Anyone have the feeling the apple will have an LTE surprise for us in the new iPhone

[kdarling]

A better argument is that the LTE chips are currently power hungry. Apple simply won't release an LTE iPhone until more power efficient chips come out.

Cost is another.

For example, despite Apple propaganda, nothing really changed with 3G chip power usage between the time that Apple put out the first iPhone and the second 3G model. Everyone in the industry knew the first iPhone design without 3G was more a matter of saving on parts and license fee costs.

With LTE chips, yes they can have some nice power savings if they wait, but it's also been said that leaving out LTE will cut Apple's build cost by up to 25%. Apple loves their high profit margins, so it's a double whammy of power and price.

 

[Krandor]

For example, despite Apple propaganda, nothing really changed with 3G chip power usage between the time that Apple put out the first iPhone and the second 3G model. Everyone in the industry knew the first iPhone design without 3G was more a matter of saving on parts and license fee costs.

Also with the first iPhone apple tried to go down the unsubsidized pricing plan which made cost very important. In fact, Google tried the unsubsidized things too with the Nexus 1. Neither really worked - Americans want the cheaper subsidized price.

 

[lsvtecjohn3]

0% chance of the next iPhone having LTE. How many carriers around the world have a LTE up and running right now, a few at best. How much of the world uses LTE not a lot as of right now. Apple isn't going to upgrade at this point in time.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Cost is another.

With LTE chips, yes they can have some nice power savings if they wait, but it's also been said that leaving out LTE will cut Apple's build cost by up to 25%. Apple loves their high profit margins, so it's a double whammy of power and price.

Agreed.

For example, despite Apple propaganda, nothing really changed with 3G chip power usage between the time that Apple put out the first iPhone and the second 3G model. Everyone in the industry knew the first iPhone design without 3G was more a matter of saving on parts and license fee costs.

Disagree. I read plenty of articles outlining how the newer 3G chips were a lot more power efficient. At least one of those was a technical review (by someone like ArsTechnica or Anandtech, can't remember who).

 

[Zepaw]

I would bet against it.

 

[TC25]

That's the self entitlement culture American's have been raised in unfortunately.

The thread goes from 'some people' expect a subsidy to all Americans. What uninformed, bigoted, drivel.

 

[Trash Can]

You need to get over thinking Apple is your new best friend. They are going to be behind the curve come Oct 4 (if they have no LTE) and you're going down that rat hole with them. I am not an Apple basher. I have Apple every darn thing and I like it all, but I think that's about to change. I hope not.

Yes and no. Look how long it took Apple to bring MMS to the iPhone while just about every other phone, including dumb phones, had that capability for years. You can include copy and paste too. Sales were still through the roof.

On the other hand, considering it's been 15+ months since their last release, I find it hard to believe that Apple would produce a mere upgrade. My gut says the next iPhone will be something big. Hopefully it'll include LTE and/or some other feature to provide that "WOW factor" that we all look forward to. I believe a 4S-like device would be a major dud (relatively speaking).

Time will tell.

 

[cdd543]

Wow some funny stuff here. It's quite feasible that Apple has a newer chipset that could meet their needs for LTE. The galaxy s2 lte that's coming is 9.5mm(official) thin so if they have access so does apple. Fact of the matter is that it will be behind if it launches sans verizon LTE. ATT not so much as they have coverage in 5 cities. I get tremendous coverage with verizon lte and its a pleasure to use and makes the experience great when on the go. For those who say you'll hit your limit in 3 days..uh huh. 200mb is 200mb whether you download it over 3G in 20 min or lte in 2 minutes. Of course we know Apple does what they want to do and trends be damned, but I think it is def a possibility. I am keeping lte one way or the other.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Also with the first iPhone apple tried to go down the unsubsidized pricing plan which made cost very important. In fact, Google tried the unsubsidized things too with the Nexus 1. Neither really worked - Americans want the cheaper subsidized price.

you have to remember The Nexus 1 never was in retail stores and considering how you had to buy one on blind faith along it sold pretty well.

 

[ggmissmolly]

Ok I'll tell you why no LTE is a disaster for iPhone 5. I have a 3Gs no longer on contract (ATT). I need LTE speed in some big cities of the Midwest for my iPad and MacBook Pro. A tethered LTE (or at least HSPA+) iPhone would let me do that via WiFi or BT or USB. The cost is $40/month for 4 GB and $10 for extra GB.

If I can not do that because iP5 has no LTE, then I can either buy a phone that does OR I can get a non-smart phone and go to Verizon and buy a WiFi hot spot for $49 or $99 and get LTE speed for my IPad and notebook. I get 5GB a month for $50. Pretty even trade.

Oh you say then I have no convenient iPod. But I do, my 3Gs will work just fine as an iPod Touch. Just no voice capability.

So Apple sells no iP5 (or any phone to me) to me and ATT loses my data business to Verizon's larger LTE network. I'm slightly inconvenienced due to having to carry the hot spot and the old 3Gs (now and iPod Touch). Knowing that the carriers make little on voice and depend more and more on data for profit, ATT should be pissed. Apple lost a customer. I'm a little inconvenienced. Repeat similar act several thousand times and the non LTE iP5 starts to be a real liability to Apple. Smart phones are commodity items. If you lose the hype of being THE GUY, you're toast.

 

[marcfogel]

I was thinking that Apple had to wait and release in October as opposed to June so they could have LTE in the device. If Apple wants to grab more Android users, at least on Verizon, the iP5 better have LTE.
I am hoping!


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.852468,-74.999151

 

[mikelegacy]

Truthfully, no one knows. Apple has a knack of getting tech earlier than anyone else and those dualband Qualcomm chips are set to be out very soon....so who knows?

I'm not getting my hopes up though. It'll be better that way if it actually announced.

 

[Agent-P]

So if you get your information faster, you use more of it? Like if you drove to Chicago at 100 mph you would drive more miles than if you went 60 mph? You lost me somewhere.

Think!

Here's the deal...little doubt that LTE will be baseline connectivity in two years. So you sign up for a new two year contract now on a non LTE device and you are stuck paying a penalty to terminate that contract and get an LTE phone. BUT wait, it's worse than that. At least on ATT, and probably everybody, you can't walk in and pay the penalty to terminate the contract. The only way to get the termination is to switch carriers. So you just switch carriers, port your number, and inside the return period (14 days?) return the new phone and go back to the old carrier with no contract and get an up-to-date phone? No, if you return in less than 30 days your old contract is still used...you do get the termination fee back...but you still have a phone with no LTE. You're stuck man....you keep your phone under your shirt so nobody knows how obsolete you are. Best to think before buying something that obsolete before you get the front door.

You need to get over thinking Apple is your new best friend. They are going to be behind the curve come Oct 4 (if they have no LTE) and you're going down that rat hole with them. I am not an Apple basher. I have Apple every darn thing and I like it all, but I think that's about to change. I hope not.

You realise that a person still has two choices here: either they can buy an unsubsidised phone out of contract or wait for their yearly free upgrade from AT&T. So no, they wouldnt be completely screwed.

 

[305rob305]

Keep in mind this is not the iPhone 2G era when all apple had to do was cater to the needs of the American consumers. Noe that the iPhone is a world phone, i.e., officially sold in a lot of countries, Apple has to foresee needs of the global consumer as a whole.

4G coverage is present in the States and let's not even talk about how bad the coverage is; but what about other countries that haven't even started implementing 4G yet? 4G for them is completely useless.

I doubt Apple would want to add a feature that isn't even fully supported yet in the world let alone America. The addition of 4G would just increase the cost of production and eventually put the burden on the consumer.

Would you want to pay extra for an iPhone with LTE that can't even be exploited to it's full potential ? I know I wouldn't.

Dumb....so you are telling me that apple won't make this a 4g phone just because the rest of the world don't have it??? Samsung galaxy phones are sold all around the world and they make 4g for the states....

 

[305rob305]

Apple needs to bring something excellent now. They are the company that breaks barrier! If they have waited a year and a half and come out with 4'S crap then to me they would have lost all my respect

 

[Muad'Dib]

Dumb....so you are telling me that apple won't make this a 4g phone just because the rest of the world don't have it??? Samsung galaxy phones are sold all around the world and they make 4g for the states....

No, but since the rest of the world doesn't have much LTE, then it's not going to cause much of a loss in market share.

 

[kdarling]

Disagree. I read plenty of articles outlining how the newer 3G chips were a lot more power efficient. At least one of those was a technical review (by someone like ArsTechnica or Anandtech, can't remember who).

Don't get me started on today's tech article writing

You're probably talking about this AnandTech article that bent over backwards to come up with ways to say that WiFi was better than 3G. (Of course, today's more experienced consumers would laugh at the idea of a 2G-only smartphone.)

Just as with multitouch patent news, everyone else quoted them without doing any further investigation or thinking on their own. Yet it had no real scientific testing, no metering first of the power draw differences in screen backlighting, etc.

First off, they picked a 3G phone that was widely known to be a battery hog, partly because it had HSDPA support (the iPhone only had EDGE). Of course, it was over ten times faster on the internet than the iPhone.

That 3G phone came with two batteries, a 900 mAh and an extended 1200 mAh. It's clear they used the lower power one, against the iPhone with its 1400 mAh battery. It was extremely disingenous of them to not provide all that information.

So when they concluded that 3G used 23% more battery and 'woe is us' and all that BS, well why not just slap in the included extended battery which gives 133% longer life and more than makes up for the difference?

Proving that the iPhone could've done fine with 3G didn't fit their agenda, which was to excuse Apple even though every other smartphone on the planet had 3G.

The fact is, leaving out 3G lowered the price by up to $100 per phone, and that, along with being able to get carriers to offer a cheaper data plan, was FAR more important than any battery considerations.

So it goes.