I have no contract. I have the 3Gs and I would easily switch to Verizon if my 3Gs was also CDMA without purchasing a phone. Do you think everybody buys phones every 2 years just because their contract is ended?
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.
Verizon iPhone Carries World-Mode 'Gobi' Chip From Qualcomm
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no contract. I have the 3Gs and I would easily switch to Verizon if my 3Gs was also CDMA without purchasing a phone. Do you think everybody buys phones every 2 years just because their contract is ended?
I don't understand this statement. We're talking about phones, are we not?
The official spec sheet for the phone that I mentioned lists 800 and 1900. It was able to connect to an 850 network.
Integrated SIM is most likely never gonna happen since European Union doesn't allow it. Unless Apple makes a phone with SIM slot ONLY for Europe which is highly unlikely.
Sure, but you're talking about your old CDMA phone that had to connect to a lower freq CDMA network which your carrier clearly supported, and clearly the phone itself even though it wasn't listed on the spec sheet.
I'm talking about cross network connectivity, and a CDMA unit connecting to a GSM network without a single GSM RF component besides the chipset.
I'm not following you, but then again maybe I wasn't clear earlier.
Please link to some information to show me why an 850 MHz antenna for GSM and an 850 MHz antenna for CDMA need to be designed differently.
The tuning of a dipole (or other) antenna is mostly based on the frequency of the RF signal. The protocol overlaid on the RF signal is minor or insignificant.
Please, again a link to explain the design differences between a "CDMA 850 MHz" antenna and a "GSM 850 MHz" antenna.
My "VHF hi-band" antenna picks up lo-channel digital HD TV, hi-channel analog SD TV (until that was dropped), digital HD radio, and analog FM radio. It only cares about the frequency of the signals, not whether they're digital, analog, audio or video.
_______________
The antenna on the Verizon Iphone was changed to fix AntennaGate, not because a GSM antenna couldn't pick up CDMA signals on roughtly the same frequencies.
I'll probably get in trouble for this but there it goes:
Quite an ignorant and arrogant statement coming from a self-claimed professional.
Ok now you're absolutely failing to reckognize what is needed to make a call.
Antenna needs "PA" (power amplifier), power levels are COMPLETELY different on 1x vs GSM for example.
Then we have filters.. HSPA/GSM uses different filters than CDMA2000.
And at the end, the antenna itself will need to be redesigned. You are forgetting that GSM phones have to support 5 bands while CDMA deal with 2.
The list goes on. I'd suggest you to start by reading the basics of RF and cellular technology. It gets deep, and I don't have it in me to lecture any further.
P.S. Comparing TV technology with cellular is abysmal.
Completely different? Are we talking milliamps vs kilowatts?
<jk>milliamps and kilowatts aren't comparable without additional information, like the voltage</jk>
Discussing antenna tuning is quite relevant.
Why should I not take that as an admission that you admit that you are wrong?
The discussion was never about the totality of the wireless spectrum, but specifically about why an antenna that works on 800/850 MHz GSM won't work with 800/850 MHz CDMA. (Or why an 800 MHz GSM antenna won't work for 850 MHz CDMA or vice versa.... The basic issue there is that 800 and 850 are so close that the RF issues are virtually the same, and that an antenna optimized for either will be pretty good at picking up the other band.)
Please address that narrow issue. You don't know what my undergraduate and graduate educational background is - so you might be embarrassed by trying to play that card.
Last edited:
Is there any other reason to use the Qualcomm "Gobi" MDM6600 chip in the iPhone other than a step toward a CDMA/GSM phone?
The R&D on designing a CDMA only phone is a lot cheaper than designing a hybrid CDMA/GSM phone. More frequencies, more antennae (8+ for a true hybrid worldphone), more hardware, and more cost.
My guess is that Apple used the Gobi chip so that they could write the iOS drivers for the chip now and have the support ready when they do introduce a single-phone solution, likely this June at WWDC.
Noticed the REV B EVDO capability on CDMA 
Technically capable of a top speeds of 14.7mbps vs REV A's 3.1mpbps(real world 1mbps average). I would expect speeds in the 4-5mbps range with REV B(similar to GSM).
Blackberries have similar chips in them and i would not be surprised if most of the other major devices do as well.
Now if only Verizon/Sprint would roll out REV B data across the 3G networks which from what i understand requires mostly a software update on the towers.
Some of the CDMA carriers in China, Indonesia have begun doing just that. I doubt it will ever happen here though as Verizon/Sprint are now focused on rolling out new 4G networks. The sad part is 3G will still have a bigger footprint for quite some time to come.
Effectively this makes it impossible to fully utilize a current Verizon iPhones data capabilities
Technically capable of a top speeds of 14.7mbps vs REV A's 3.1mpbps(real world 1mbps average). I would expect speeds in the 4-5mbps range with REV B(similar to GSM).
Blackberries have similar chips in them and i would not be surprised if most of the other major devices do as well.
Now if only Verizon/Sprint would roll out REV B data across the 3G networks which from what i understand requires mostly a software update on the towers.
Some of the CDMA carriers in China, Indonesia have begun doing just that. I doubt it will ever happen here though as Verizon/Sprint are now focused on rolling out new 4G networks. The sad part is 3G will still have a bigger footprint for quite some time to come.
Effectively this makes it impossible to fully utilize a current Verizon iPhones data capabilities
its a small world afterall.
In any case, see all above, I hope we get a world phone someday. That would be so sweet.
In any case, see all above, I hope we get a world phone someday. That would be so sweet.
Being "pretty good at picking up a band that's 50Mhz off" and being finely tuned for that "other band" is a HUGE difference. It can determine if your battery will last 7 or 2 hours. And it's not just a piece of stainless steel, there are other even more components that determine perfomance of your phone/antenna.
On a side note: You are comparing a VHF/UHF antenna performance where your TV tuner that's either power inside your TV and in a separate electrically powered box with handheld cellular device that has to pick up not only different bands but need different sets of radios in order to operate on that "other" network, and maintain low power consumption/ last for hours. You realize that your high powered TV/receiver does all the work while you directional cheap VHF/UHF antenna is there just to pick up the broadcast, right?
I'm not sure what's your educational background, but your comments about cellular technology are not impressive.
This is hat you could do:
1. Get a phd in electrical engineering
2. Specialize in rf technology
3. Redisign the iPhone to do what you want with the same spec of outside antenna
Any links to support your conjecture that a small antenna difference causes more than a 3x difference in battery life?
Be sure to account for the fact that the radio/antennae in the defective Iphone 4 are already dealing with multiple GSM bands.
No, I never mentioned UHF bands.
And your arguments are even less impressive. But, comparing graduate degrees isn't going to answer this discussion....
i have not read the previous posts - but anyway - let the vibrator jokes fly.
Though good to hear aapl has incorporated dual mode RF IC's - nice work
Though good to hear aapl has incorporated dual mode RF IC's - nice work
Which makes me wonder, why not put a sim slot in it?
God, did people forget about the "virtual sim" (or whatever) that was rumored a while back?
Sigh... All good, not worth trying. No disrespect, but your scientific TV antenna analogy is still cracking me up.
Anyway, I've said enough, don't believe anything I say, research yourself?
Better?
lame, should have had both
iphone 5 will be. Cant see any design change for iphone 5 now either, they even fixed the vibrator and the battery is slightly different.
In a conversation with a t-mobile rep, I asked about the iPhone...response was they have no interest because the Samsung Vibrant was the best phone available. Which I translated to I wish we weren't the 4th place carrier so we could get the iPhone too.
Vibrant running 2.1 because Samsung can't figure out how to push an upgrade.
They already do, the Blackberry Tour supports both CDMA and GSM (via SIM slot) the SIM isn't required for pure CDMA operation. It was used to allow CDMA devices to roam in Europe where there was no CDMA.
As far as frequencies go, 850 is standard for North America, and infact is the same frequency Verizon is using for CDMA, they are both the old A band (ATT) and B band (Verizon) that was used in analog in North America for years, as far as the antenna goes, both support 850 and 1.9 which are the same frequencies used in most carriers in North America today. AWS is the new one that isn't supported yet, actually when I was at CTIA last year and asked Qualcomm, they expect AWS support sometime this year (2011).