they should work on next generation chips that enables unlimited bandwidth
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.
Apple Working With Intel on 5G Hardware for Future iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I definitely will not upgrade to 5G. Depopulation agenda on its way v1.1
https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/
https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/
Does Apple fabricate the A11 though? Read the article... Intel has "thousands" working on this, and they will fabricate the result.
Obviously Intel wants to catch up with competitors in this market and I have no doubt it works out well for Apple in the end, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it!
Caveat, this isn't an industry I have deep knowledge in, I'm just speaking from my high level understanding being someone who tends to dip in the shallow end of most technology pools. I don't believe there is an approved 5G standard yet (5G being more of a marketing term, I believe the standard they're working toward from 3GPP is IMT-2020). They probably have a WA (working agreement) by now that defines enough that various companies and countries can produce prototypes (many have) and bring forth their proposals for the final standard. In any case, the goals of the project are ambitious, focusing on high throughput for many users, massive machine type communication, ultra reliably and low latency. Bandwidth would certainly increase with 10s of Mb for tens of thousands of users and, yes, in some cases even Gb for multiple users or 10Gb capabilities. On the surface that doesn't seem overly useful but fast communication supports future increasing needs with larger data and the faster you transfer something the shorter the time the radio is on which translates to better battery life. Internet of things requires a very large number of simultaneous connections (there will be many more IoT devices than people so supporting them all connecting creates a load) and can require an ultra high degree of reliability (your connected autonomous car will still work if the connection drops but communications can be considered critical in that situation and more so in industrial applications). Ultra low latency can be required for IoT applications (again those critical sensors) as well as AR/VR apps where latency could create motion sickness in the user. There are also plans to expand into new frequencies (above LTE/6GHz) with New Radio (5G-NR) with millimeter length wave having incredible bandwidth potential. That of course also requires provisioning of that spectrum for it's use.
So lots of hopes. They've done a great deal of work and are close to some of the standards but we won't have full approval this year. In the meantime, like with most new networking standards, gear will be released prior to the standards being finalized based upon WAs or draft proposals etc... There was an article on this site yesterday that one of the carriers will have "5G" access at the Super Bowl early next year and there are some phones that already have some 5G chips based upon draft proposals in the wild. This is all normal despite the standard not being fully defined yet.
5G, 4G, your wifi router, none of these things are more dangerous than walking around outside at any point in time since time began. We are constantly bashed with radio waves (and far worse on occasion) from the Sun, which emits them along with a few other waves and of course the visible light radiation that allows us to see things.
5G is by far more dangerous than 4G.. Where do you get from al this info?
Do your own research.. Google it's your friend
5G sounds great, and people jump at higher speeds like candy. The thing is what about indoor penetration? 5G is quoted at the moment as having as being terminally poor for that for that. So all well and good getting huge speed increases but not so great if it cant penetrate your home, lower frequencies travel father and penetrate better. Here in the UK EE (bought by BT) has the most bandwidth and has 800Mhz, 2100Mhz, 2600Mhz and 1800Mhz and still there are black spots and it drops down to 3G in places marked as 4G (LTE) because of buildings, topography and planning rights for masts that limited placement and height etc.
Getting good 4G coverage in rural areas and dense cities blocks would be better and EE I believe are rolling that out Using 800Mhz for instance in rural areas. Other networks at the 4G auction didn't buy much bandwidth and some like O2 in the UK still have not got Volte running across the whole country and its coming to the end of 2017.
I would rather solid 4G coverage rather than going into stores, coffee shops or peoples houses and work etc and getting 'no service' on the UK's biggest cellular provide. Thinking ahead to to 5G which in the UK is going to be at least 2020 to be rolled out after the 5G aution. Maybe by then we wont have so many dead zones, or why not let sim cards/phones roam as needed across all networks when you have no signal. How hard can that be in your own country when operators can do it when you go on holiday.
Getting good 4G coverage in rural areas and dense cities blocks would be better and EE I believe are rolling that out Using 800Mhz for instance in rural areas. Other networks at the 4G auction didn't buy much bandwidth and some like O2 in the UK still have not got Volte running across the whole country and its coming to the end of 2017.
I would rather solid 4G coverage rather than going into stores, coffee shops or peoples houses and work etc and getting 'no service' on the UK's biggest cellular provide. Thinking ahead to to 5G which in the UK is going to be at least 2020 to be rolled out after the 5G aution. Maybe by then we wont have so many dead zones, or why not let sim cards/phones roam as needed across all networks when you have no signal. How hard can that be in your own country when operators can do it when you go on holiday.
Theres a lot of patents involved in Wireless communication chips. A lot which are necessary for basic functionality. As is, Apple has absolutely no relevant patents in wireless communications at all, and they have no bargaining chip here.
Not only that - but these types of patents require research to have been done many years prior to development. And theres no guarantee that the patents/research you get done becomes relevant, as which standard ultimately becomes 'the thing' is heavily decided by 3rd party.
And to become the standard, you'd also have to sell all of the equipment necessary for the infrastructure. And buyers will only be interested in that if it can allow widespread compatibility; meaning Apple would also need to be prepared to sell/license a big chunk of their patents/tech.
All of Apples existing in-house development is only really done in areas where they only need to concern with internal factors, or where theres a singular unified standard.
General kookiness from people that are afraid of all electronic radiation.
[doublepost=1510919334][/doublepost]
each person designs one gate
right.
Agreed. Thought exactly the same.
However, such all-wireless 5G future will require an increase of tower densities, probably using micro-cells.
The demise of cable duopolies cannot come soon enough.
If you live in a decent sized city.. T-Mobile. Way faster.how much better can I get than Verizon
One word, patents. It's incredibly difficult to create new technology in these fields without stepping on some toes.
5G is by far more dangerous than 4G.. Where do you get from al this info?
Do your own research.. Google it's your friend
vaccines give you autism. Do your own research.. Google it's [sic] your friend
Until 5G rolls out and then coverage for that starts from square one and Verizon will once again lead...I'm not a verizon fan but where I live its really the only one that covers this area well.
Sure but its not a carrier in Belarus thats my point. Carrier aggregation is a common practice now. All the big US carries do it. The current Intel modem only handles 3 bands, Qualcomm is 4, and they have modems now that go up to 6. Why settle for just 3 cause its "sufficient"? As spectrum gets moved from 2/3g into 4G/LTE those bands will become available to aggregate to many more people. And like I said, T-mobile already offers 4x4MIMO yet Apple disables that in the Qualcomm modem because the Intel one can't do it and they don't want their phones to look bad. Why is that ok? They didn't give me extra battery size because they disabled it, the hardware is still in there. Apple's motivation here is clearly about saving money and ending their relationship with Qualcomm, not about power saving, or better technologies.
Yes there have been delays to Intel’s roadmap, but make no mistake, Intel’s fab process is world leading, and they have a breadth of expertise in design and fabrication that is unmatched. This partnership would be great for Apple, and Intel.
The EMIB tech that Apple will be able to take advantage of if they do indeed transition their A-series SoC to Intel will allow Apple to use a variety of best in class technologies. Intel’s 22nm FinFET is extremely low leakage and is ideal for always-on circuitry, while the CPU and GPU would be at the 10nm node. I’d guess it’ll be 2020 before Intel would take over.
If Apple does move their fab to Intel, it’s a huge win for Intel, but an even bigger win for Apple and its customers, imo.
Last edited:
The largest hurdle for 5G will not be the adoption of 5G capable modems, but in coverage by the carriers. That coverage is still spotty for 4G/LTE in rural areas. Back in the days before wireless and fiber optics, the ubiquitous communications monopoly AT&T / Ma Bell and power companies were required by law to provide universal adequate service for power and communications (land lines). The main law, called the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) was implemented in 1935, and had a lot to do with how electric and communications lines were available to both rural and urban populations at reasonable cost. The contemporary communications carriers of mobile and fiber optic infrastructure are less regulated, as they do not technically fall into the class of "Public Utility", and so are not covered by the PUHCA regulations. That is why cell coverage and high speed broadband has been so spotty, especially for less populated areas. This is partially what the "net neutrality" concern is addressing. As it is, carriers don't find it economically motivating to provide universal service. It's good that newer wireless devices will at least be 5G capable, so if/when the coverage is ever available for reasonable cost, it can be used. I think it's a "chicken and the egg" deal, where the carriers won't be motivated to 5G expansion until mobile technology demands it.
Last edited:
When Verizon phones cannot use data and voice at the same time I do not understand why you would think they are so great. I mean what, they are like more than 10 years behind GSM on this stuff.how much better can I get than Verizon
*sigh* Are the carriers doing that again? (calling an incremental upgrade the next generation of cellular technology when it isn't?)
AT&T will be rolling out LTE Advanced....which is very awesome. Gigabit speeds. Low latency. It's pretty sweet when you have that connection. But it's still 4G.
But real 5G is going to be a few years out.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/video/telecom/wireless/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g
And, here's hoping THIS time the carriers actually do the responsible thing and have the native voice component (and roaming) figured out before they (greedily) deploy the data networks???
5G is promising 20Gb/s speeds and less than 1ms of latency. Provided they can actually deliver enough sessions on their base stations, that could be the end of wired broadband for a lot of people (obviously, the monthly usage caps need massive adjustment when you can download a movie in a few seconds)
Have you compare intel’s 5g chip to Qualcomm’s? Of course not. So how can you declare the differences aren’t minor?
Personally, I'd rather Intel focused on radio reception reliability and energy use. I'd rather reliably get 25mbps at any time rather than some insanely high number I could not make use of on a smartphone. Speed which only occurs if I'm standing five feet from the tower with a clear line of sight, during a full moon with the planets in alignment.
With unlimited plans throttling you at 30GB in a month and tethering being limited to 12GB (my provider anyways). What's the point of all that speed on such a tiny screen?
Greedy. They charge based on how much the maker gets for a device. If you placed the chip in a $200 Android phone you pay a lot less than if you placed the same chip in an $800 phone.
It would be like if McDonalds charged you more for a burger if you drive up in a new Mercedes than an old Toyota.
Qualcomm's model will end up hurting the company. Intel may be behind now. But they are an engineering juggernaut with seemingly endless financial resources. All they have to do is get close enough and offer a low price for phone manufacturers to jump ship.
With unlimited plans throttling you at 30GB in a month and tethering being limited to 12GB (my provider anyways). What's the point of all that speed on such a tiny screen?
Greedy. They charge based on how much the maker gets for a device. If you placed the chip in a $200 Android phone you pay a lot less than if you placed the same chip in an $800 phone.
It would be like if McDonalds charged you more for a burger if you drive up in a new Mercedes than an old Toyota.
Qualcomm's model will end up hurting the company. Intel may be behind now. But they are an engineering juggernaut with seemingly endless financial resources. All they have to do is get close enough and offer a low price for phone manufacturers to jump ship.
And once they fill their ship they will sit on innovation, and make random platform changes to support one new feature.