More Claims of Apple Using Qualcomm's Snapdragon Chips for Lower-Cost iPhone

[hgrimberg]

If apple put an android chip in the iphone, then battery will only last 6 hours like with any android phone.

 

[bumblebritches5]

FYI, Apple only designs their own chips and they currently use Samsung and soon TSMC to actually build them since they don't have their own fabs. In this case, their own Ax chips are just most likely more expensive to build than just using less expensive Snapdragon chips (which in most cases are equally powerful) for cheaper iPhone models.

When I said "Make" I meant designed, not manufactured, I still don't see how such a thing could save them enough money to be considered, especially giving up the little "We make our own processors, and they're the best!" ad stuff.

 

[thope]

Always wanted to see iOS on other SOCs

Krait, welcome to iOS. iOS, welcome to all htc S4 android phones and thanks for bringing drivers.

 

[deconstruct60]

I meant the latest and greatest at a low price.

I would like to go on a lunch date with Halle Berry. I'm sure there are some folks who want Ferraris priced at $20K too. Latest and greatest tightly coupled to low price is pragmatically an oxymoron.

[quote[
Many people feel the 4 and 4s is old even if they're great phones.
New externals will make them feel "new" to consumers looking for an affordable iPhone.[/QUOTE]

Right. which wouldn't be latest with old internals. But yes this is on track that "thinner" isn't the objective. Tweaking the outside. This year yellow , blue , green. Next year red , purple , apple-green. The container, price, and not blocked on new major features (but may not perform as well as top end) that these folks most care about. It is thin enough. It is light enough. If make it very incrementally faster that is OK.

I don't think there is much to do with the exterior though other stuff like color and minor external senor tweaks that can rely on year after year after year.

 

[Bawstun]

^ Not really. Google is pricing the Nexus 4 at $299, around what the "rumors" are for the low-cost iPhone. The Nexus 4 has amazing specs.

http://www.google.com/nexus/4/

I think Apple would be smart to introduce a low-cost iPhone. At the rate Android is flooding the market, and grabbing marketshare, over time their app store could arguably be bigger than Apple's. Apple could run the risk of becoming RIM, (many many years from now, of course) if they do not try to saturate their iOS ecosystem with as many users as possible. It's easier because they have the iPod and iPad as well...but to lose the iPhone consumer base would be huge.

 

[Cubytus]

Uh...that's why they are cheap.

What's more expense Apple to completely design a new lost-cost iPhone from scratch, get new machines, research materials OR have Apple sell an iPhone 4 at a reduced price?

I still don't get how a new low-cost iPhone (that will have a slower processor and only 3G) would be cheaper than the already mass-produced iPhone 4. But then again, I'm not an analyst.

$450 + TAXES for an iPhone 4 is not cheap by any means. And having only 3G isn't a big hurdle, as many places still don't even run 3G. Intended primary markets for that iPhone still run on plain 2G.

lack of LTE will kill it.. all apple phones should be LTE from iPhone 5 and forward.

False. Read above statement. Besides, Apple has taken the fast track when it comes to updating its iPhone, much faster than subscribers are actually changing it. So NOT having LTE in 2013 wouldn't be so much of a concern until significant network coverage is deployed.

Exactly! We don't need a mediocre version of the iPhone 5. If people cannot afford it, buy older technology. It's the same way with cars. If you cannot afford a brand new one, look at buying last years model or a used one, not the current model with a half assed engine and only 3 out of 5 gears on the transmission to make it cheaper.

Many people cannot afford to throw $800 in the newest iPhone. Or many people actually refuse to live as indebted as North Americans are, and especially not for a glorified iPod Touch, which is, amittedly, a top notch phone, but not worth the price of a full-fledged Mac computer.

Case materials and screen resolution. Even three year old iPhones use premium casing materials and production processes that only come down in cost so far. Aple could save money by going back to non retina resolution and making slightly thicker injection molded plastic cases.

This doesn't reflect so much on older iPhone's pricing, though.

This is a stupid thing for Apple to do in the US market. I could understand if this was for other countries, but even than they would have other options better than this gimped iPhone.

Of course it seems that Americans are stupid enough not to see there's a better interest to pay lower fees from month to month and higher upfront costs. They live inebted because they can't count. Fair enough

You are right about the cheaper iPhone 4 and 4S, but.... There is a need for a cheaper iPhone.

You see the 4 and 4S are incredibly slow at operating on the new iOS 6.0.

They also are not able to take part in the features that the iPhone 5 provides.

Now obviously a cheaper iPhone should not be as good as the newest one, but unfortunately the iPhone 4 line makes a pretty crappy experience of the Apple ecosystem.

Lots of my family bought iPhone 4 and 4s after the iPhone 5 came out. They complain about the speed of the phone and the lack of 4G.

You see Android provides these features without the hefty $200 price tag and so many of my family members turned their iPhones in for droids.

I personally think Apple should not provide the 4 or 4s at all when they make a new phone. It should only be the newest phone for $200 PERIOD!!!

But... in order to fill in those gaps of people who won't pay $200 I think a cheaper iPhone is better than purchasing the older models.

This cheaper iPhone will probably be able to do everything the new iPhone can do at a cheaper quality made product and better price.

I wouldn't put the 4 and 4S as "incredibly slow" running iOS 6. Heck, I am running the 3GS with that OS, and don't find it "incredibly" slow. It surely doesn't feel much slower than iPhone OS 3.0, which I paid for when my iPod Touch (2nd gen) was alive. In fact, either Apple has done an admirable job keeping the OS light enough to run on older hardware. Or it did an admirable job pushing new phones at an accelerated rate with only sligthtly more powerful innards.

And I wouldn't call the 4 and 4S crappy, by any means. I don't remember an iPhone ever being "crappy", even like, 3 years after its release, exception maybe of the original iPhone that only ran Web applications.

¿¿And where in hell have you found a brand new iPhone for $200, whatever model that would be??

Definitely you should handle more of the competitor's phones before blurting such nonsense. And learn to count.

Snapdragon?

No thank you.

Apple, keep it simple:

• A4.
• 5GB iCloud Storage (standard).
• No multi-tasking - not needed for intended audience.
• 3G is fine considering the contacts for these phones.
• Polycarbonate version of the 4.

Oh...

& they really are - not - slow.

Don't cut multitasking, please. Even the 3GS does it, come on! I don't remember who suggested to cut Retina, but this would be utterly stupid. With all newer Mac, iPod Touches, iPhones sporting Retina display and competition preparing to flood the market with equivalent, there is no way to revert to pre-Retina resolution.

1. I know this. Most people here that buy phones buy them with a contract due to decreasing upfront costs or in this case completely getting rid of them.

2. I know the rest of the world is typically buying phones full price. That's good for them, and in the long run its definitely cheaper, but that just isn't the American way

It doesn't seem to be the American way (or north american, since there are actually three countries in North America and at least three european-descent nations inhabiting them, two of them not fitting the WASP stereotype) to allow for a lower month-to-month cost when a customer brings its own phone.

That would be fair for the customer, but provider don't have a reputation for being honest. Carriers may be secretely happy when a customers comes with a phone because he doesn't have to pay any subsidy. A $800 iPhone 5 over a 3-year contract makes more than $15 a month going for the subsidy, probably even more so due to interedt. I'd rather have a $15 rebate on my monthly plan.

If apple put an android chip in the iphone, then battery will only last 6 hours like with any android phone.

It has to do with the OS, not the chip. With the same chip, a MacBook running OS X will get 7 hours of battery, with Windows, probably more 5 hours, and one would be glad to get 3 hours out of it running Ubuntu.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

So, strip the casing off an old iPhone 4 and put on a newly-designed, plastic case.

Job done?

And maybe make minor upgrades to keep up with the next generation iOS.

----------

$450 + TAXES for an iPhone 4 is not cheap by any means. And having only 3G isn't a big hurdle, as many places still don't even run 3G. Intended primary markets for that iPhone still run on plain 2G.
False. Read above statement. Besides, Apple has taken the fast track when it comes to updating its iPhone, much faster than subscribers are actually changing it. So NOT having LTE in 2013 wouldn't be so much of a concern until significant network coverage is deployed.

Many people cannot afford to throw $800 in the newest iPhone. Or many people actually refuse to live as indebted as North Americans are, and especially not for a glorified iPod Touch, which is, amittedly, a top notch phone, but not worth the price of a full-fledged Mac computer.

This doesn't reflect so much on older iPhone's pricing, though.

Of course it seems that Americans are stupid enough not to see there's a better interest to pay lower fees from month to month and higher upfront costs. They live inebted because they can't count. Fair enough

I wouldn't put the 4 and 4S as "incredibly slow" running iOS 6. Heck, I am running the 3GS with that OS, and don't find it "incredibly" slow. It surely doesn't feel much slower than iPhone OS 3.0, which I paid for when my iPod Touch (2nd gen) was alive. In fact, either Apple has done an admirable job keeping the OS light enough to run on older hardware. Or it did an admirable job pushing new phones at an accelerated rate with only sligthtly more powerful innards.

And I wouldn't call the 4 and 4S crappy, by any means. I don't remember an iPhone ever being "crappy", even like, 3 years after its release, exception maybe of the original iPhone that only ran Web applications.

¿¿And where in hell have you found a brand new iPhone for $200, whatever model that would be??

Definitely you should handle more of the competitor's phones before blurting such nonsense. And learn to count.

Don't cut multitasking, please. Even the 3GS does it, come on! I don't remember who suggested to cut Retina, but this would be utterly stupid. With all newer Mac, iPod Touches, iPhones sporting Retina display and competition preparing to flood the market with equivalent, there is no way to revert to pre-Retina resolution.

It doesn't seem to be the American way (or north american, since there are actually three countries in North America and at least three european-descent nations inhabiting them, two of them not fitting the WASP stereotype) to allow for a lower month-to-month cost when a customer brings its own phone.

That would be fair for the customer, but provider don't have a reputation for being honest. Carriers may be secretely happy when a customers comes with a phone because he doesn't have to pay any subsidy. A $800 iPhone 5 over a 3-year contract makes more than $15 a month going for the subsidy, probably even more so due to interedt. I'd rather have a $15 rebate on my monthly plan.

It has to do with the OS, not the chip. With the same chip, a MacBook running OS X will get 7 hours of battery, with Windows, probably more 5 hours, and one would be glad to get 3 hours out of it running Ubuntu.

Man you sure like quoting

 

[xofruitcake]

If apple put an android chip in the iphone, then battery will only last 6 hours like with any android phone.

The battery issue is much bigger than CPU. The choice of LCD make a difference. The GPS/Bluetooth chip make a difference. Software make a different (in term of turning off subsystem when they are not used). So no, using a snapdragon does not automatically mean batttery problem.

 

[hgrimberg]

The battery issue is much bigger than CPU. The choice of LCD make a difference. The GPS/Bluetooth chip make a difference. Software make a different (in term of turning off subsystem when they are not used). So no, using a snapdragon does not automatically mean batttery problem.

I suspect apple chips work more efficiently in terms of energy consumption. That is why they cost more.

 

[iphoneclassic]

Problem is not making phone cheaper, making it cheaper with 70% margin. $330 retail means Apple will not spend more that $100 on BOM + Assembly + (probably) Shipping. Assuming target market is Asia, shipping will be cheaper from China.

Interestingly Apple moved to A* to maintain higher margin. Now looking to Qualcomm for cheaper chip. I hope they are not having issues with TSMC. Never liked Apple's reliance on Sharp and TSMC.

 

[thehustleman]

If apple put an android chip in the iphone, then battery will only last 6 hours like with any android phone.

You could have at least told the truth

Galaxy S III battery life FTW

 

[SuperMatt]

Who perpetuates these idiotic rumors? Do you really think Apple would go to all the trouble to buy a chip maker, then design their own chips, then constantly market the fact that they make their own chips, and then suddenly they'll just buy a Snapdragon chip instead? The rumors and misinformation about Apple just get worse by the day. Sadly, I don't even think this is the dumbest one TODAY.

 

[iphoneclassic]

I suspect apple chips work more efficiently in terms of energy consumption. That is why they cost more.

A* cores are not efficient compared to any other mobile SOC cores. Being h/w and o/s designer, Apple is able minimize number of cores. If IP5S needs 3 processing cores and 2.5 graphic cores they can design A* accordingly.

Where as Android based device makers use standard 2/4/6/8 processor cores along with 2/4/6/8 graphic cores.

Regarding cost if A* costs $10 Snapdragon may cost $8. But keep in mind Apple has to port and maintain iOS for Snapdragon architecture. Also IP5 is not a universal device because of LTE compatibility. If that is not addressed with IP5S there will be several devices Apple has to support.

 

[appleface]

A5

It would make good sense that Apple is piloting its old but shrunken designs from a new manufacturer in something low volume and esoteric like the Apple TV (https://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/10/tweaked-apple-tv-contains-die-shrunk-a5-chip-not-a5x/). Perhaps, this will be the same chip that makes its way into a low-cost iPhone this year. Maybe that cheap iPhone will be relevant in U.S. markets, and not only in Asia (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/...-year-contract-requirement-others-may-follow/)

 

[hgrimberg]

You could have at least told the truth

Galaxy S III battery life FTW

Oh, come on, that is because you turn off 3G all the time. I had a Droid 2 and battery was only lasting 8 hours if i was not using it too much. I asked a S3 owner about the battery and he said 6 hours was maximum.

----------

Oh, come on, that is because you turn off 3G all the time. I had a Droid 2 with and extended battery and battery was only lasting 8 hours if i was not using it too much. I asked a S3 owner about the battery and he said 6 hours was maximum.

 

[thehustleman]

Oh, come on, that is because you turn off 3G all the time. I had a Droid 2 and battery was only lasting 8 hours if i was not using it too much. I asked a S3 owner about the battery and he said 6 hours was maximum.

----------

Oh, come on, that is because you turn off 3G all the time. I had a Droid 2 with and extended battery and battery was only lasting 8 hours if i was not using it too much. I asked a S3 owner about the battery and he said 6 hours was maximum.

Surprised you got that long of a battery life off of a droid.

And No, I don't turn off my data connection. The SCREEN is the main thing that takes up battery life on any device. Data is very minimal in battery drain in my experience.

LOL@6 hours max. He lied to you.

I have a galaxy S III, my new manager has one, the old manager has one, and it lasts us ALL DAY. Go ahead and check the screen shot, it isn't edited and I didn't turn data off (would be too annoying, just simply USE the phone and not worry about that).

6 hours is a joke.



Some android phones DO have terrible battery life - in fact I'd say MOST, but there are a lot with decent-good battery life out there

(droid razr Maxx, HD, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III, One X+ etc) but 6 hours max is just a lie no matter how you spin it.

 

[xofruitcake]

Problem is not making phone cheaper, making it cheaper with 70% margin. $330 retail means Apple will not spend more that $100 on BOM + Assembly + (probably) Shipping. Assuming target market is Asia, shipping will be cheaper from China.

Interestingly Apple moved to A* to maintain higher margin. Now looking to Qualcomm for cheaper chip. I hope they are not having issues with TSMC. Never liked Apple's reliance on Sharp and TSMC.

The integration of Bluetooth and wifi in the chip would play a role as well. That should save a few bucks both in term of manufacturing and parts. And more importantly,it may use less power as well. fab capacity probably has to be part of the issue. When you add up all the chips that Apple need this year, it is going to be problematic for any fab to produce..

 

[2499723]

This again.

People seem to have trouble imagining that:

1. There's a world outside the U.S.
2. Cell phone market outside the U.S. is siginificant.
3. Pricing in other countries doesn't follow U.S. pricing.
4. In other countries, people may not be paying subsidized prices but rather full prices for their phones.
5. Average selling price of phones may be way different in another country given the average income is lower and the previous fact.

Thanks for this. I can't stand arguments that suggest that we should all just buy iPhone 4's if we want a 'cheaper iPhone'. I sold my iPhone 4 for a Nexus 4 that was half the price of an iPhone 5, but with much better specs than an iPhone 4 and a processor rivalling higher-tier phones. What blows my mind, though, is that the iPhone 4 was more expensive than the Nexus (£319 vs £279). Contract-free phones are a much more attractive option for those who don't want to be locked into an extortionate payment plan for two years. I want to be spending £15 - £20 maximum for my contract, whereas some of my US friends are spending like $70 a month (or more). Why, oh why, would I subject myself to that experience? If Apple releases a cheaper phone with a half decent processor, I'd be very inclined to switch back over, but at the moment, Android is rinsing Apple in the affordable-but-powerful market.

 

[Michael Scrip]

See, even a 8GB iPhone 4 is 3x more expensive than a lot of popular options, and even it (the cheapest iPhone, almost considered obsolete with Apple not giving it new iOS 6 features) is a lot of money for the average Indian to drop on a phone.

By the way, those are not the cheapest smartphones I could find. Those are only brand names (known to americans), but otherwise there were unknown OEMs with way cheaper prices.

No wonder why Android is gaining marketshare in emerging countries with no carrier subsidies. The reality is totally different. A U.S.-centric vision won't allow you to understand the discrepancy of Android popularity in the U.S. and worldwide.

RE: popularity

Is Android really popular? Or is it because you can buy an Android phone for $150 unlocked?

Let's face it... if you've only got $150 to spend on a smartphone... Android is your only option at that price.

That doesn't necessarily mean people are buying a phone because of Android... it sounds like they are buying a phone for $150 and it happens to run Android.

And let's see what you get for $150: slower processor... 480x320 screen... VGA video recording...

Those phones are inexpensive because they are made that way. They are down-market, entry-level phones. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But I'm starting to think that Android's colossal market share and perceived "popularity" is the result of phones like these around the world.

 

[Cubytus]

Constant data connection IS a major battery drain. Just have a look at talk time when it goes over 3G as when it goes over 2G. There is no need for 3G to transmit voice, really.