danox

avon b7 said:

danox said:

avon b7 said:

danox said:

gatorguy said:

9secondkox2 said:

I doubt apple will be pursuing 5g only with this modem. They’ll need for for fallback and likely borrow the tech, leading to some fees paid to due the minefield of 5g patents. 

But 6g… that’s likely what apple is spending their respurces on, possibly being the first to get there and be a big part of setting the standard. 

I understood that 6G was still 5 years off, minimally. Has the timeline changed? 

EDIT: 3GPP is hoping to finalize the 6G standard by the end of 2028 so that a network can be prepared for 2030 deployment. The standards group also recognized a potential "power grab" by newcomer Apple and has taken steps to neutralize it.

 https://www.lightreading.com/5g/3gpp-moving-to-prevent-power-grab-by-apple-others

Yes it’s a power grab no different than Apple Silicon being released to replace Intel, long-term if Apple wants to build certain devices the way it needs to (a smaller Apple Vision? You know the one that looks like an actual pair of glasses?) they have to leave Qualcomm the patent troll in the dust, and the troll will be kicking and screaming all the way….

Qualcomm will be getting its patent payments from Apple for a long while to come. Same as Huawei, Samsung etc. 

Apple is Five-Six years in? It took thirteen years to get rid of Intel with Apple Silicon, is it a Western problem with playing the long game? Seems to be….

Others were starting 5G development in 2009.

Apple wasn't on the cellular/modem map when everything was cooking and, more importantly, it had absolutely no plans to be either. It wasn't in the game (long or short). 

That was an Intel role. It was only when Intel failed to deliver and 5G modems were already shipping that Apple had its 'Yikes!' moment and had to publicly kiss and make up with Qualcomm. 

By acquiring the Intel division (its only way forward save for sticking with Qualcomm) it multiplied its cellular patent portfolio but is still far behind others. 

Every iPhone sold with a 5G modem (no matter who makes it) earns Huawei $2.5 from Apple. Apple also pays Huawei $0.50 for every handset with Wi-Fi 6.

Qualcomm also gets its royalties from Apple but I don't know their pricing structure.

mattinoz said:

Will be interesting if Apple drops the cellular /non cellular on iPads and adds cellular by default to other MacBooks by default using these chips then effectively use higher end modems as the cellular upsell for “pro” models..

blastdoor said:

foregoneconclusion said:

blastdoor said: The Great Depression resulted in FDR

The general population of the U.S. was smarter at that time. The current population still hasn't figured out that an anti-regulatory party isn't going to improve economic outcomes for anyone except the rich. 

I think it's important to understand that's not actually right. My grandparents were young adults who voted for FDR and their schooling ended at 8th grade. They had a lot of prejudices and misconceptions about the world. They voted for FDR not because they were geniuses, but because the alternative was Hoover. 

The real difference -- and it's critically important to understand-- between then and now is that back then there was a system for selecting presidential candidates that was mostly run by elites, not the masses. Candidates were selected by party machines in the proverbial smoky back room. That process eliminated radical candidates and presented the populace with two mostly sane and reasonable, though still importantly different, choices. 

Our problem today is that the system for nominating candidates, especially (apparently) in the Republican Party, has broken down, and deeply flawed people are able to become nominees. 

Rogue01 said:

It is embarrassing that they compare the 'speed' to a six year old iPhone 11.  Mainly because it is not any faster than most recent phones, and it has less GPU cores.

Wolfen said:

danox said:

charlesn said:

Just... wow. I'm kind of stunned. The phone, itself, is pretty much as expected. But that price point... YIKES. So the cheapest iPhone is now 40% more expensive than it was yesterday. Although, in an apples to apples comparison -- price of SE 3 128 vs 16E base model 128 -- it's a 25% hike. I'm not saying the 16E isn't worth it, fhe list of improvements over the SE is huge, but raising the price of entry into the iPhone ecosystem by 40% is a giant cojones pricing move. I'm certainly not going to question the decision, since I'm sure it was made with a ton of data supporting that this would work out okay, but I never saw this coming. 

No surprise and I will also not be a surprised with most people buying the even higher priced iPhone’s above it, over the years the marketshare enthusiasts have always said without fail, Apple should offer a cheaper device (for marketshare) but every time they do most people elect to buy the more expensive models this time will be no different.

The reason being is simple. Every time Apple placed a so-called cheap product to buy in the iPhone or iPad models. It is always at a price that's not very reasonable when compared to the other models. They keep pricing it so close to the next model that many just pony up buy that model. Only the people who really want to buy the very cheapest model offered buy it. Most others who understand specs vs cost will most likely buy the models that are a bit more expensive because they are too close the base (cheap) model in price to justify in buying.

This is where Apple is hardheaded at. You want to offer a low budget device then it needs to be low budget priced. If it's too close in price to the next model in the lineup then chances are people are going to ignore it.

I'm still using my 11 Pro Max 64GB iPhone, 16GB iPad Mini3 and late 2015 27" iMac. Cook isn't going to see a cent (yen coin) from me until prices in Japan are reasonable again.