iPhone 7+ Product Red - Which LTE Modems?

[thadoggfather]

LOL, so if they offer Intel vs Qualcomm in the future, you'll go Qualcomm, but "it doesn't really matter" ... hmmm, sounds like rationalizing your purchase to yourself. Don't worry, we all do it, intended or not. There's 100% logic to buying a Qualcomm over an Intel. Arguing it doesn't matter is like saying you'd rather have 40 cents instead of a dollar. It's a losing position.

Quoting those two things doesn't illustrate hypocrisy

If both models are available, I will opt for QC. Because it gets less flack. But my experience has been fine. So I don't understand the flack.

But in instances where one is available and the other isn't, as was the case with me when I was ready to buy a 7+, I still went for it. And still don't regret it/ would do it again.

To each his own

If your argument is 1% is significant enough to go nuts over. Do you have a screen you're happy with? Do you compare it to a sample of 20, find 1 unit preferable to yours and all of a sudden invalidate your purchase completely?

Screen differentiation (to the extent of being dim, lacking contrast, being horrendously yellow or uneven tint) and actual defects or things that impact your use that you notice, or are appalled by (bad screen quality without even another unit for comparison) are things that you should sweat. And I do every time I buy a device with a screen, which is nearly
All devices these days. Both 7's I had were junk screen wise, for different reasons :/ one had a crazy warm bottom and dimming unlike others I've seen to the same extent and the other had crazy wavy lines and horrendous viewing angle.

I'll bet there's QC iPhones you can compare that get different reception or speed based on connection preference the tower has allocated to one unit, interference in relation to where the unit is, or manufacture variations (slightly
More or less shielding)

No two units are usually alike for any qualities even outside of part supplier

Gotta pick your battles in the Wild West lottery game of Breakneck speed manufacturing. My iPhone probably went through about 6 seconds of manufacturing care before it ended up in a box on its way to the states. A device I'm glued to and staring at for at least a year

 

[Applejuiced]

1% of an average lifetime is 7-8 months longer life. It's funny how you think 1% is only significant if it's relative to YOUR tastes.

The point is whether it's 1% or 20% or anywhere in between, it's absolutely documented that it's an improvement. Why would anyone NOT want an improvement, regardless of how insignificant?

You're comparing lifetime expectancy and living a longer life to a slight improvement on a baseband chip cellular signal measured in lab tested conditions
Just think of that for a second.
Again it is the better option to me because of the cdma option. Even though I personally will never need it. For resale could be good but even then not really sure how much more money a Verizon unlocked vs an AT&T unlocked i7 will bring for example.
To put it in simple terms it's really not a big deal. It's blown out of proportion online to people like us on such forums that are out of control OCD over everything Apple related that's all.
Happy Easter

 

[chriscrowlee]

You're comparing lifetime expectancy and living a longer life to a slight improvement on a baseband chip cellular signal measured in lab tested conditions

Both phones performance were lab tested together. So if both performances were exaggerated, then both will see the same comparative result in real world. You keep acting like I'm comparing one model in the lab with the other model in real world. I'm comparing lab to lab, hence the accurate 5-20% they found. No different than in a lab they test cars... if Corolla gets 25 mpg in a lab and a Taurus gets 27 mpg in the lab, then in reality the "real world" numbers would theoretically be proportionately more or less to the same relative parallel.

But hey, it's a moot point to you. It's not to me, nor the thousands of people who have expressed upset that apple would release two products with different performance marketed to be the same even though one has a disadvantage of 5-20% performance loss....
[doublepost=1492219300][/doublepost]

You're comparing lifetime expectancy and living a longer life to a slight improvement on a baseband chip cellular signal measured in lab tested conditions
Just think of that for a second.

Thought about it... so 1% is only significant when it's relative to something you can put an emotional connection to such as a life, but it's insignificant when it comes to something abstract such as technical performance of a product? Logical, except not.

 

[thadoggfather]

People were caught up in apple using tlc instead of mlc chips only , a mix starting with iPhone 6 which were cheaper, and coincidentally also FASTER reads and writes often too. No one is doing one full write cycle per day on their iPhone repeatedly nonstop for 10 years. The durability argument proved.. ridiculous.

Similar to tsmc vs Samsung having had tsmc 16 and returning for what ended up Samsung in 64 but a nice screen. I've flown. Lol - I meant overblown. But I'll keep that in there

Not suggesting intel is faster. It isn't. Theoretical or otherwise.Most are claiming it's on par especially with apple throttling qc supposedly for parity.

It's impressive two manufacturers of cell radios are neck in neck in performance. Those are pretty much apple's words on the matter. Of course they would say that but there ya go.

 

[Applejuiced]

Both phones performance were lab tested together. So if both performances were exaggerated, then both will see the same comparative result in real world. You keep acting like I'm comparing one model in the lab with the other model in real world. I'm comparing lab to lab, hence the accurate 5-20% they found. No different than in a lab they test cars... if Corolla gets 25 mpg in a lab and a Taurus gets 27 mpg in the lab, then in reality the "real world" numbers would theoretically be proportionately more or less to the same relative parallel.

But hey, it's a moot point to you. It's not to me, nor the thousands of people who have expressed upset that apple would release two products with different performance marketed to be the same even though one has a disadvantage of 5-20% performance loss....
[doublepost=1492219300][/doublepost]

Thought about it... so 1% is only significant when it's relative to something you can put an emotional connection to such as a life, but it's insignificant when it comes to something abstract such as technical performance of a product? Logical, except not.

Pretty much.
1% of improvement maybe in real life cellular connection is completely irrelevant to me.
Definitely nothing compared to living a longer life or other nonsense comparison you made. But if it makes you happy then yes you made an awesome choice

 

[chriscrowlee]

No one is doing one full write cycle per day on their iPhone repeatedly nonstop for 10 years. The durability argument proved.. ridiculous.

It's impressive two manufacturers of cell radios are neck in neck in performance. Those are pretty much apple's words on the matter. Of course they would say that but there ya go.

Nobody doing full write cycles vs nobody using LTE are like comparing how often one bathes and how often one breathes. I'd say any advantage you can get, especially in low-signal area which seems to increase the performance edge of Qualcomm chips, is a win for me. It's not like you have to ask yourself if it's worth paying more for it, it's the same product, the same cost, the same features, just with better performance.

Of course Apple is going to say there is no difference. It was never disclosed to customers that the customer had the option of choosing between 2 phones with the same advertised specs, but get different results. If Apple were to admit there is a performance edge between the two and didn't disclose that, it'd be a PR nightmare, and they could potentially be forced into a buy back program.

 

[thadoggfather]

Nobody doing full write cycles vs nobody using LTE are like comparing how often one bathes and how often one breathes. I'd say any advantage you can get, especially in low-signal area which seems to increase the performance edge of Qualcomm chips, is a win for me. It's not like you have to ask yourself if it's worth paying more for it, it's the same product, the same cost, the same features, just with better performance.

Of course Apple is going to say there is no difference. It was never disclosed to customers that the customer had the option of choosing between 2 phones with the same advertised specs, but get different results. If Apple were to admit there is a performance edge between the two and didn't disclose that, it'd be a PR nightmare, and they could potentially be forced into a buy back program.

Again though, I tried it in an environment where I have horrible reception- my apartment. Not a controlled lab, and not an environment where signal and speed are abundant and anything, even the worst RF performing phone, would thrive. A real world, make or break, environment.

I specifically had a QC 7 and Intel 7 on hand, SIM swapped out of curiosity, chatted, walked around, stared at signal bars, pulled in webpages, I noticed ZERO difference in all instances. In the case of going from 6s+ to 7+ my signal got better, and 7+ is certainly better than SE I have that is QC (but older chipset, older antennas, etc).

(no longer have QC/INtel 7 because I went 7+ and both 7 screens I had were crappy, I had bad 7 luck)

Anecdotally, in the massive intel v. qc thread when 7/7+ released, some people mentioned hiking with their friends who have QC phones, same carrier, and they were still able to stream a video whereas their friend could not. I won't stand behind this, because I wasn't there, but I do wholeheartedly believe Intel and QC are close enough that the average Joe won't know or care (or even notice if they could care, like me)

ymmv. You are speaking to the objectivity of QC being superior to Intel in real world use specifically, without presumably having tried Intel but based off 'that article' and internet chat and your positive experience with QC.

If given a choice, to put it to rest, I will opt for QC. But I simply do not care otherwise. I can't be convinced to care, because I do not. You cannot be convinced to not care, so you care. I care about plenty when it comes to my precious mass manufactured device ( I really do, screen most notably, and general build/ functionality)

Should Intel be the only supplier for radios down the road (which is always a possibility, considering most 7/7+ indeed ARE intel, and most markets only offer Intel, so dependence is dwindling), sounds like you'll need to opt for some sorta Snapdragon based SoC to maintain the radio,

 

[chriscrowlee]

Again though, I tried it in an environment where I have horrible reception- my apartment. Not a controlled lab, and not an environment where signal and speed are abundant and anything, even the worst RF performing phone, would thrive. A real world, make or break, environment.

If given a choice, to put it to rest, I will opt for QC. But I simply do not care otherwise. I can't be convinced to care, because I do not. You cannot be convinced to not care, so you care. I care about plenty when it comes to my precious mass manufactured device ( I really do, screen most notably, and general build/ functionality)

Not trying to convince you, I just think it's funny when someone says "there's no difference, it makes no difference" but then go on to say if they had a choice to do it over they'd opt for Qualcomm. LOL. Debate 101 is don't say one or the other is inconsequential then follow it with your preference to one side. ;-)

I think this thread has run its course though. I ended up getting rid of my silver Intel for a Red Qualcomm. After a week of the red, I found it to be too bright in color, so I returned it for a Silver Qualcomm. Happy with my decision.

 

[thadoggfather]

Not trying to convince you, I just think it's funny when someone says "there's no difference, it makes no difference" but then go on to say if they had a choice to do it over they'd opt for Qualcomm. LOL. Debate 101 is don't say one or the other is inconsequential then follow it with your preference to one side. ;-)

I think this thread has run its course though. I ended up getting rid of my silver Intel for a Red Qualcomm. After a week of the red, I found it to be too bright in color, so I returned it for a Silver Qualcomm. Happy with my decision.

its not hypocrisy, I've already clarified this.

I'll go through the real life scenario, again more explicitly. Feel free to point out what part of my logic here doesn't make sense, because I'm legitimately confused by whats confusing:

If both are available, I will go QC. Why? I don't know why not? I wanna run up the CDMA licensing cost for Apple and lessen their profit margin, marginally.

Apple employee asks do you want the ATT version or Unlocked version, both are unlocked, both are available.. I will go for unlocked rather than Sim-Free ATT cause it gives me warm feels. And it comes with an ejector tool. Why? Because I would rather choose than let the employee choose for me, since someone has to choose and I already drove to the store and told him/her I want to purchase an iPhone please, and they're ready to bring one out and they are both in the back, but by the end of the day it really doesn't matter.

If only one Is available (i.e. other is sold out like in the case of my 7+ OR Intel becomes only supplier with later models), it won't be an issue. and it has proven not to be an issue in my case.

If I got burned by having an Intel radio, I would return it, sit it out and get the alternative eventually. When I get poop screens, they go back immediately. I'm not gonna stare at a mess for a year or more, and cringe every time. I am far from an apologist of Apple.

I will go down as many witch hunts as you like about screen quality, and have, and other perceivable things like build quality, but I don't see the merit on this one since I never perceived it, I didn't have tangible evidence supporting the claim when I put it to the test in the biggest make or break environment,.

For people who have experienced the burn, and got a QC after intel and things worked out better, I would do the same had I experienced it and feel for them (and believe them), even having not.

But if you didn't experience the burn, how can you claim it hurts?

Without having tried an Intel radio specifically, your logic is flawed in stating QC is objectively superior in real world use, performance wise. You need to buy an Intel 7/7+ and see for yourself, arent you curious at this point having talked it up? Get one, experience parity in most likelihood, and still feel your QC has edge from others' experiences and/or that article or CDMA flexibility (because that is objectively something intel can't keep up with, in its current form), because that's what I think will happen. And nothing wrong with feeling your iPhone is total beast mode, beyond those of others...

I always feel that way since I'm jailbroken


Also- *I* haven't gotten burned radio wise so I'm not sure what I'm being 'on the lookout' for?

 

[democracyrules]

Got sim free version with superior Qualcomm modem. It is perfect.