must include this technology to be competitive.
    That was my thought, too. 

    5G in this country is a joke and having a 5G phone here is pretty pointless. The main reason Apple needs to come out with a 5G version is for foreign markets. I don’t know if there are any actual uses for 5G on a phone in these markets, but at least there’s a developed network. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    avon b7 said:
    If you have to focus on specific markets due to possible supply constraints or model variations, such a move would make sense, although it would make much more sense to include China too. 
    China is a hot-button for Apple. They might offer the 5G phone there, and IMO almost certainly will, but they won't be making China their PR buddy. South Korea works for a few reasons, one of which is upstaging Samsung in its own back yard.
    Bart Ytmay
  • Reply 8 of 18
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 916member
    Fatman said:
    Smart - no sense in putting expensive components in a US based iPhone that no one will use for years (potentially), whereas if South Korea has a built out 5G network, Apple must include this technology to be competitive.
    Our infrastructure could easily be just as far along as S. Koreas... 'cept our politicians are beholden to lobbyists and their own self interests.  Over the protest of their largest carrier, the SK government opened access to telecom infrastructure to all competitors at a fair rate, which encouraged building out the network.  If one company didn't want to build in an area, another could step in and do it without being blocked by another of their competitors.  Competition.

    What we have is bribed officials who accept half-assed promises from telecom execs so that the status remains firmly quo: a snail's pace of innovation while syphoning as much money from customers as they can.
    Bart Y
  • Reply 9 of 18
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 18
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,667member
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    I think that's not exactly applicable for this scenario. You only have to reach the people. If there are already roads then ICT coverage can be deployed. It's largely fibre to the urban areas and once there, there are some novel approaches to moving the infrastructure around. In my little out of the way town, fibre is being deployed through the existing sewage network. In the mountains around me, it is being routed through the existing posts for fixed line copper infrastructure.

    The question is if it is worth it for the carriers to spend the money for potentially little return.

    This is where government comes in. Where I am, fast link Internet access (5G among the options) is considered essential to avoid what is known as the digital divide.

    Companies are basically required to get fast access to virtually the entire population of the country. They are also required to make a lot of their infrastructure available for competitors to use. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 11 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,925member
    avon b7 said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    I think that's not exactly applicable for this scenario. You only have to reach the people. If there are already roads then ICT coverage can be deployed. It's largely fibre to the urban areas and once there, there are some novel approaches to moving the infrastructure around. In my little out of the way town, fibre is being deployed through the existing sewage network. In the mountains around me, it is being routed through the existing posts for fixed line copper infrastructure.

    The question is if it is worth it for the carriers to spend the money for potentially little return.

    This is where government comes in. Where I am, fast link Internet access (5G among the options) is considered essential to avoid what is known as the digital divide.

    Companies are basically required to get fast access to virtually the entire population of the country. They are also required to make a lot of their infrastructure available for competitors to use. 
    There are a lot of people in this country that feel the same way, unfortunately the telecom companies have a very strong lobby and we end up with what we have now. 
    watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 18
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 916member
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 13 of 18
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,328member
    CloudTalkin said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    CloudTalkin said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.

    Do you use candles?   Or, have you progressed to gas lighting yet?
  • Reply 15 of 18
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,328member
    tmay said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.

    Do you use candles?   Or, have you progressed to gas lighting yet?
    https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map?icid=MGPO_TMO_U_NETWORK_6JNSNCCHDTH4ZJWN22046
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 16 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.

    Do you use candles?   Or, have you progressed to gas lighting yet?
    https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map?icid=MGPO_TMO_U_NETWORK_6JNSNCCHDTH4ZJWN22046
    Well color me surprised. I have pretty extensive 5G coverage (T-Mo customer) according to that map with both my home and primary business in the 5G zone. I didn't expect it. Thanks, that might factor in with an upcoming phone purchase.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,328member
    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.

    Do you use candles?   Or, have you progressed to gas lighting yet?
    https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map?icid=MGPO_TMO_U_NETWORK_6JNSNCCHDTH4ZJWN22046
    Well color me surprised. I have pretty extensive 5G coverage (T-Mo customer) according to that map with both my home and primary business in the 5G zone. I didn't expect it. Thanks, that might factor in with an upcoming phone purchase.
    Pretty sure that most of that 5G coverage available today is just repurposed 4G LTE lowband radios, so don't expect all much of a performance increase today, but Sprint owned spectrum in the 2.5 to 3.5 Ghz midband, so T-Mobile will have an advantage over Verizon and AT&T in the short run, as they have to wait for an FCC Auction.

    I wouldn't run right out and buy a new Pixel 5, as an example, until someone else on the same network confirms that you'll benefit from 5G midband coverage in locations of importance to you, if that is what is driving your upgrade. T-Mobile is only upgrading towers at the rate of about 1000 a month, and given that their are more that 200,000 towers to upgrade, and tens of thousands more to install, 5G midband coverage will be fairly scare for a while.

    YMMV


    This is an update from September 2, 2020

    https://www.tmonews.com/2020/09/t-mobile-2-5ghz-5g-expands-81-new-cities-across-us/

    Here's an update from September 29, 2020;

    https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-s-2-5-ghz-live-210-locations-for-5g

    https://www.t-mobile.com/news/network/supercharged-midband-5g

    Florida 

    • Dunedin
    • Key Vista
    • Ridgecrest  
    • Azalea Park
    • Holiday
    • Progress Village
    • Westchase
    I wasn't able to actually find a complete list of all 210 midband sites. It looks like there are three different lists, and they are additive. That's completely messed up marketing. 

    I think that the very first sites were NYC, Philadelphia and New Jersey.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 18 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    Fatman said:
    The US has exactly 100x the land mass of South Korea. Imagine all the 5g towers that need to be installed and different telecoms will each need to build their own (mostly). Far from the national efforts other countries have. It will be a technology for densely populated cities, and the telecoms first priority is to build out to maximize profits ... not for ubiquitous coverage ... that may never happen.
    You're argument only applies to mmWave 5G.  That does require a lot of nodes on towers.  Our extended land mass can (and will) be covered primarily by Sub 6 (mid and low band) 5G. 

    Ubiquitous coverage is entirely possible if fed & local governments act in the best interest of their citizens.  Make internet a utility just like power and water.  Allow local and national competition for infrastructure build-out and most importantly, local/national competition for service.  That being said, you're not entirely wrong about ubiquitous coverage possibly not happening.  Lobbying money and political self interest are impediments that may be impossible to overcome.
    I live in the West.

    We will never have anything "ubiquitous", including low band. There are too many areas that are very low population density, and even highways through these areas will continue to have spotty reception. In those areas, satellite service for residents will be the only option, and it will be of low bandwidth and high latency, but better than nothing.

    Do you use candles?   Or, have you progressed to gas lighting yet?
    https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/coverage-map?icid=MGPO_TMO_U_NETWORK_6JNSNCCHDTH4ZJWN22046

    My point was in response to your 'we'll never have anything ... because its rural' lament,

    Decades ago people in rural areas faced the same dilemma -- the electric companies weren't going to run lines out there because it wasn't profitable enough for them.
    Our government stepped in and declared that "Rural lives matter!" and pushed the electrification of all of the country through things like the TVA.   I think that they should be doing the same for internet access  (using the best technology for the job).   They wouldn't do it to be nice.   But to push the country into the future.   Like other countries have done.

    As a suburbanite I wouldn't benefit from the push.   But still, I think our government should push it out there (using private carriers to do the work) as an investment in the country's future.
Sign In or Register to comment.