k2kw

It's a little ironic that Apple is partnering with the Wall Street journal considering Daniel Eran Dilger recently wrote in 
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/11/no-apples-licensing-of-itunes-airplay-2-isnt-a-strategy-reversal-in-any-way

"A primary reason why Apple —a fantastically more profitable company than Microsoft —has such a low comparative stock valuation this winter is a series of incorrect stories—many from the Wall Street Journal—about China and the iPhone XR failing Apple as unsalable albeit also being its popular first-place iPhone sales leader, over the last two quarters where Apple has actually been delivering massive growth in Services that just weeks ago propelled the company to the world's first trillion dollar valuation. "

I wonder how many of Apple's new news partners have been attacked for "fits of historonic gibberish"

jbdragon said:

Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.

I have a 7+ with Qualcomm modem and a 8+ with intel.   The Qualcomm is definitely better.    When Cook comes out and says the new iphone is "the best iphone ever made" it a load of crap.    I have absolutely no interest in upgrading because of the modem situation.    Heard a lot of talk around here how the QualComm modems make the iphone so expensive, but no that they have Intel modems the prices are even higher.   Unfortunately google can't seem to make a half way decent phone so I feel stuck.

maciekskontakt said:

Investors care about their dividends - not about innovation. That is how Microsoft operates with its coninuous less than controlled changes to interfaces and products in order to impress market with "change" and generate revenue. Did it pay off? They would care about innovation if there was no dividends but share value grrowth only and that is how Jobs understood this.

Many expect Q2 and maybe Q3 to be down this year.   so Cook probably has a year to turn things around - especially in China.   because if not then big, institutional investors could get mad at the board.

rotateleftbyte said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.

Those column inches will be read by those on Wall St that speak out of what they sit on and APPL will get marked down accordingly.

The shorters will make a few billion in the process.

That is the risk that Apple has to face up to. Not us the customer but us, the stockholder are the people they serve.

I see a lean couple of years for Apple from September 2019 to September 2021.

If I were Tim Cook (and I'm glad I'm not) I'd be making sure that there was a lot of other product ready to go on sale until they get a full 5G (ratified to the standard) phone on the market.

But once again, Wall St will ignore everything but the iPhone sales (or lack of...) but at least a steady stream of new product that is not a Phone will keep us (customers) relatively happy and us(stockholders) ready to buy APPL at appropriate times.

I'm not a holder of APPL stock at this point in time and the above is not investment advice in any way shape or form. It is just my opinion. YMMV

Apple stopped disclosing unit sales because they knew that declining iphones sales was coming.    They expected growing services and accessories business to cover up the fall in I phone revenue

Even though I think 5G will take a while to make a significant impact I believe that Apple should switch back to QualComm modems.
 The apple fanboys think that Apple can be late to the party with 5G but show up in the most fashionable dress but I think they are ignoring some points.

1.    QualComm's X55 modem is built with a 7nm process.   This will probably help battery life giving people who buy 5G phones the false belief that their phone is more better because it's 5G.    I doubt if intel will get their modems that small and energy efficient.   Look at how much they are behind with their i series chips.

2.    When apple originally implemented LTE they were considered behind the times like now.   But the difference is that Apple implemented LTE using QualComm modems which had the benefit of A.   coming from the developer of LTE technologies and B.  Qualcomm had a couple years of experience with developing modems in Android devices to improve their technology to Apples benefit.     Apple won't have those benefits now.    Intel's 5G modems like their 4G modems will be both late and substandard and when they do come out QualComm's third generation will perform much better than Intel.   If Apple is working to develop their own modems now I'm sure they will eventually get better but don't expect them to be that good right out of the gate.

3.    Many people believe that the switch to 5G will take years (probably years in the US) but it may actually go faster in other countries like China.    I expect Huawei to push strongly into 5G since they both make the Telecom infrastructure and cell phones.   Big urban centers in China will probably see this shift faster than Americans.   Apple phones will be even more unattractive compared to Android phones and Sales will continue to fall off even more.    Apple could respond by installing Huawei modems in their Chinese models but that would probably undercut the privacy benefits of Apple phones in China even more.

4.   Even if it takes two years to 5G to penetrate American Cities phone models created this year with the X55 like the Samsung S10 will still be a viable phone when selling two years from now while the iPhone XR2 (Apple's 2019 model) will be fall off in value in 2021 because it won't have 5G.  

GeorgeBMac said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

anantksundaram said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

The bind will be mostly expressed in column-inches on the web. Here in DC, there will be "localized spots" of 5G by the end of 2021. "Full" penetration isn't expected until 2024, and I suspect it won't be full at all out here in the suburbs. NYC, Boston, SF and most of the major metros are looking at the same timetable.

So, there will be those column-inches slain, and it will be a debacle, of that there is no doubt. However, it won't be much of one in actuality. It may pose a problem in the fall for iPhone upgrades, but if Apple keeps spending money at the same rate it is minus device construction and never makes another single dollar, it can run for about five years.

You're right about the transitions from a user perspective, assuming they can connect to the network at all. However, from a technological implementation standpoint, this rollout is actually harder, and requires a lot of individual pole-climbs in neighborhoods big and small. It is going to take a lot more work from the carriers to execute, than it did from 3G to LTE.

Not saying it is not true, but this is the first time I've heard the claims that I've bolded. Could you provide some credible cites/links? (Indeed, I am a bit surprised that this article did not include information similar to the claims you make -- it sounds like rather important contextual information, no?)

The rest of your post is mostly opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.

This is from DC, VA, and NYC planning docs regarding pole right of way and expected road closures. I'll see what I can find for public-facing links.

Regarding installation, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html et al.

Actually, that article highlights two minor impediments to 5G - neither of them technical.
The first is local control for appearance and profit -- especially profit.
The second is the urban / rural divide that is already splitting this country apart politically.

The first will likely be steam-rolled over.  Any concerns of appearance will be given all the attention it deserves.  And, any town that holds back 5G to extort money from the carriers will be shooting itself in the foot.

The second is, and has been, a real problem that dates back 100 years:   For-profit utilities simply have no incentive to serve the rural areas.  That started in the early 20th century with electricity -- where the Federal Government stepped in with the the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electric to Appalachia.  And we see it playing out again in the last decades with cable not being strung into rural areas.

The irony of it is:  The Republican controlled rural areas tend to hate any and all government intervention.  Yet, that is the only way they are likely to get quality internet service (or any internet for that matter).  Aside from a shift of political views, the only thing that might save them is that 5G will likely be strung along major highways -- so they might be able to piggy back off of that to some limited degree.  

Yes rural republican areas bitch about socialism and then complain when they don't get their piece whether cheap power from the TVA or subsidized communication whether cable or internet (its nearly always subsidized by city subscribers) .    And of the original socialism Rural Free Delivery of Mail.    I bet you my mailman in the city delivers more mail in one day than rural mailpersons deliver in a week as they drive between mailboxes widely spaced.   Ironic now that their republican representatives are causing many rural post offices to be closed.