XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: arlen@arlen.com   
      
   On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 12:01:11 -0800, sms wrote:   
      
   > Having to source 5G modems from someone else for a couple of years,   
   > while they develop their own designs, is not a big deal. No company   
   > wants to be at the mercy of a sole supplier for critical components forever.   
   >   
   > Huawei Balong 5000, Qualcomm X55, Mediatek M70, Samsung Exynos 5100 will   
   > all be in full production by 2020 and one of those will work. Intel may   
   > have their XMM 8160 in production by then as well.   
      
   Hi Steve,   
      
   I'd agree with everything you said, IF... if... if ... if ... if .. if ..if   
   o If Apple sold mediocre-priced phones.   
      
   Let's use some of our adult logic with the facts.   
   o Adults can predict the impact of the future using basic adult logic   
      
   Qualcomm is _clearly_ the leader in performance smartphone modems.   
   o Who is second?   
      
   I don't know, but certainly not MediaTek, that's for sure.   
   o Hauwei is doubtful since they're "out of the question" in the cites.   
      
   So that leaves, as number two, either Samsung or Intel, right?   
   o It's clearly not Intel ... so number two _must_ be Samsung, right?   
      
   Why doesn't Apple just buy quality modems from Samsung then?   
   o Samsung will come at a huge cost, according to the analysts.   
      
   Clearly, Apple doesn't want to pay those huge costs, right Steve?   
      
   So Apple is sticking with Intel, who is, at best, number 3.   
   o Intel is clearly far behind Qualcomm & Samsung by _all_ accounts.   
      
   Based on the evidence, it "appears" the adult logic is that:   
   1. Qualcomm is number one (by a huge margin over #3 and beyond)   
   2. Samsung is likely number two (we don't know the margin).   
   3. We can lump all the rest into the number 3 slot using reasonable logic.   
      
   What you're arguing is that Apple can source from that #3 slot.   
   o That makes complete sense, Steve ... IF ... if ... if ... if ... if ...   
      
   If Apple didn't sell astronomically priced phones, Steve, ...   
   o Then it would make perfect sense to use the #3 modem supplier!   
      
   *The key point is that Apple sells astronomically priced phones.*   
      
   Doesn't it seem like it's a problem for an astronomically priced phone   
   o To have a modem in it that is from the #3 supplier, at best?   
      
   It's not like a modem is an un-critical part of a smartphone, Steve.   
   o The point is Intel modems are mediocre modems by all accounts, Steve.   
      
   *It means Apple's astronomically priced phones have mediocre performance*   
      
   Worse...   
      
   Apple's astronomically priced phones will have mediocre modems for years,   
   (and, perhaps forever, since Qualcomm isn't exactly sitting still).   
      
   If Apple did NOT sell astronomically priced phones, then _all_ your   
   arguments would easily hold water.   
      
   The key distinction is that the iPhone has a mediocre modem at an   
   astronomical price, where your argument holds for a mediocre phone at a   
   mediocre price (like my $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus is, which I love).   
      
   If I paid $1,500 for that phone, I'd expect more than a mediocre modem.   
      
   In summary, Apple iPhones may FOREVER have mediocre performance.   
   o That's fine if Apple no longer aims for the astronomically priced market   
      
   Now I see exactly why nospam is so afraid of 5G facts.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)