Any thoughts on this? Proper 5G coverage and fully developed networks could eliminate the need for home wifi. Having a laptop with a constant internet access would be phenomenal. iPads have had LTE for the longest time. Apple should get behind the always connected trend like everybody else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
5G enabled MBP
- Thread starter Bornee35
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No thanks.
Have you compared the price points of home Internet plans vs mobile data plans? Plus I can always wirelessly tether the MBPro to an iPhone anyway.
I dont think this is going to happen anytime soon - especially with the really hot shooting war ongoing between Apple and Qualcomm (which owns the key patents & standards on 5G)
you're thinking in 4G LTE. Bandwidth and speed improvements should negate high access costs.
No, I’m thinking 5G.
Are you assuming that 5G is going to be way cheaper than 4G? Or that it will suddenly be same as or cheaper than home internet service?
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
If you can deliver home internet speeds OTA then the days of laying cable are done.
I think that’s totally misguided, but I hope your right.
I think reality has other plans in store.
They’re pushing this new gen pretty hard, and wide spread adaptation would have to have fairly competitive pricing early on. Where capitalism goes after that nobody knows.
Hundreds of millions of dollars on hardware and hundreds of millions of dollars on spectrum.
I’m sure we’ll be seeing premium prices for a long, long, long time.
5G will be great for home internet, and is already being utilized as such in a few select locations. It is being marketed as a cheaper alternative to traditional cable ISP, such as Comcast.
5G is not the same as LTE technology, and will not be replacing LTE anytime soon, or maybe never. 5G will not be as wide spread, and works bests in static locations like home internet.
I don't think it makes much sense for a 5G MBP for a couple reasons.
One being that you still need home Wifi for everything else, so you might as well use that for your MBP.
5G will be built into routers that you can use at home, so why have it in the MBP?
If there was a 5G MBP, one shouldn't expect to hav 5G connectivity after taking out of your home, especially if living in a less densely populated area. 5G roll out will be very slow for true mobile connectivity, and it may never be anywhere as close as wide spread as LTE is now.
Actually, if a MBP user was always mobile, over the next several years having an LTE MBP would be more ideal than 5G.
5G is not the same as LTE technology, and will not be replacing LTE anytime soon, or maybe never. 5G will not be as wide spread, and works bests in static locations like home internet.
I don't think it makes much sense for a 5G MBP for a couple reasons.
One being that you still need home Wifi for everything else, so you might as well use that for your MBP.
5G will be built into routers that you can use at home, so why have it in the MBP?
If there was a 5G MBP, one shouldn't expect to hav 5G connectivity after taking out of your home, especially if living in a less densely populated area. 5G roll out will be very slow for true mobile connectivity, and it may never be anywhere as close as wide spread as LTE is now.
Actually, if a MBP user was always mobile, over the next several years having an LTE MBP would be more ideal than 5G.
NOPE! I am sorry, but this is a problem for me for two reasons...
1). Apple will begin selling them as two models, one with cellular and one without, and we all know they aren't going to lower the price of the one without, so the cellular model will cost you another $150-200.
2). The prices of cellular data are outrageous currently. If you start adding laptop users who are heavy internet users (i.e. those who have high amounts of downloading and uploading of data, like media content creators, business analysts, and the like), cellular providers will up their price brackets for data plans, especially the unlimited ones...
Besides, wifi works just fine, and if you need data on the go, you can always use an iPhone or to provide a hotspot internet to the laptop.
[doublepost=1549169545][/doublepost]
Maybe their service would at least be consistent (coming from an annoyed Spectrum customer, whose only real liable option for internet is through them). I had Google Fiber for a while until I moved, and I will tell you I absolutely hated having to go back to Spectrum and their inconsistent internet speeds...
In 2019 it's probably a safe bet that any new cable laid is fibre optic, which generally (barring damage) doesn't require maintenance/replacement itself - you put new optical transceivers at each end and wholly ****, you have a much faster connection. So, its pretty safe to call optical fibre a "future proof" investment, in terms of domestic cable runs (i.e. to homes or businesses, excluding e.g. ISPs/Data centres which will increase the number of runs periodically).
Compare that with "wireless" services, which are affected by anything from storms, to building material, to cordless phones, to power lines. Oh and of course, as a shared medium, the more people using it, the less bandwidth is available. It's like suggesting that Token Ring networking is "better" than Ethernet because you don't need to have separate cable runs for each device.
It only makes sense if you don't really understand how the technology works.
[doublepost=1549170426][/doublepost]Oh and to add - Apple is very definitely an "ecosystem" company. Their "solution" for mobile data on your MBP, is to tether an iPhone/iPad. You don't even need to touch the phone to enable it since.. maybe 2 iOS versions ago? Just pick the device from the Wifi menu in macOS and it'll enable the hotspot and join basically instantly.
My concern with this would be excessive battery usage, created by the power demand for running the antennae. Not significant on its own, but when coupled with all of the other things MBP machines do, I think battery life would take quite a dip.
5G is most likely going to be much different than what we are used to when it comes to mobile service.
Due to the technology differences, 5G works best for static locations, such as homes and businesses. It is already available in a few cities in the US for home Wifi at a lower cost than the cable equivalent, and it is slowly spreading to other areas.
I know a lot of people are thinking that 5G will be like LTE, just better, but the two type of technologies are very different.
I have gotten the impression lately that 5G is a rather long ways off, and 5G saturation is even further. From what I understand they have not actually finalized the standard yet. Also, the range is super short meaning it will need lots of small nodes close together which will require a huge infrastructure undertaking since the current cell towers will not work. More towers mean more cost and trying to find places to put them. The range I have seen is 1/3 of a mile. That is barely a city block. Plus the signal will struggle to get through walls because of the high frequency.
Even if all of that is overcome, I am still unsure why I would want this in my home instead of the current fiber optic that comes in and feeds my mostly wired devices.
As to the actual question. No. Apple has never put a cellular radio in a computer to my knowledge. Can't imagine they will now.
Even if all of that is overcome, I am still unsure why I would want this in my home instead of the current fiber optic that comes in and feeds my mostly wired devices.
As to the actual question. No. Apple has never put a cellular radio in a computer to my knowledge. Can't imagine they will now.
You may not want it in your home if you have access to cheap, reliable internet.
For many people in the US, they have only one choice of ISP. They are at the mercy of their ISP, their ISP's prices. If prices goes up, and/or their service isn't good quality, the user has little choice but to suck it up and pay what ever the ISP asks for.
5G at home service will be the first time many people will have a real choice for broadband. It will encourage ISPs to do better, for cheaper, because the user will be able to switch to another ISP if they choose.
Unless you’ve got some specific details to share I’m going to assume this is just the factor that a fixed radio on mains power will maintain a stronger signal than one that’s moving and relying on a battery.
Companies price services below competitors all the time, unrelated to what the service costs to deliver.
With a fibre service they need to run cable down the street but once you order service they will connect your house, if no one in your street orders service all it cost them is running cable down the street.
5G, particularly for a company offering it as a “fixed wireless” solution, the infrastructure investment is all up front - you need to have wireless signal covering premises before you can connect anyone, and I think we can all agree 5G cell tower equipment (not to mention the tower if they can’t get access to an existing one) is going to cost a bucket load more than fibre optic cables.
So this gives some context - 3G/4G/5G all work “best” for the service provider if they base stations are running pretty close to capacity as far as client devices goes. How do you ensure your base stations are well utilised? Introductory pricing.
as much i love the idea having 4g/5g ipad/iphone/mac the problem is that i still need an internet connection for my home network (devices), e.g. nas, tv, apple tv, xbox... if im out, and the only network is in my macbook, i cannot connect to my nas for example.
i had lte for my ipad for a year because it was offered for free with the cable connection... i really didnt need it during that year.. only couple of times and i was actually sharing the connection with my macbook. i can use my iphone data for my ipad and for a laptop but i rather wouldnt like to do it at home - that would mean that my laptop needs to be on and plugged all the time.
here where i live the internet coverage is great and plans are cheap, but why would i pay 10-20 euros/month extra to gain nothing.. sounds small amount of money, but it would be around 100-200 euros a year... and for nothing really. my cable connection is free, but i already pay 15 euros/month for my iphone 4g/calls/messages and that is enough. i dont need another plan to pay more...
i had lte for my ipad for a year because it was offered for free with the cable connection... i really didnt need it during that year.. only couple of times and i was actually sharing the connection with my macbook. i can use my iphone data for my ipad and for a laptop but i rather wouldnt like to do it at home - that would mean that my laptop needs to be on and plugged all the time.
here where i live the internet coverage is great and plans are cheap, but why would i pay 10-20 euros/month extra to gain nothing.. sounds small amount of money, but it would be around 100-200 euros a year... and for nothing really. my cable connection is free, but i already pay 15 euros/month for my iphone 4g/calls/messages and that is enough. i dont need another plan to pay more...
What you are saying will never happen though. 5G still needs a fiber optic backhaul, and in most places in the U.S. that is owned by the particular duopoly of that area. Further, there will need to be significantly more "towers" (my understanding is that so many will be required, they won't use cell towers but instead lampposts, street lights, etc.) which means that municipalities will have to get on board, and so far they have been hesitant. The number required really makes it only viable in dense areas. The 1/3 of a mile range and building penetration make it a tough sell in a normal US neighborhood. Even if they overcome all of that, then you have the issue that for the speeds they promise, the frequencies are so high that they will not penetrate buildings. I have seen speculation that even bad weather will cause signal problems.
It's not like T-Mobile is going to be building out a 5G network to the places that don't already have fast internet. That is a pipe dream. It will be concentrated in urban areas, just as LTE is and maybe in 10 years you might start seeing it in more rural areas, but it will be slower and lower capacity 5G that uses the existing lower frequencies. Also, there is zero evidence it will be cheap for consumers, and in fact all the major cell providers have said they plan to use 5G to increase pricing and try to turn data into "services."
TL;DR If you don't get fast internet now, there is nothing about 5G that changes that. In fact, it is probably more likely that it will be restricted to urban areas at come at a higher cost for consumers.
Seems to me that I read right here on MacRumors that Apple isn't going to introduce a 5g iPhone until sometime in 2020.
I wouldn't expect to see a 5g-capable MacBook Pro until AFTER they get the 5g phone out.
So... probably no 5g MacBooks (or Macs) until 2021 or 2022. Maybe 2020 if we're lucky...
I wouldn't expect to see a 5g-capable MacBook Pro until AFTER they get the 5g phone out.
So... probably no 5g MacBooks (or Macs) until 2021 or 2022. Maybe 2020 if we're lucky...
This could have an impact, but that was not what I was referring to.
Static areas can be targeted, and equipment placed specifically to get the promised speeds in small area. 5G will suck for true mobile, especially at the beginning and/or out of urban areas because the 5G coverage would have to be in a much broader area than
I don't know if I can agree to this. While fibre optic cables are relatively cheap, there is much more that goes into running them than you might think. Not only is there equipment in-between runs, there is the cost to install the cable and equipment.
It is incredibly costly to run cable underground, as 10-15 years ago, Verizon learned this with expanding its FiOS service, laying fibre isn't cheap, they slowed their expansion dramatically. They required 2-year agreements from its new customers, and I read that it still was not paying for the expansion cost even with the 2-year agreements.
I can't say for sure that one is cheaper than the other, but I know that building a wired infrastructure to everyone's home is very expensive.
This is true for 5G mobile service, but not necessarily true for a targeted static location.
I am curious, were did you see this?
I have read the opposite, that due to the slow rollouts of 5G because of the more "tower" that you mentioned, that many places worried that they would be skipped over by the networks do to the investment costs.
Yes, this is true for having a mobile 5G connection, like the OP mentioned with a 5G MBP.
But, this isn't the case with static locations, because the equipment to provide that small coverage will targeted, unlike a broad coverage area of mobile use.
I have seen this too, but according to Verizon, they have not seen any weather related issues with their 5G at home service.
I completely agree. It would make much more sense to have LTE than 5G, due to the much greater coverage, and that didn't happen. It will most likely never happen for 5G either.