Next-Gen iPhone & iPhone Nano Speculation

[anexanhume]

What is more expensive for the transistor budget (which could mean yields or bottom line costs) on an SOC, increasing the clock speeds, adding cores or doubling the RAM?

RAM isn't really a concern. That isn't their product so they don't have to worry about yields. Only unit price. There's also no problem stacking 1GB versus 512MB in the package seeing as how all the other vendors do it.

For the transistor count and clock frequency, it's not always a simple equation. In the simplest terms, if you have one failed transistor per x mm^2, then a chip twice as big is twice as likely to fail to yield. But that's not all. The larger your chip is, the less efficient you likely use your wafer (because, remember we're putting rectangles on a circle). As far as clock speeds, that also effects yields indirectly. Since these are all intended to run at one frequency, they either past the functional test or they don't. So, there's likely going to be some sort of bell curve in terms of how many chips yield at their desired frequency, so they need to pick a frequency that is reasonable given how the parts are testing.

And how would that compare with increasing storage?

NAND is one of the biggest single costs in the system. However, it is also the ONLY thing they increase the price of for. For instance, for ~30 more worth of NAND, they are charging 100 more in the 64 versus 32gb iPad. So, they don't really have any problem adding more NAND if they want it in there.

The problem for Apple compared to other manufacturers is that they will produce and ship far more, so any incremental cost would have a much greater multiplier effect to the overall costs and ROI on the life of a project like the iPad 3.

But their profits and revenues also scale. And any NRE (non-recurring engineering) is not multiplied no matter how many iPads you make. More is always better assuming you can source components and consumer demand is there.

With higher-resolution screen, apps. and content could have assets which make greater demands on RAM and use more storage. Perhaps increased RAM and increased storage would result in a better overall experience than increasing CPU or GPU performance?

While apple is very efficient with their RAM usage in iOS, I think there's no question they would benefit from 1GB. Heck, they could even do dedicated VRAM like the Vita. The good thing about Apple is that they understand the user experience end of it, and shipping a product is not just about specs and getting it out. They see themselves as users of their own products and they will demand a smooth experience.

 

[ltcommander.data]

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/01...tos-show-black-and-white-options-home-button/

More presumably iPad 3 front panel leaks clearly retaining the home button. If the iPad 3 is home buttonless, Apple has managed to control the secrecy of that part whereas everything else has seemingly come out.

 

[Pressure]

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/01...tos-show-black-and-white-options-home-button/

More presumably iPad 3 front panel leaks clearly retaining the home button. If the iPad 3 is home buttonless, Apple has managed to control the secrecy of that part whereas everything else has seemingly come out.

Well, we still know nothing about the most interesting part, besides the new 2048 x 1536 panel, the SoC.

 

[ltcommander.data]

Well, we still know nothing about the most interesting part, besides the new 2048 x 1536 panel, the SoC.

I just meant that other major parts seem to have been physically seen, photographed, and reported on whereas that hasn't happened for the supposedly buttonless front panel. Physically seeing a SoC isn't very informative of course.

 

[Helmore]

I just meant that other major parts seem to have been physically seen, photographed, and reported on whereas that hasn't happened for the supposedly buttonless front panel. Physically seeing a SoC isn't very informative of course.

I still don't get why people think there won't be a physical home button. There have been no rumors about there not being a physical home button, only speculation by fans who misinterpreted Apple's invitation picture.

 

[Lazy8s]

Yeah, nothing is happening with the Home button. I don't give much consideration to the possibility.

 

[wco81]

What is the likely LTE chipset if the iPad 3 offers LTE as rumored?

Would it be a "world" LTE chipset? That is, if you get LTE service on Verizon, you can also use it on EVDO and HSPA networks?

Of course the chipset may support all the networks but Verizon and AT&T may try to prevent interoperability, though since they're not subsidizing iPads nor requiring contracts, you hope they don't care.

The Android tablets that AT&T and Verizon are offering have LTE and either HSPA or EVDO. Verizon isn't offering a "world" tablet yet, though I'm not sure if they're offering a "world" smart phone with LTE, HSPA and EVDO either.

If you could use it on either AT&T or Verizon's LTE networks and also fall back to EVDO or use with HSPA networks around the world, that would definitely tip me towards paying more for the mobile version.

Of course, Apple would want one SKU and may have the clout to force both carriers to take an interoperable SKU, even though both carriers are obviously trying to keep LTE phones which only work on one carrier or the other but not both.

 

[Helmore]

What is the likely LTE chipset if the iPad 3 offers LTE as rumored?

Would it be a "world" LTE chipset? That is, if you get LTE service on Verizon, you can also use it on EVDO and HSPA networks?

Of course the chipset may support all the networks but Verizon and AT&T may try to prevent interoperability, though since they're not subsidizing iPads nor requiring contracts, you hope they don't care.

The Android tablets that AT&T and Verizon are offering have LTE and either HSPA or EVDO. Verizon isn't offering a "world" tablet yet, though I'm not sure if they're offering a "world" smart phone with LTE, HSPA and EVDO either.

If you could use it on either AT&T or Verizon's LTE networks and also fall back to EVDO or use with HSPA networks around the world, that would definitely tip me towards paying more for the mobile version.

Of course, Apple would want one SKU and may have the clout to force both carriers to take an interoperable SKU, even though both carriers are obviously trying to keep LTE phones which only work on one carrier or the other but not both.

Apple is likely to use a Qualcomm chipset, but that's just my guess based on the fact that they're using Qualcomm in the iPhone. About an LTE iPad, I suspect that they may only release an iPad with LTE on the US market as the market for LTE based tablets outside of the US is pretty small AFAIK. This would also mean that Apple will be making 3 different SKUs, a WiFi only, a 3G and an LTE iPad. Ah well, we'll get to know more in about 4 days from now.

As for that Qualcomm chipset, I haven't really looked into it, but aren't all of Qualcomm's LTE capable chipsets capable of both HSPA and EVDO?

 

[Erinyes]

Apple is likely using Qualcomm's MDM (Or do i have to call it Gobi now?) 9615 which is their first 28nm LTE chip (Though ironically MSM 8960 which is an SoC plus the same modem is actually coming out earlier). MDM 9615 was supposed to go into production in Q2 2012 last i read, so the iPad LTE variant may not be available right at launch.

As far as being a "world" chipset, it does support pretty much every interface out there (including HSPA/EVDO/TD-SCDMA,etc), but the actual interoperability would depend on the power amp's used for the particular models. The LTE variants should definitely support fallback to EVDO or HSPA if LTE is not available.

 

[wco81]

What about support for both LTE networks? If there's no overlap in the bands AT&T and VZ use for LTE, does the chipset support all those bands?

Guess the antenna configuration could be a factor too?

It would be great to have the option to go with AT&T or VZ in a given month, depending on where you are and what the coverage is like.

 

[metafor]

The modem is multimode and works with most of the announced LTE bands. The PA and antenna are the limitations

 

[wco81]

Why the variance in PAs? Some bands or the networks which use them require more power?

AT&T and VZ LTE networks should use neighboring bands, shouldn't they, since spectrum in the US seems to be auctioned off in lots of bands near each other.

Beyond the technical obstacles, the US carriers seem to have little interest or opposition to making interoperable devices. Maybe EU will come to the rescue, with mandated interoperability helping to forge "world" LTE devices, when the carriers there finally deploy.

 

[metafor]

The 700 MHz spectrum should be close. But the plans for LTE involve use of a lot of different frequencies. Had at&t bought t-mobile, they planned on using the 1700 aws spectrum for LTE as well. Sprint will likely use their WiMAX spectrum and t-mobile's LTE deployment may be on aws. Globally, the range is even bigger, I believe.

 

[dagamer]

What is the likely LTE chipset if the iPad 3 offers LTE as rumored?

Would it be a "world" LTE chipset? That is, if you get LTE service on Verizon, you can also use it on EVDO and HSPA networks?

Of course the chipset may support all the networks but Verizon and AT&T may try to prevent interoperability, though since they're not subsidizing iPads nor requiring contracts, you hope they don't care.

The Android tablets that AT&T and Verizon are offering have LTE and either HSPA or EVDO. Verizon isn't offering a "world" tablet yet, though I'm not sure if they're offering a "world" smart phone with LTE, HSPA and EVDO either.

If you could use it on either AT&T or Verizon's LTE networks and also fall back to EVDO or use with HSPA networks around the world, that would definitely tip me towards paying more for the mobile version.

Of course, Apple would want one SKU and may have the clout to force both carriers to take an interoperable SKU, even though both carriers are obviously trying to keep LTE phones which only work on one carrier or the other but not both.

Apple is likely to use a Qualcomm chipset, but that's just my guess based on the fact that they're using Qualcomm in the iPhone. About an LTE iPad, I suspect that they may only release an iPad with LTE on the US market as the market for LTE based tablets outside of the US is pretty small AFAIK. This would also mean that Apple will be making 3 different SKUs, a WiFi only, a 3G and an LTE iPad. Ah well, we'll get to know more in about 4 days from now.

As for that Qualcomm chipset, I haven't really looked into it, but aren't all of Qualcomm's LTE capable chipsets capable of both HSPA and EVDO?

Why the variance in PAs? Some bands or the networks which use them require more power?

AT&T and VZ LTE networks should use neighboring bands, shouldn't they, since spectrum in the US seems to be auctioned off in lots of bands near each other.

Beyond the technical obstacles, the US carriers seem to have little interest or opposition to making interoperable devices. Maybe EU will come to the rescue, with mandated interoperability helping to forge "world" LTE devices, when the carriers there finally deploy.

There is no technical reason why AT&T and Verizon LTE phones shouldn't interoperate. It's purely a business decision to effectively lock phones to their own networks and it's a rather shitty practice.

Apple is the only company that has a strong incentive to cut through this kind of bullshit because they do NOT want to make custom phones for a specific carrier. Until phones are required to interoperate with other carriers, this monkey mess is going to continue.

 

[wco81]

Verizon has always been like that, tried to carve out their own niche of devices. So they move to LTE, presumably because the successor to EVDO wouldn't have been competitive?

But they will try the lock-in, since they're subsidizing smart phones.

There is less of an argument for lock in of iPads, since they're not subsidized and they're unlocked. Or at least they have been unlocked for UMTS thus far. Who knows if they'll do something different for LTE.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There is no technical reason why AT&T and Verizon LTE phones shouldn't interoperate. It's purely a business decision to effectively lock phones to their own networks and it's a rather shitty practice.

Until phone carriers no longer subsidize phone purchases, that is unlikely to ever change. I don't imagine any phone company is willing to subsidize 100-500 USD (or more) on a phone just so the customer can take it to another company on a whim.

The alternative, of course, is to make customers pay full price for the phones. But I'm not sure how good market penetration of smartphones would be if customers had to pay the full price for their phones.

Regards,
SB

 

[Entropy]

Until phone carriers no longer subsidize phone purchases, that is unlikely to ever change. I don't imagine any phone company is willing to subsidize 100-500 USD (or more) on a phone just so the customer can take it to another company on a whim.

The alternative, of course, is to make customers pay full price for the phones. But I'm not sure how good market penetration of smartphones would be if customers had to pay the full price for their phones.

It's not an either/or proposition. Around here both models are used along side each other. Either pay less up front for the phone and more per month in a bound contract, or bring your own phone and pay less for the contract, which you can then typically (but not necessarily, contracts come with their own pricing incentives) leave at your whim.

Both models are used enough that all telecoms bother offering them. Most around me use the "bring your own phone" approach for flexibility of buying/selling phones and taking advantage of good telecom deals, but even within social strata it varies a lot.

 

[dagamer]

It's not an either/or proposition. Around here both models are used along side each other. Either pay less up front for the phone and more per month in a bound contract, or bring your own phone and pay less for the contract, which you can then typically (but not necessarily, contracts come with their own pricing incentives) leave at your whim.

Both models are used enough that all telecoms bother offering them. Most around me use the "bring your own phone" approach for flexibility of buying/selling phones and taking advantage of good telecom deals, but even within social strata it varies a lot.

What it really does is uncover the true cost of these phones, which are very much hidden when you subsidize them. The average person wouldn't know that an iPhone is $100 more expensive than every other phone out there unless they had to replace it before their contract ended.

 

[pcchen]

What it really does is uncover the true cost of these phones, which are very much hidden when you subsidize them. The average person wouldn't know that an iPhone is $100 more expensive than every other phone out there unless they had to replace it before their contract ended.

I think Apple probably don't worry about that anymore, as iPhone's prices are now quite transparent. And since subsidized phone plans are generally much cheaper than non-subsidized ones (considering total cost of ownership), most people should still be buying subsidized phones.

For example, in Taiwan all three major telecoms sell iPhone 4S, unlocked. At the first month, of course, its demand was very high and it's can be difficult to get subsidized one from the largest telecom. So some people chose to buy a non-subsidized one from a smaller telecom, then use their SIM card from the largest telecom. Of course, this is more expensive, but some people are willing to pay extra to get their iPhone as soon as possible.

 

[wco81]

In a lot of countries where prepaid, unsubsidized phones are popular, the iPhone suffers. Even the GS II sells for 100 Euro or more less than the iPhone.