GG1

k2kw said:

Soli said:

I don't see how this ends well for Qualcomm.

It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year

The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.

When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.

As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?

netrox said:

Did you read the blog by NAB? It sounds convincing and Apple definitely owes an explanation.

I read it. It sounds convincing until you factor in REAL technical details, like the wavelength of an FM signal (3 meters or 10 feet). The two wires of a wired set of headphones approximate a 1/4 wavelength each, making a decent antenna. Maybe you can approximate 1/10 wavelength inside the phone by wrapping a wire several times around the perimeter of the phone, but it would still be a poor antenna.

Since the NAB knows about wavelengths, this puff piece is grandstanding.

Edit for grammar.

All-Purpose Guru said:

Soli said:

onlyhope said:

Note: Airplane Mode disables all radio communications hardware, including cellular modems.

The last time I checked GPS was a “radio” and it is NOT disabled when you turn on Airplane Mode.

Aren't GPS microwaves?

GPS is a radio receiver.  The signals from the satellites are *bathing* the aircraft in Electromagnetic Radiation (as are the random TV stations you're flying over.)

The plane's avionics are designed for that.  Where there is doubt is when a transmitter is brought aboard the aircraft, which is why Airplane mode disables the transmitters.  Receivers generally don't output anything.

Actually, a receiver must generate an internal signal (close to the signal you are trying to receive) in order to receive that signal. This internal signal (local oscillator) is what can cause interference in other systems (such as aircraft systems), so the FCC/FAA wants you to disable all radios ("airplane" mode) in your phone. In badly-designed (unshielded) receivers, the local oscillator can leak out at a high level, making the receiver a small transmitter. That's why the FCC tests a receiver as an "unintended radiator" (i.e., transmitter).

Time/experience has shown that the airplane systems are sufficiently shielded from phone receivers/transmitters (I have never heard of any airplane systems affected directly by phone radiation), so the FCC/FAA has slowly relaxed their rules to allow WiFi (I'm not sure about GPS or Bluetooth).

I've heard (but not confirmed; this was in the 1990's) that originally the cellular companies also wanted the FCC/FAA to disable the cellular radios because an active phone in an airplane would register with multiple cell phone towers at the same time or handed off between towers so quickly that it bogged down the towers' ability to keep up.

rrrob said:

tmay said:

Soli said:

At least the Pixel phones have a better industrial design than the Moto X.

• https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Motorola+Moto+X+Teardown/16867

Well, the daughter board of the (HTC) Pixel is still poorly designed and archaic compared to what Apple has been doing since the start of the iPhone.

• https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Google+Pixel+XL+Teardown/71237

In case you don't you don't look at teardowns here's the iPhone 8 logic board for comparison. Can you spot the difference?

• https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+8+Teardown/97481

Strictly speaking, none of the above is industrial design, albeit the industrial design of the external package has a great influence on these circuit board designs, especially at Apple. 

There are pros and cons to both the Moto X and Apple circuit board designs. TL;DR—in my opinion, they reflect their companies' respective economic situations, i.e., Apple can afford to use a smaller circuit board because it's making a premium-tier product with a high profit margin, and because that product sells in high volume.

Moto X Pros:

• (Mostly) single-sided. The vast majority of the parts can be attached to the board in a single pass through placement and reflow (soldering), putting less thermal stress on the components. It also provides additional volume for the battery under the circuit board and better physical isolation of RF-sensitive circuit blocks.

• Slightly more surface area, even given the single side used for most parts. This permits the use of larger and easier to place—and hence, cheaper—components. It could also act as a larger heat sink for heat dissipation.
• Fewer board layers. A number are still needed to accommodate pinout from high pin density parts like the Snapdragon, but there's more area to work with on each layer to route traces. And fewer layers make for cheaper panels.
• Good balance of the phone in the hand is easier to achieve since the mass of the battery and circuit board are more evenly distributed across the surface of the phone.

Moto X Cons:

• Fewer circuit boards per panel. This means a greater number of circuit board panels must be processed to build an equivalent number of circuit boards, which could reduce factory throughput. The effect this has on price per circuit board is unclear without knowing the exact stack-up of the Motorola and Apple boards.

iPhone Pros:

• Double-sided panel with tightly packed components enables an incredibly small circuit board. More boards per panel means better factory throughput. The narrower the board, the more volume that's available for the battery, too.

iPhone Cons:

• Doubled-sided. Two major passes through component placement as well as reflow required.
• Intra-board trace layout must be a nightmare. There are hundreds of traces coming out from the pins of the A11 alone which much be routed to memory, SIM, Lightning connector, cameras, display, Touch ID, etc. This also complicates resolving RF desense issues during development (as in, "Why can't you just move that part/trace/via over there?")
• More board layers to accommodate the traces for those high pin density components like the A11. More layers equals higher cost circuit board panels.
• High part density and small components necessitate high-precision solder masking and part placement, i.e., newer, more expensive factory equipment. Heat dissipation also becomes more of an issue.
• Phone balancing becomes trickier with the circuit board and the battery side-by-side.

iPhone Cons:

    Doubled-sided. Two major passes through component placement as well as reflow required.
    Intra-board trace layout must be a nightmare. There are hundreds of traces coming out from the pins of the A11 alone which much be routed to memory, SIM, Lightning connector, cameras, display, Touch ID, etc. This also complicates resolving RF desense issues during development (as in, "Why can't you just move that part/trace/via over there?")

>>>>True, but obviously Apple engineers have succeeded repeatedly year-after-year with highly density iPhone & iPad PCB's. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple are using one of several special (extra cost) PCB construction techniques to achieve the equally high density inner trace routing.

    More board layers to accommodate the traces for those high pin density components like the A11. More layers equals higher cost circuit board panels.

>>>>And Apple don't mind paying a premium for it, either. It achieves their goals of a thin phone.

    High part density and small components necessitate high-precision solder masking and part placement, i.e., newer, more expensive factory equipment. Heat dissipation also becomes more of an issue.

>>>>Samsung and others use the same small components necessitating the same high-precision parts placement. Solder masking isn't even used anymore in very small components (it is printed directly on the PCB).

The above posters got me thinking, especially Soli’s comment: “Perhaps Apple will come out with a universal solution that will allow all fitness trackers to work with all fitness equipment with ease so that, say, smart dumbbells can be quickly linked and unlinked to a user's Watch via NFC+BT with a quick tap.”

IMO, the failing is that a single iDevice can’t possibly know the type of strength training exercise with only its single accelerometer. More sensing devices are needed.

Apple already has the tech available in the AirPods. If Apple could put the accelerometer, W1 chip, battery, and inductive charger in a strap-like form factor, such straps could be used on the torso and both wrists and ankles. Once paired with your iDevice, the iDevice would then know the relative position of these five body parts (relative to each other) and could then determine if squats, presses, pushups, etc. were occurring.

This tech could be added to make smart equipment, similar to the Bowflex adjustable dumbbells, which would also feed its relative position to the iDevice (including the weight setting).

When the workout is done, throw the straps into a special container (with an inductive charging floor) or the equipment in its resting place (with inductive charging inbuilt).

Of course, such a setup would be for the fanatical fringe at first. Lest I remind you we now have such IoT creations as the smart cup, smart diapers, and smart cutlery.