Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wish battery technology had seen a fraction of the improvement that cellular speeds had in the past 10 years.

It's the Achilles Heel of modern tech.

I think you need to speak to the laws of physics, not Apple, on this one. The constant bumping up against those laws is why battery tech hasn't improved for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HVDynamo
The fight for a better battery is lost with the craving to be thin as a stack of three DVDs.

The fight to be as thin as possible is lost when almost every consumer (not just Apple) pads it up with a case, mainly to prevent slippery gadgets!

Never understood why the iPhone needs to be so thin.

I thought cutting battery size was an odd thing to do.

Now with a phone out that is water resistant, perhaps Jony needs to go swimming more?

Perhaps his is overcompensating for something else. Who knows why he likes iPhones so thin…

You mean transparent, maybe....
Polytronix8.jpg
I think that it would still be too thick for Jony
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahireasu
I think you need to speak to the laws of physics, not Apple, on this one. The constant bumping up against those laws is why battery tech hasn't improved for decades.

I'm not apportioning blame; rather, I'm musing that battery life is the biggest restriction on technological improvement for all mobile devices. It has a huge detrimental impact on everything, and that is worth noting.

There are all kinds of things I would be able to do with my iPhone and iPad like background activity and GPS that I can't due to battery limitations. Without any battery advances, we will eventually hit a brick wall because we won't have enough battery to power faster chips.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: S G and Col4bin
At every step of the journey from the data center to your phone there is a bottleneck

That's not what bottle neck means. It refers to the most limiting point in a system, and there can only be one "bottle neck" at any time. It is rarely going to be the chip in your phone (at least for phones manufactured in the past 3ish years).
 
In a world where people upgrade their phone every 2-3 years, a 450Mbps LTE chip doesn't make for much of a selling point. No carrier is going to get anywhere close that during the lifetime of the device. What I am interested in, however, is the part about the 14-nanometer process and what that means for increased battery life.

It would be cool to see Intel fabbing A-series chips someday so that Apple can reduce reliance on Samsung. I've been a fan of Intel since I was a kid and my grandpa would open up his 486 (and old 386) and show me how it works.

Fast network means, less time sending and more time resting, thus battery life is improved; using a new process pushes this further.
 
Just like to point out that LTE is really 3G+, and LTE Advanced is real 4G. Despite the fact that companies are calling LTE 4G, it isn't. They lobbied the 4G working group, several years ago to allow them to call LTE 4G, and they were told yes.
You're confusing and misunderstanding a bunch of things there. LTE is 4G. It's always been 4G, from the very start. What AT&T is calling "4G" and what they lobbied for is HSPA+, which is an extension of UMTS (i.e. 3G).

LTE, after all, is a completely new radio technology. Hence, the term "4G".
 
Rather have improved battery life than better LTE chip.

They're linked together, because more faster/more efficient transmission translates in longer use of your battery.
It's the good old race to rest for CPU/CPU and comm chips;
making them faster improves battery even if all you do is browse your emails.
 
I remember my first 1200 baud modem. Not sure what the benefit is for a 450 Mbps capability in a phone when carrier bandwidth is at best 10% of that value. Travel away from the city and it's meaningless, data rates where I drive often resemble 1200 baud. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Col4bin
Never understood why the iPhone needs to be so thin.
Some people, like me, like to have thin and light phones. My phone is something that I carry around with me the whole day. The thicker and heavier it gets, the more inconvenient it is. I am not planning any trips through the desert for the foreseeable future, so I am usually able to charge my phone once a day, which is definitely good enough.

Now some people are away from civilization for a longer period of time, so they understandably need more battery life. They can buy battery cases for their phone or bring portable batteries. As they are apparently willing to sacrifice size and weight for battery life, that should not be an issue.

So I really don't see what the problem is.

If Apple increases the battery size, then everyone will have a thicker and heavier phone. Now with the smaller battery size, the people who want a thin and light phone can have it, while the people who want a thick and heavy phone can have that as well. It's called "choice".
 
Good Grief! Two chip vendors for your LTE Modem! Two chip vendors for your processor!....Does anyone else but myself see something wrong with having too many cooks in the kitchen with this? Imaging the quality control that has to happen here.....Hoping nothing goes wrong if they go this route...
 
Some people, like me, like to have thin and light phones. My phone is something that I carry around with me the whole day. The thicker and heavier it gets, the more inconvenient it is. I am not planning any trips through the desert for the foreseeable future, so I am usually able to charge my phone once a day, which is definitely good enough.

Now some people are away from civilization for a longer period of time, so they understandably need more battery life. They can buy battery cases for their phone or bring portable batteries. As they are apparently willing to sacrifice size and weight for battery life, that should not be an issue.

So I really don't see what the problem is.

If Apple increases the battery size, then everyone will have a thicker and heavier phone. Now with the smaller battery size, the people who want a thin and light phone can have it, while the people who want a thick and heavy phone can have that as well. It's called "choice".
Yes, yes, that's all fine, but at one point, why do you still want to make it thinner?

Just go back a decade or two, and remember those mobile phones that existed. Did that prevent anyone carrying them around, and work with them? I think not. Seven millimetres are thin enough.
 
Rest assured that even if we have an absolute amazing battery tech ready, with double power capacity in same size, we can be certain that Sir Jony will slice the iPhone for his anorexic behavioural pattern to achieve thinness and give us same or less battery life as the last iPhone. :(
But Apple would offer a battery case with a cool hump, just for extra $$$
 
Good Grief! Two chip vendors for your LTE Modem! Two chip vendors for your processor!....Does anyone else but myself see something wrong with having too many cooks in the kitchen with this? Imaging the quality control that has to happen here.....Hoping nothing goes wrong if they go this route...
Knowing MR people, it's going to be another "OMG I got stuck with a crappy Samsung A9 chip on my iPhone 6s!! Arrrgh! Everyone said that the Taiwanese chip was like 0.0005% better!! I got ripped!!"

Prepare for another round of drama-queening. This time they will be upset if they get an Intel vs Qualcomm modem chip.
 
Good Grief! Two chip vendors for your LTE Modem! Two chip vendors for your processor!....Does anyone else but myself see something wrong with having too many cooks in the kitchen with this? Imaging the quality control that has to happen here.....Hoping nothing goes wrong if they go this route...

Actually sourcing parts from multiple manufacturers is a common practice and a good one. It keeps suppliers competitive, and diversifies the supply, so if one supplier has problems, your entire product line isn't shot.
 
Pajjuri said that Intel has secured a "significant portion" of the LTE chips, likely in the range of 30 to 40 percent of production. Qualcomm will likely be tasked with the remaining orders.

"the remaining orders"... nice spin there. Makes it sound like Qualcomm is getting the leftovers when they're still doing the majority share.

I wonder how they'll divide the component usage out... or are we going to get a "radio-gate" -- iPhones with brand-x chip get 2% better LTE speed / better reception / battery life silliness again?
 
I can't really understand the news... Is Apple going to use two different LTE chip in the same phone model ? What does the "30 to 40% figure" mean ?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.