Mid-2011 iPhone to Utilize Dual-Mode GSM/CDMA Chip, Skip 4G?

[CFreymarc]

they better have a bunch of new features if they want the mid-2012 iPhone to sell... 4G was one main reason on why I would buy it. oh well for that one!

4G is one of the most over-hyped an under-delivered features in a long time. It is almost as bad as the "revolutionary" ISDN lines that was supposed to save the telco's butts with all the competition coming in. IMO, 4G had its greatness die in many of the CTIA committees to where no one carrier had a complete advantage. Thus, the implemented 4G has become a gang up on Apple and AT&T.

I don't blame Apple saying no to this at all. If they can take down Flash, I can't wait to see how much of a monkey they make out of 4G.

 

[HyperZboy]

So does this mean if all carriers have the iPhone - capable of 3G only, will T-Mobile be the fastest until LTE comes out?

DC/Baltimore is a test market for 4G for SPRINT. They're advertising it locally, but I have no clue what devices work on it or how well. I don't have SPRINT, are they using LTE?

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't blame Apple saying no to this at all. If they can take down Flash, I can't wait to see how much of a monkey they make out of 4G.

At least with Flash they are proposing an alternative, even if it is not yet ready or in great availability. What is the alternative to 4G ?

 

[archipellago]

on a similar note, MS are just announcing Windows Vista 7 Mobile phones or whatever they're calling it...

The demo's quite funny in a "haven't we seen this before" style of way!

you mean they also have terrible battery life, drop calls and a dodgy antenna?



Gizmodo are calling the apps 'awesome'

http://gizmodo.com/5661083/windows-phone-7s-first-games-and-apps-look-awesome

they are right!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Problem is LTE is still a big unknown in terms of what frequencies will be required and what different countries will be doing. If the option is to use a chip that handles some LTE frequencies but not CDMA or a chip that handles CDMA AND all 3G frequencies making it a true worldwide phone then the sensible option considering Apple's worldwide market is the second one. And that, really, is the key: Apple are focused on worldwide sales and will take the best option to maximise those sales. In 2011 that's unlikely to be LTE.

Frankly I also think LTE is vastly overrated by geeks and really won't be of vast interest to the masses. You may even see improvements in the 3G networks as that 1% of heavy users run to LTE and reduce some of the bandwidth bottlenecks on 3G.

I know it is a few pages back but figure it could be made a great example of the same crap that was posted here defending Apple not putting 3G on the first iPhone.....

 

[corvus]

LTE status from a practical point of view

While not an expert on 4G, I recently drove from Dallas TX to Montpelier VT carrying a 4G/3G data device. The cities along the way included Dallas TX, Little Rock AK, Memphis TN, Louisville KY, Cincinnati OH, Columbus OH, Cleveland OH, Buffalo NY, Syracuse NY, Albany NY and Montpelier VT, which, while small, is the capital city of Vermont. On this trip I was also in Detroit MI, Grand Rapids MI and Toledo OH.

Where could I get 4G consistently? Parts of Dallas. There is no sense in Apple supporting G4 when there is so little coverage. Apple builds excellent devices for the rest of us, not the exclusive few.

Additionally, think of the waste of resources it would be for a phone you will replace within two years, when G4 coverage will still be slim.

Don't misunderstand, 4G is great. When you do connect in Dallas it is screaming fast. At times my connection speeds where more than 6 megs. While that is pretty zippy, your browsing and downloading access are always controlled by the routers and servers on the web, not the last mile. Six megs did not speed up things that much, except for the speed tests.

Finally, the 4G/3G device was a Sprint Overdrive. It consistently provided comfortable speeds for checking email, getting the news, backing up hundreds of 1.5 megabyte photos to MobileMe and updating my website, http://villagehiker.com. The Overdrive had access almost everywhere while on the road, even in the boondocks of western Kentucky and around the hills and valleys surrounding Montpelier. The weird exception was a short section of I-90 someplace between Buffalo NY and Syracuse NY where nothing was available. That really is weird since western Kentucky from the Tennessee border through the Land Between the Lakes to Elizabethtown had 3G the whole way. Who knows?

So, be happy, G3 is rapidly covering the country, while 4G is purring along very smoothly in some select markets. This is just my practical experience, not a thorough analysis.

 

[CyberBob859]

Wow- great find!

Verizon LTE coverage is live in my area already.



Click the "Show Map" button at this link to find out if your city is in the first wave....

I went to the site, put in my address, and got this response:

"Congratulations! 4G will launch in your area by the end of 2010.

Now, I just need a phone that can use it. Looks like I'm going to keep my iPhone 3G until this gets all sorted out.

 

[deconstruct60]

I don't see why anyone would think that Apple will adopt LTE as a standard from the get go. It is not a simple as just sticking the new generation of a chip in the phone. In order to build a phone that incorporates LTE and is backwards compatible with GSM will require 2 chips rather than one and you can bet your behind that the form factor of the phone does not allow for that.

Combo LTE + legacy GSM/CDMA chips have existed for many months.

http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/prod...158a45e627ae_db3a304319c6f18c011a158a45e627ae

and the somewhat date sliding ....

"Commercial launches of data-centric devices based on Qualcomm's MDM solutions are expected to begin during the second half of 2010."

http://www.qualcomm.com/news/releas...-s-first-dual-carrier-hspa-and-multi-mode-3gl

“Qualcomm is committed to helping our customers bring LTE TDD to market by 2011,”
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/releas...monstrating-products-based-lte-tdd-technology

Also considering what LTE actually is and when it will be available adopting it for the 2011 model is a bad idea from a business perspective.

With the iPhone 4 Apple shipped with UMTS+ technology that ATT hadn't fully deployed yet. ( let alone the Edge vs. UMTS coverage map differences ). The carriers always have uneven coverage. A pressing point glossed over here is that the phones come with either 2 year contract or expensive (which means rationally will want to use it for a couple of years). If Apple pushes too much tech into known future models, people will wait for that. Especially if their current phone is "fast enough". Just eek out another year.


So this whole "hold back till 90%" deployed worldwide is whacked because not even true now. In the original model, Apple held off on UMTS because they had few clues when they were first starting. They went with old stuff because had something "new" with the screen. There are far fewer hardware differences now. Who wants a phone that can't get on the network that has already been announced to be deployed.

Most of large operators in Europe were geared up to deploy LTE in 2011 until the economy went south in 2009. At that point decided to kick deployments down the road a bit to save some money. Corporate profits are up. There are some parts of Europe that are on edge of imploding but it isn't a tech thing.... it is a money thing.

There is one only the nature of LTE is such that you do not have to deploy everything at one.

True also of previous updates, along LTE is trying to usher along a bigger change ( dumping the legacy, incompatible telephony and going to all IP packets based network. )

While networks are going to eventually fully switch to next get channels, at first they are going to use the 3G voice channel and only use the LTE data one.

Sure, phone service providers should hold back from a system where the phone customers don't have to suffer while folks stream porn/video/etc to their phones and overload the local tower.

 

[tempusfugit]

This is good news. 3G speeds are really fast anyway and getting faster it seems. AT&T can upgrade their current 3G network for speeds up to 21 megabit. That's a lot faster than you get on wimax right now anyway.

Also, I don't want to be like one of the many evo owners I've met who are pissed that they're charged $10 extra per month for 4g which they can use every once in a while or if they're in the right place. Not like you can use an evo on 4g for more than an hour before having to recharge it...

 

[Ping Guo]

Short of setting up your own cellular network, you don't really have a choice. You can't really use a phone without a carrier-issued SIM.

Of course you have a choice. In most countries you can buy an unlocked phone from whichever vendor you want, then you choose the cellular service separately. Don't like the service? Pop out the SIM, then switch carriers. Not really difficult.

The US Telecom industry favors big business over consumers and the stuff they get away with (SIM-locking, contract/phone bundling) is illegal in other countries.

 

[deconstruct60]

While not an expert on 4G,
...
Finally, the 4G/3G device was a Sprint Overdrive.
.....
This is just my practical experience, not a thorough analysis.

Spring is running WiMax for 4G not LTE. Additionally, for the US it is on a substantially different set of frequencies. Verizon's LTE is on part of the old TV frequencies. This allows better penetration and coverage while being slightly slower than the theoretical peak bandwidth.

Sure in first year of LTE rollout, you won't be able to stop on the interstate in the middle of no where and get a LTE signal. Heck in many of those same places can't get a AT&T 3G signal neither. That didn't stop Apple at all from shipping a 3G+ phone this June.


Verizon is highly motivated to deploy LTE as quickly as possible because don't have UTMS+ to help kick the can down the road. Similar to how Rogers (and some other Canadian ) providers jumped straight past EDGE to deploying UTMS because couldn't cost on a legacy network. Different service providers are in different phases of lifecylce. For some around the world will make sense to skip expensive upgrades and go straight to next generation. For others it will make sense to kick the can down the road and do the minimal upgrade. Apple is going to have to start to deal with the diversity of states, frequencies , and lifecycles if want to keep growing at at the same rate.

 

[KnightWRX]

This is good news. 3G speeds are really fast anyway and getting faster it seems. AT&T can upgrade their current 3G network for speeds up to 21 megabit. That's a lot faster than you get on wimax right now anyway.

Also, I don't want to be like one of the many evo owners I've met who are pissed that they're charged $10 extra per month for 4g which they can use every once in a while or if they're in the right place. Not like you can use an evo on 4g for more than an hour before having to recharge it...

Hum, don't pay for 4G service then. But you're not alone, what if someone wants 4G ? Anyway, what sprint is offering now is not LTE and it's not really 4G either.

And as for the battery thing... don't use the feature if you don't want to drain your battery. Better yet, shut off the phone, because I hear the battery drains from it just being on.

Seriously folks : LTE iPhone works fine on 3G networks. It futureproofs the device and gives the possibility of having the service to those who want it without impacting those who don't. If you don't want LTE on your device, you don't have to enable it or pay for it.

A lot of people here have a hard time with the concept of choice. And comparing LTE coverage of October 2010 to justify a phone released in June 2011 not having it is really, really shortsighted.

 

[deconstruct60]

4G is one of the most over-hyped an under-delivered features in a long time. ....
.

In part it is over hyped because LTE isn't even 4G. It is more like 3.9G. The 4G is going to be a longer evolution than many of the more recent upgrades. LTE is suppose to nudge folks to making the large transition.

No more over hyped than FaceTime as being a world communication standard.

 

[Kwill]

Though I have been anxiously awaiting a real 4G iPhone, it makes sense for Apple to stick with 3G if the 4G technology is not ready for prime time. Apple is a global company. Consumers can be very litigious. Apple must be cautious.

When it advertises 4G, every purchaser expects it. Consumers don't wan't to hear it is available only in certain areas. Why "upgrade" a working 3G iPhone for a lottery chance that it may be faster where you use it?

Of course, much can happen in the next year so at this point Apple's plans are only speculation.

 

[KnightWRX]

Though I have been anxiously awaiting a real 4G iPhone, it makes sense for Apple to stick with 3G if the 4G technology is not ready for prime time. Apple is a global company. Consumers can be very litigious. Apple must be cautious.

When it advertises 4G, every purchaser expects it. Consumers don't wan't to hear it is available only in certain areas. Why "upgrade" a working 3G iPhone for a lottery chance that it may be faster where you use it?

Of course, much can happen in the next year so at this point Apple's plans are only speculation.

By your line of thinking, we wouldn't even have a 3G iPhone yet. Don't you people throwing around this argument even realise this ?

 

[freelancing]

I was initially very irritated when I read that the 2011 phone may not be 4G, but after reading more (including many comments posted here), I got snapped back to reality.

The braintrust at Apple has a lot of discipline. They sat on 3G for a year and everyone bellyached about the first iPhone not being 3G. Then they explained the issues they had -including the then ginormous 3G chip they'd have to use. Apple is usually the first to unveil new technologies, but not until they are spit-polish-perfect (or close by the time an update rolls around).

They know they *can* release a 4G phone - but if the network is so-so at release time, Apple will be criticized for it - people will bemoan they're paying for technology they can't use, etc.

It makes sense, but it's still a tad disappointing. Hopefully they won't still be working on getting the white ones out by the time the 2011 mid-year model rolls out.

 

[diamond.g]

I know it is a few pages back but figure it could be made a great example of the same crap that was posted here defending Apple not putting 3G on the first iPhone.....

I remember those arguments. Back then, 3G wasn't all that widespread... Or at least that is what people wanted others to believe. Of course now you can't even use the original iPhone as an example of those things as most people barely remember it versus the 3G (that had been sold right up until 5 months ago).

 

[deconstruct60]

I just bought a brand new iPhone 4 last weekend and have not had any antenna issues whatsoever. Not sure if they unofficially changed some kind of coating or something but it's been working flawless (even when using the death grip).

A component to invoking the problem is being in weaker cell service signal area. At Apple HQ, with the strongest ATT signal anywhere, you can't invoke it easily either even before "Antenna gate" broke out or any "magical" changes came out.

I doubt Apple has done anything. Just waited till the buzz-churn media moved on to bashing some other topic.

 

[_Refurbished_]

This is good news, IMO. Carriers / Users are always looking towards the "next" network. I think they should solidify the 3G network before addressing the 4G network. When 4G "isn't there", I'd love to have a rock solid 3G network as a backup.

I live in theoretical-land, but if we had a stable 3G network w/ constant 1.5mbit connections everywhere, 4G wouldn't be such a big deal.

Quick question: Does a 4G chipset utilize more power than a 3G chipset? Similar to the EDGE / 3G difference in battery life? Apple was hesitant to switch to 3G because of decreased battery life. Will that be the case if they switch to 4G as well?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I remember those arguments. Back then, 3G wasn't all that widespread... Or at least that is what people wanted others to believe. Of course now you can't even use the original iPhone as an example of those things as most people barely remember it versus the 3G (that had been sold right up until 5 months ago).

What that time proves is Apple fans will blindly defend Apple with completely crappy agruments.

I swear Apple could take dog crap and put it in a white box and sell it. The Apple fans would defend it saying how it was so great and everyone should by one. Yet it is just crap in a box.

 

[Antares]

You can't really use a phone without a carrier-issued SIM.

Sure you can. Sprint, for example, doesn't use SIM cards in their phones. SIM cards aren't necessary. Though, many carriers require them on their network...

Anhow, I would like to be able to use an iPhone on any carrier of my choosing. I hate being forced to use a specific carrier if I want that exclusive phone. Or rather, I hate when cool phones are exclusive to one carrier. Hopefully, this rumor pans out.

 

[deconstruct60]

This is good news, IMO. Carriers / Users are always looking towards the "next" network. I think they should solidify the 3G network before addressing the 4G network. When 4G "isn't there", I'd love to have a rock solid 3G network as a backup.

4G technically isn't primarily about speed. it has speed increases but it is primarily about switching to a 100% IP packet based system. Effectively the whole phone system switches to internet technology and leave all the legacy telephony properties behind. LTE , the prep for transition to 4G , also has optional changes to make more efficient usage of the spectrum (using mix of TDD and FDD as opposed to FDD) . That will help a bit when data hogs hover around a single tower if can set a policy in a tower of just how much time it will devote to listening to headset traffic. if there is hog burping tons of data just throttle them.

Going to faster 3G isn't going to help if the number of folks being data hogs is going to portionally increase at the same rate the speed updates are deployed. Same problems will break out once everyone gets headsets capable of faster traffic. You may get some temporary relief if jump to the new tech ahead of the herd, but haven't really removed the root cause of the problem if just use faster version of exactly the same tech.


Coverage, be it 2G, 3G, or 4G, is a different issue. Areas which are sparsely covered in 3G aren't likely to get dramatically better quickly in 4G. As 3G equipment shrinks dramatically in cost may see it deployed to less cost effective areas.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

My "4g" Wi-Max connection is amazing I don't know what all of you are trying to prove by saying its not "mature".

 

[Salacion]

There are just too many rumors for this not to happen.

What is likely to happen? Verizon & AT&T plans, plus unlocked iPhones available at your local Apple Store. It makes absolute sense. I would happily pay $800 for an unlocked iPhone, to use anywhere I live. I'm not one to be tied into a plan.

Here's to hoping the next iPhone will be seamless, and include a 64GB capacity.

 

[deconstruct60]

Sure you can. Sprint, for example, doesn't use SIM cards in their phones. SIM cards aren't necessary. Though, many carriers require them on their network...

Defacto on CDMA phones the "SIM" card is hardwired into the phone. There is a build in ID number that you can't removed. Unless have an approved ID number probalby not going to get on any competent carrier's network. The "SIM card" is really only just one physical manifestation of the ID number. Some minor issues to get around but this isn't the big blocker to flipping between carriers.

Differences in the radios and frequencies is a bigger hurdle to get over.