WirelessWeek.com

Log in | Register
<!-- Insert your title here -->

Daily news and top headlines for wireless professionals

FREE Email Newsletter View Sample »

  

Wireless Week Blogs


Wireless Week Blog

Apple Right to Wait on LTE

 Permanent link

Apple's decision not to include LTE in the iPhone 4S shouldn't have been a big surprise to anyone, nor should it be such a big disappointment. The company has a tradition of stalling implementation of new technologies until it is absolutely sure that it can do so without hurting the end user experience. In the case of an LTE-capable iPhone 4S, Apple had ample reason to wait.

First, the iPhone 4S would have cost more. LTE chipsets have not come down enough in price that Apple could have included one without driving up the price of what is essentially an iPhone 4 refresh, with Siri. Consumers were already upset that it wasn't an iPhone 5; how would they have felt if it cost $25 or $50 more?

Second, users would have seen major battery drain (aside from the software snafu, which has since been fixed), given that the device would have been managing 2G, 3G and 4G networks. Ideally, an LTE chip should mean less battery drain, but these are early days and chip makers are still working on more efficient management of handoff and signaling. Besides, have you ever seen or felt the heft of the Thunderbolt – slim as it may be in its out of box form – with an external battery pack?

The third reason is that while LTE may be rounding third right now, it hasn't reached home. LTE is not available in a lot of areas. Granted, Verizon Wireless is executing well when it comes to LTE deployments, but consumers are still just catching onto what it all means. Just prior to writing this blog, a friend called and asked me what kind of smartphone he should get. I told him that it depended on whether he wanted LTE. My friend had no idea what LTE was. Neither did he know what 4G really meant. Sorry folks, we're just not there yet.

The final reason that I think Apple was right in waiting is that it's really not that big of a difference to consumers right now. I've seen LTE on an HTC Thunderbolt. Yes, it is most definitely the wave of the future and very fast. However, the killer app just hasn't arrived yet. There are very few things that a LTE-capable Thunderbolt can do that an iPhone 4S can't do. In fact, I can't really think of even one thing.

I am not diminishing LTE here. I think it's a great technology that is going to drive things like HTML5 and cloud-based services to whole other levels. But until users look from their iPhone 4S over to their friend's Thunderbolt and really get jealous, we're just not there yet. In the end, it will be the applications that differentiate and promote LTE.

Apparently Apple decided that the difference between watching a video on a smartphone connected to LTE and one connected to 3G wasn't worth rushing their next major leap forward. Instead, I’m guessing they’ll wait until mid-2012, when the networks are deployed in more places, the chipsets are cheaper and more refined and developers will have begun showing off their LTE-only wares. At that time, there will be enough iPhone 4 and 4S users looking over at their evolved iPhone 5 cousin, saying “I think it’s time to upgrade.”


1. The cost didn't have to be transferred to the purchaser. Gee, Apple could actually have cut its profit by a few dollars. What a unique idea!
2. Samsung has quite effectively cut battery drain as an issue with its new Galaxy S2 phones. They simply don't use the 4G antenna when not needed. In any case, this point won't go away, so how is it a reason to delay implementing 4G on a phone? Let consumers make their own decision as balancing speed with battery usage.
3. Just because LTE, or even Wi-Max for that matter, isn't available everywhere, doesn't provide an excuse not to provide it to those that can make use of it.

Really? Does providing excuses for why Apple doesn't have the latest technology on its iPhone fool anyone? The difference between 3G and 4G is readily researched. And the fact is that any person can experience 4G speeds and make the decision for him or herself. Just sign on to your local wi-fi "N" speed broadband modem. There is your 4G speed. If you don't think that 4G makes a difference, you really shouldn't own a cell phone.

The real reason Apple didn't put a 4G antenna in the iPhone: it wouldn't fit. That simple.

You don't need an Apple apologist to explain this one.
Posted by: unplugged at 11/18/2011 2:31 PM


They 4s experience is not so great. Bad firmware causing battery drain and a faulty fix. The iPhone 4 experience on 3G was probably the worst phone experience for a voice product that I've encountered in 25 years of wireless. Horrible radio/antenna design and poor voice quality = lousy user experience. Apple just is not ready for LTE or they would have launched. You are an Apple homer!
Posted by: tom matthews at 11/18/2011 3:44 PM


Moot points abound!

1) If Apple had included a 4G chipset, it would've been called the iPhone 5. And yes, people would've spent $50 extra dollars for that 5 and an LTE chipset. $400 devices are already being sold without a contract with 4G capability.

2) You mention an extended battery as though Apple would allow you to install one yourself. You can't remove the battery in the iPhone. Any comparison of batteries in an iOS device is totally pointless. Until they allow user installed batteries, stay away from this argument.

3) Really? The fact that the 4G US network doesn't have a large footprint is an excuse not to include a 4G chipset? So... the big 4 and other manufacturers must be wasting their time... the footprint is so small that no one is buying 4G? Right...

Critical thinking is at an all time low.
Posted by: samuraidrive at 12/1/2011 11:16 AM


he makes a great point apple cheaped out and couldnt risk another keeping up with the jones competition and loosing to android...again. thus one reason for no LTE. the other (i doubt apple... being a merchadising think tank, not a cutting edge technology co., even considered this but olny fair to mention) lte is not 4g. ITU-R regulated the 2g 3g 4g standards,and LTE A.K.A. 3gpp+ or simplified 3.9g while close is not 4g. the first true 4g will be "LTE Advanced" untill then LTE is the leader. the reason LTE is refered to as 4G is the marketing departments rounded up, and my guess sprint needed to "round Up" to cover there upgrade cost's and spurred the idustry wide misinformation competition to keep up with the misinformation when truly someone should have raised there hand and said.. "hey you cant say thats 4g, 4g does not exist yet not till 2013 will any 4g services be available" instead they just let them run with it and road the new technology paycheck at the buyers expense.. not the first time in this industry just look at what is defined as ITU-R 3g specs it will very obvious what as we speak some co. are still runing with the 2g advertised as 3g its a buyer beware and o ones watching your back, this article is just and example 4g this and that and excuses for apple, no true 4g info here just excusing a co for not including technology that will be out in a year so they can make a profit on this ponsey scheme and now they can do it again next year with true 4g and they prob call it true4g or 4GReal devise and everyone will flood the market to grab the technology of yesterday, today while tommorrows techology sits on a shelf for integration into the next comapany paycheck upgrade.
Posted by: sslogic at 3/24/2012 6:11 PM


register or log in to comment on this blog!

Loading...
Latest Cell Phone Accessories,
Batteries, Covers, and Cases
with Free shipping!


The #1 Source for cell phone accessories
And the largest iPhone Case selection online

  
CTIA Wireless 2012 and the Comeback Kids

CTIA Wireless 2012 and the Comeback Kids

New Orleans proved the perfect city for CTIA Wireless 2012.


My Guilty Pleasure

My Guilty Pleasure

Sometimes a quick daydream is all it takes.


Spectrum Warehousing: Were They or Weren't They?

Spectrum Warehousing: Were They or Weren't They?

Did SpectrumCo ever intend to build a wireless network? Or were they really planning to sit on the airwaves until they came immensely valuable?


Loading...
<!-- Insert your title here -->

Free Wireless Industry
Subscriptions

Magazine

wireless week

Newsletters

newsletters

Sign up now ►

Top Stories and Headlines
EVERY DAY!

Free Email Newsletter