Connect with us

Research

How Worried Should You Be About the Health Risks of 5G?

Published

on

5G, the next generation of cellular technology for the next generation of smartphones, is imminent. And with it, there’s concern about the health risk of this new, more powerful network. How worried should you be about the coming 5G healthpocalypse?

By now, you may have seen articles on Facebook or alternative health websites. The gist: 5G is a dangerous escalation of traditional cellular technology, one packed with higher energy radiation that delivers potential damaging effects on human beings. Some 5G conspiracy theorists contend that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; disrupt cell metabolism; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins. Some articles cite research studies and opinions by reputable organizations like the World Health Organization.

It sounds worrisome, but let’s take a look at the actual science.

What Is 5G?

5G has been hyped for a few years, but this is the year that carriers begin the process of rolling out the new wireless standard. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have all started to deploy their networks in the first half of the year, though widespread availability is still a year or more away. 5G will get a foothold in little more than a handful of cities this year.

Update: With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, a number of viral social media conspiracy theories have speculated that 5G is the cause of the world’s current problems. Simply put, these claims are factually false. 5G does not cause Coronavirus.

That isn’t keeping device manufacturers and service providers from jumping onto the 5G bandwagon. Samsung’s new Galaxy S10 and Galaxy Fold (the phone that unfurls into a tablet), for example, are both 5G-ready, along with models from LG, Huawei, Motorola, ZTE, and more.

LG V50 ThinQ 5G
LG V50 ThinQ 5G’s is one of the first 5G phones available. LG

5G offers at least a tenfold improvement in network performance. The last major network upgrade was 4G, which debuted in 2009 (the year of the Colorado balloon boy hoax), with a peak speed of about 10 Mbps. In comparison, 5G is poised to deliver peak speeds between 10 and 20 Gbps. And network latency will drop from 30ms to about 1ms, ideal for video game streaming, online video, and the Internet of Things, which is anticipating 5G to connect sensors, computers, and other devices with ultra-low latency.

An Evolution of Concerns

Before we address 5G, it’s worth pointing out that the latest health fears about radiation aren’t happening in a vacuum (there’s some physics joke in there, no doubt). Concerns about 5G are the latest iteration of decades of headlines about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. We’ve seen controversies about everything from the health risks of Wi-Fi to smart meters.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, for example, is a hypothetical disease in which certain people experience debilitating symptoms in the presence of radiation like cell phones and Wi-Fi—so yes, Michael McKean’s bizarre behavior on “Better Call Saul” is a real thing. But despite people claiming such sensitivities for at least 30 years, systematic scientific reviews have found that “blinded” victims can’t tell when they’re in the presence of an electromagnetic field, and the World Health Organization now recommends psychological evaluation for people so afflicted.

Likewise, decades of studies have found no link between cell phones and cancers like brain tumors, though that hasn’t kept municipalities like San Francisco from passing laws requiring stores to display the radiation emitted by handsets—which implies, in the minds of consumers, risk.

How Dangerous Is Radiofrequency Radiation?

5G cellular base station

At the root of all concerns about cell phone networks is radiofrequency radiation (RFR). RFR is anything emitted in the electromagnetic spectrum, from microwaves to x-rays to radio waves to light from your monitor or light from the sun. Clearly, RFR isn’t inherently dangerous, so the problem becomes discovering under what circumstances it might be.

Scientists say that the most important criterion about whether any particular RFR is dangerous is whether it falls into the category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Simply put, any radiation that’s non-ionizing is too weak to break chemical bonds. That includes ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and everything with a lower frequency, like radio waves. Everyday technologies like power lines, FM radio, and Wi-Fi also fall into this range. (Microwaves are the lone exception: non-ionizing but able to damage tissue, they’re precisely and intentionally tuned to resonate with water molecules.) Frequencies above UV, like x-rays and gamma rays, are ionizing.

Dr. Steve Novella, an assistant professor of neurology at Yale and the editor of Science-Based Medicine, understands that people generally get concerned about radiation. “Using the term radiation is misleading because people think of nuclear weapons—they think of ionizing radiation that absolutely can cause damage. It can kill cells. It can cause DNA mutations.” But since non-ionizing radiation doesn’t cause DNA damage or tissue damage, Novella says that most concern about cell phone RFR is misplaced. “There’s no known mechanism for most forms of non-ionizing radiation to even have a biological effect,” he says.

Or, in the less refined but more visceral words of author C. Stuart Hardwick, “radiation isn’t magic death cooties.”

Studies Aren’t Clearcut

Of course, just because there’s no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to have a biological effect, that doesn’t’ mean it’s safe or that no effect exists. Indeed, researchers continue to conduct studies. One recent study was released by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services. In this widely quoted study about cell phone radio frequency radiation, scientists found that high exposure to 3G RFR led to some cases of cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors, and tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats.

The study is a good object lesson in how hard it is to do science like this. As RealClearScience points out, the number of tumors detected were so small that they statistically could have occurred by chance (which may be more likely since they were only detected in male subjects). Moreover, the level and duration of the RFR exposure were well in excess of what any actual human would ever be exposed to, and in fact, the irradiated test rats lived longer than the unexposed control rats. Says Dr. Novella, “Experienced researchers look at a study like that and say that doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Sizing Up 5G’s Risks

Ongoing studies aside, 5G is coming, and as mentioned, there are concerns about this new technology.

A common complaint about 5G is that, due to the lower power of 5G transmitters, there will be more of them. The Environmental Health Trust contends that “5G will require the buildout of literally hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in neighborhoods, cities, and towns. A cellular small cell or another transmitter will be placed every two to ten homes according to estimates.”

Says Dr. Novella, “What they’re really saying is the dose is going to be higher. Theoretically, this is a reasonable question to ask.” But skeptics caution you shouldn’t conflate asking the question with merely asserting that there’s a risk. As Novella points out, “We’re still talking about power and frequency less than light. You go out in the sun, and you’re bathed in electromagnetic radiation that’s far greater than these 5G cell towers.”

It’s easy to find claims online that the greater frequency of 5G alone constitutes a risk. RadiationHealthRisks.com observes that “1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency,” and then asserts that “Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms.”

But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature.

Devices emitting electromagnetic fields in the home

The FCC—responsible for licensing the spectrum for public use—weighs in as well. Says Neil Derek Grace, a communications officer at the FCC, “For 5G equipment, the signals from commercial wireless transmitters are typically far below the RF exposure limits at any location that is accessible to the public.” The FCC defers to the FDA for actual health risk assessments, which takes a direct, but low-key approach to addressing the risks: “The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”

In 2011, the World Health Organization weighed in, classifying RF Radiation as a Group 2B agent, which is defined as “Possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This, too, is nuanced. Says Novella, “you have to look at all the other things they classify as a possible carcinogen. They put it in the same class as things like caffeine. That is such a weak standard that it basically means nothing. It’s like saying ‘everything causes cancer.’”

Part of the problem with the WHO declaration is that it’s focused on hazard, not risk—a subtle distinction often lost on non-scientists, not unlike the rigorous distinction between “precision” and “accuracy.” (Precision refers to how tightly clustered your data is; accuracy refers to how close that data is to the real value. You might have a dozen miscalibrated thermometers that all tell you the wrong temperature with a very high degree of precision.) When the WHO classifies coffee or nickel or pickles as a possible carcinogen, it’s asserting hazard without regard for real-world risk. Explains Novella, “A loaded pistol is a hazard because theoretically, it can cause damage. But if you lock it in a safe, the risk is negligible.”

Scientists will continue to test new networks as technology evolves, to make sure the technology we use every day remains safe. As recently as February, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal critiqued the FCC and FDA for insufficient research into the potential risks of 5G. As the NTP study shows, research into radiation risks is difficult and often inconclusive, meaning it can take a long time to make real progress.

But for now, everything we know about 5G networks tells us that there’s no reason to be alarmed. After all, there are many technologies we use every day with a substantially higher measurable risk. And as Dr. Novella says, “With 5G the hazard is low—but non-zero—and the actual risk appears to be zero. We’ve picked up no signal in the real world.”

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-worried-should-you-be-about-the-health-risks-of-5g/

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Research

Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max’s AnTuTu result shows minor performance gains

Published

on

By

Even though Apple didn’t announce any new iPhones during its September event, the company detailed the heart of the future phones – the Apple A14 chipset. Based on Apple’s claims at the announcement we estimated it to have a 17% faster CPU and 8% better GPU than its predecessor and a newly surfaced benchmark shows these numbers are close enough.

An AnTuTu benchmark run on the iPhone 12 Pro Max, reveals 16% higher CPU score and 4% better GPU result. There’s however a more pronounced boost in memory speeds – 22%, but overall the performance gains are clearly minor.

iPhone 12 Pro Max surfaces on AnTuTu with Apple's A14 chip

The combined result of 572,333 points might seem low, considering the Snapdragon 865+ Android competition goes above the 600,000 mark, but cross-platform benchmark comparison isn’t really a level playing field because there are differences in how the tasks are executed.

iPhone 12 Pro Max surfaces on AnTuTu with Apple's A14 chip

However, the comparison to the A13 should be fully relevant and it shows that the world’s first 5nm chipset won’t bring the performance leap many were expecting of it. There are three explanations that come to mind.

For one Apple might have prioritized battery draw over outright performance making the A14 use less power, while achieving what is roughly the same performance. That’s most likely it since the A14 Bionic pioneer – the Apple iPad Air 4th generation – has the same battery life as its predecessor despite packing an 8% smaller cell.

Alternatively, the move to 5nm chipsets might not yield the gains that we all hoped. While the almost 30% smaller process should theoretically deliver great efficiency boost, it may take time until it’s fully utilized.

Finally, this could be an engineering sample and the performance of the final units can be far better. However with Apple itself claiming modest gains close to these results that seems like a very long shot.

Source: https://www.gsmarena.com/iphone_12_pro_max_surfaces_on_antutu_with_apples_a14_chip-news-45343.php

Continue Reading

Research

HOW MICROSOFT BUILT ITS FOLDING ANDROID PHONE

Published

on

By

Microsoft is returning to making phones this week, as part of an ambitious project to usher in a new era of dual-screen and folding devices. The company has spent around six years developing Surface Duo, its Android-powered device that folds out to be a phone or a miniature tablet. It’s taken Microsoft years to get the hardware and software right, but the company firmly believes now is the ideal time for something new. When it goes on sale tomorrow, we’ll see if the company got it right.

This is the story of how Microsoft’s new folding Android phone came to be.

Microsoft’s Panos Panay with a Surface Duo.
 Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

POCKETABLE AND MINI SURFACES

Panos Panay, Microsoft’s chief product officer, is known for his onstage energy and for constantly feeling pumped, but when it came time to build his dream Moleskine-like device, he spent months walking around in secret with a peculiar piece of hardware in his pocket. “We literally had two pieces of metal and a hinge that we put together,” explains Panay in an interview with The Verge. “We had this piece of metal that I carried around in my pocket for months.”

It was the early and primitive form for what eventually became the Surface Duo, and Panay spent months analyzing things like “fidget factor” and measuring how often he opened and closed the device. “Does it fit in your pocket? Can you sit on it? How big would the screen have to be if it wasn’t a traditional slab you were holding every day?” were some of the many questions he and his team were looking to answer.

Panay has been thinking about a pocketable or a small Surface device for years, even describing the idea as his “baby” at one point, but it was a painful journey to get to the Surface Duo. Work began on the Duo just after Microsoft had canceled the Surface Mini, an eight-inch tablet running Windows. Microsoft had been planning to launch this smaller Surface, but it ultimately wasn’t the right time back in 2014.

“It was emotional to stop,” says Panay. “Products are a reflection of the people that make them, that’s how we talk as a team. These products become who you are at work, and we spend a lot of time at work.”

If there’s anything that Microsoft has learned from trying to harmonize Surface hardware and software, it’s that timing is everything. “One of things that we’ve really developed a strong muscle for is the ability to know timing for when a product is right,” explains Steven Bathiche, who oversees all hardware innovation for Microsoft devices like Surface, Xbox, and HoloLens. “Timing is a thing I’ve learned is the most important thing, it’s more important than the idea itself in fact. All the ingredients really have to be right. This is probably why in the past you haven’t seen some of these ideas really make it through.”

Microsoft’s Surface mini.
 Image: Windows Central

That’s why the Surface Mini never launched. “Mini just wasn’t right because it didn’t have the apps for the form factor,” explains Panay. “There were a lot of challenges for Mini. I still have my Mini, it’s running Windows RT, but it didn’t have everything it needed for that form.” Surface Mini would have run Windows, which meant apps would have needed to be updated for the form factor, and the size and OS choice meant you’d still have to carry around a mobile phone.

While the Surface Mini cancellation was painful, it was an important part of the history of the Surface Duo and influenced what hardware choices were made. Microsoft moved on to a device codenamed “Andromeda” before shifting to the Surface Duo. While the Surface team is reluctant to talk about Andromeda in detail, sources tell The Verge it was a similar dual-screen device that was thicker and bulkier than the Surface Duo. Microsoft had planned to run a custom variant of Windows on Andromeda, and the camera hardware was also different to what exists in the Duo.

“At that time, it was different hardware, it’s not the same hardware… it’s not even remotely close,” says Panay. The key principles of Surface Duo existed in Andromeda, though: two screens side by side, with a hinge that allowed the device to fold out into place. “We’re in so many generations later of development [with Surface Duo], we understand how thin it is, we understand reliability, we understand the robustness of the screens. It has been generationally made, it’s years in the making.”

Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

FOLDING HARDWARE

Surface Mini and Andromeda helped Microsoft experiment with the idea of a pocketable Surface device, and the learnings have helped. The idea of a foldable display, like what’s found on Samsung’s Galaxy Fold, was quickly discarded in favor of the reliability of two flat screens. “It wasn’t difficult for us to realize that taking a screen and folding it wasn’t the right option for this product,” explains Bathiche. “We wanted glass. We wanted glass that wouldn’t scratch because we also wanted to give you a pen. We also wanted a 360-degree hinge, and we wanted to be able to do that without compromising the thickness of the device.”

Microsoft decided early on that there wouldn’t be a cover display, meaning you have to make an intentional choice to unfold the Duo to see the displays and even notifications. These fundamental choices allowed Microsoft to focus on important hardware aspects like keeping the device thin, creating a reliable hinge, and the idea of bringing the dual-screen computing you’re used to on your Windows desktop PC into your pocket.

“One of the things that we learned on Surface Mini that was actually really valuable for us is when you’re designing these super thin structures you want to come up with a mechanical architecture,” says Pavan Davuluri, a distinguished Microsoft Surface engineer. “You’re coalescing and condensing a lot of the mechanical components — structural, thermal, and RF pieces — into a single internal frame.”

This internal frame has allowed Microsoft to spread the Surface Duo components across both sides, while keeping the device just 4.8mm thin. “Most phones are buckets essentially, it’s a bucket that you fill with parts and put glass on the backside,” explains Davuluri. “That’s not how Surface Duo was built. Duo was built with an internal frame that really is the development scheme for integrating all these dual-system components.”

Microsoft experimented with a few different internal architectures. One didn’t even have dual screens, and another was just a phone powering a second screen on the opposite side. “We had another variant where we were using wireless connectivity vs. wired,” says Davuluri, so the second display wasn’t physically connected.

Microsoft’s early Duo experiments.
 Microsoft
Microsoft

These prototypes would have meant the Duo would end up being thicker or one side would be heavier. “It was definitely easier to make one side thick and put everything on one side, and then make the other side super thin,” admits Bathiche. “We chose the hard way from an engineering standpoint, but we’re really proud of the result of the design… the device is symmetrical, which evokes its function as well.”

These hardware choices weren’t always easy, though. LCD displays would have made a lot of sense over OLED, but they would have added to the thickness of the device. There were intense debates inside Microsoft around the hardware that went into Surface Duo. “The whole LCD or OLED debate was a real one,” explains Bathiche. “I was really worried about it, because I knew some of the challenges we’d have to overcome that OLED didn’t really solve.”

Microsoft created a prototype Surface Duo with OLED displays, and the first hardware sample shocked Surface engineers. “When we got our first prototypes back… we opened it up and looked at it for the first time and realized ‘Holy cow, there’s a color shift that we didn’t essentially account for that happens when you look at OLED offscreen,’” recounts Bathiche. “Displays are like snowflakes, there’s no two alike.”

OLED color shifts aren’t easily noticeable on a single display, but when you put them side by side, it’s a different story. Microsoft had to work with display manufactures to widen the color viewing angles, and configure them to have the same contrast, color uniformity, and timing.

There were also intense debates over the thinness of the Surface Duo. “People wanted to violate thinness every which way, across the board you can pick any of the tech that went into it,” explains Pete Kyriacou, a senior director of Microsoft’s Surface team. These debates and internal tension ultimately led to Microsoft creating an incredibly thin device.

“This is the most emotional product we’ve ever created,” says Panay. “A lot of that comes from tension. To get that diamond out, there had to be a lot of it. Microns mattered, not millimeters, microns. I remember being in meetings and being like ‘Come on, Pete, we’re talking less than a millimeter tradeoff that’s all we need to solve this product.” Kyriacou didn’t move on the thin focus, and the team had to find other ways to solve problems. “Maybe that’s why it took years to get to this product,” admits Panay. “There were moments like those because we pushed so many boundaries.”

The original Surface Duo prototype that Panay carried around.
 Microsoft

Some of these hardware choices for dual screens and the device thinness have also led to the Duo missing things like 5G connectivity or NFC support. The camera isn’t what you’d expect to find on a flagship Android device in 2020, largely because of how thin the Surface Duo is. “We had to stay maniacally focused on the weight, the symmetry, and the battery life of the system,” reveals Davuluri. “That, in turn, drove the choice of what kind of sensor we picked, and what kind of optics system had to live in that footprint, and how we had to optimize the camera software experience.”

The camera module inside the Surface Duo is one of the smallest on the market to make sure it fits inside the 4.8mm thickness. Microsoft has optimized for both front and rear photography, but it’s obvious the camera will have some serious limitations.

Microsoft also experimented with other enclosure materials during its early Surface Duo mockup phase. Some prototypes included fabric or metal, similar to what we’ve seen on Surface keyboards. “We liked that fabric enclosure material because it gave us some properties in Surface Mini like our speakers were built out of fabric on that product at the time,” says Davuluri. “There were things we really liked about fabric… but it didn’t meet all of our requirements for our current generation and future generation products.”

Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

GOOGLE SOFTWARE

Beyond the hardware experimentation, the software and OS powering the Surface Duo were also incredibly important. Microsoft had been experimenting with a custom variant of Windows for its Andromeda device, but the company switched directions and moved to Android. It wasn’t an easy decision to make.

“Bringing Android into the fold, that wasn’t the most simple of conversations all of the time,” admits Panay. “You have to explain that and you want your team on board and people believing it.” Apps were a limiting factor for a Windows- or Windows Phone-powered device, and Panay has previously admitted it’s the key reason the Surface Duo runs Android. Apps and even the Android software running on Surface Duo won’t be perfect just yet, as Google hasn’t fully optimized the OS for this type of hardware, but Microsoft is working with Google to improve Android.

“As we got into working with Android, it wasn’t about just doing things specifically for Duo,” explains Kyriacou. Microsoft has created a dual-screen architecture, drag-and-drop APIs, screen-aware APIs, and even hinge APIs that all make apps light up across both screens. “We wanted to make sure we were working with Google to get that back into the ecosystem, so it’s not a forked version of Android. This is about working with them to make sure this all accrues to app developers and Android.”

Microsoft hasn’t heavily modified or skinned Android with the Surface Duo, either. “Our goal from the beginning was to stay as true to Android as possible,” says Kyriacou. “Mainly for familiarity, but also to make sure the changes we would make for windowing or hinge angle / postures would be part of the Android operating system going forward.”

Software updates and OS tweaks are a lot easier to roll out than hardware changes, so expect to see the Duo improve regularly, especially when Android 11 arrives. Microsoft is also promising three years of Android updates for the Surface Duo, so it will benefit from any work Microsoft and Google are doing to improve Android for years to come.

Microsoft has been working on improving gestures and the keyboard experience on Surface Duo in recent months, and more improvements are on the way. “In addition to our normal fixes, we’ll also be updating features that drive a great dual-screen experience,” adds Kyriacou. “We will be on future versions of Android when the time is right.”

THE FUTURE

Microsoft’s folding and dual-screen ambitions don’t end with just the Surface Duo. The company is still planning to launch a Surface Neo device, powered by Windows 10X. Microsoft unveiled the Surface Neo last year alongside the Duo, complete with two separate nine-inch displays that fold out into a full 13-inch workspace. It was supposed to launch later this year. “Neo is delayed,” says Panay. “I wanted the right time to bring that product with the right experience. We believe in that concept and form factor and size. It will be a beautiful complement to Duo with Windows and I’m excited about it. It’s a product that’s near and dear to my heart.”

Surface Duo and Neo won’t be the only dual-screen devices Microsoft is creating, either. “I believe that different sizes will happen, and I actually believe different companies will make different sizes too, and I think they should,” says Panay. “We want dual-screen architecture to be prevalent, we want every app to work on these screens, and we’re fundamentally committed to that. It includes a roadmap of multiple sizes.”

Surface Duo and Surface Neo.
 Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge

How Microsoft balances the choice to run Windows or Android on different sizes will be interesting in the years ahead, especially as the company has been pushing Android closer to Windows with its Your Phone app. You can now run your phone’s Android apps beside Windows apps on a desktop PC, and it’s easy to imagine Microsoft may go further with this integration in the future.

“The next natural evolution is different [dual-screen] sizes,” says Panay. “Whether the larger moves into Windows where it’s appropriate to use the Windows codebase and software, and the smaller form factor uses Android, I think you can safely say that’s the right path with what we’re doing right now as a team.”

Panay believes Duo and dual-screen devices are here to stay, and the hardware will clearly evolve in the future. “Two screens matters. I believe when people start using it they’re going to adapt to these products, they’re going to fall in love with them.”

We might have to wait until foldable glass is a little more reliable before we see it on a Surface device, though. “I think it’s an exciting era of research, it’s one of the things we’re really on top of,” explains Bathiche. “We know all the physics problems that need to be addressed to deliver the experience that we really want to go after, but for us, not yet.”

Microsoft truly believes that the Surface Duo, and devices like it, will change the way people use mobile devices. That belief is rooted in the work the company has been doing in Windows for more than 30 years, allowing PC users to window apps, drag and drop content, and support multiple monitors to multitask.

Bringing that to mobile devices won’t be easy, and Microsoft is hoping the third time’s the charm after Windows Mobile and Windows Phone failed to make a dent in the mobile market. Just like Microsoft had to prove Surface tablets made sense in the first place, the company will once again have to demonstrate that there’s even a need for a device like the Surface Duo.

The future of mobile devices could go in a variety of different directions. Not everyone will have a need for a device like the Surface Duo immediately — or maybe ever. But then not everyone needed to check their email on the go or browse the mobile web when the first stylus-driven smartphones appeared. Microsoft is betting that behaviors will change, or as Panay puts it: “it’s a product that I believe is transformative for the future.”

Source: https://www.theverge.com/21426955/microsoft-surface-duo-folding-android-phone-history

Continue Reading

Research

New Apple Leak Reveals iPhone 12 Design Shock

Published

on

By

Apple’s redesigned iPhone 12 line-up is getting more troubled with every new leak. And now the alarm bells are ringing.

In a shocking new report, Fast Company has revealed that the iPhone 12 Pro will come with lower grade 5G capabilities usually reserved for midrange 5G smartphones, while the iPhone 12 Pro Max will only get premium 5G functionality in a handful of countries. Considering the increased prices already leaked for these models, Apple’s design decision may backfire.

09/05 Update: new iPhone 12 release news has now all but confirmed further delays to the range. Picked up by Reuters, major Apple supplier Broadcom has published its fourth quarter revenue guidance and admitted that its performance will be affected by a later-than-usual ramp up of its smartphone chip components. Apple is by far Broadcom’s biggest customer and iPhones are the only range yet to launch in 2020, which could impact its bottom line significantly. Broadcom had strongly hinted at this possibility back in June, citing potential launch delays from “our large North American mobile phone customer” – which really couldn’t be more clear. This further confirmation only rubber stamps the complex iPhone 12 launch ahead.

09/06 Update: acclaimed Apple insider Jon Prosser has revealed that Apple will hold a press briefing for new products on Tuesday, September 8. Some have speculated that the iPhone 12 lineup could be announced as early as this (though not launched until some time later). Apple also teased an early September event on its YouTube channel last month – though it was hotly disputed whether this was simply an error. Apple’s typical iPhone release schedule is out the window with the company already admitting the new iPhones will be late, though it was unclear whether this refers to their announcement or retail availability. My personal opinion is September 8 will not be iPhone 12 launch day, but all bets are off in this most unprecedented of years.

Breaking this down, Fast Company explains that Apple only intends to offer premium (mmWave) 5G with iPhone 12 Pro Max models sold in Korea, Japan and the US. Everywhere else, the iPhone 12 Pro Max will be sold with the cheaper, slower Sub-6Hz 5G while the iPhone 12, iPhone 12 Plus and iPhone 12 Pro will only ship with this standard. As Fast Company notes, “If Sub-6 5G is a Camry, millimeter-wave 5G is a Mercedes S-Class.”

For the entry-level iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Plus, this makes sense. Sub-6GHz 5G is typically about 50% faster than 4G in real world tests, travels a long way and makes up the majority of 5G coverage. It’s a solid speed bump for midrange phones. But mmWave 5G represents the cutting edge. It is short range, ballistically quick (up to 1Gb/1,000Mbit per second) and is primarily rolled out in major cities. If you buy a ‘Pro’ level iPhone, you should expect pro level 5G – every Galaxy S20 model has this option.

So what could’ve prompted this baffling decision? I suspect another poor decision: Apple is downgrading the batteries in all iPhone 12 models. mmWave increases power drain, so it looks set to be just the latest feature culled after equally power hungry 120Hz ProMotion displays were also placed on the chopping block.

But there is one big upside. And that is Fast Company’s source has corroborated earlier leaks that Apple will release a 4G-only iPhone 12 Pro, early next year. Not only will that model now have a smaller cellular speed gap than expected, it will have considerably better battery life on 4G while Apple is understood to be pricing it at up to $200 less than its 5G counterpart.

Throw in the fact that the 4G iPhone 12 Pro will enjoy every other benefit (including the new chassis designbig performance gains and a radical camera upgrade) and it looks like the standout upgrade option. Especially with Apple’s iPhone 12 release date slipping further and further.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2020/09/06/apple-iphone-12-pro-max-mmwave-5g-release-date-iphone-11-pro-max-upgrade/#6327f4b92e10

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2020 Inventrium Magazine

%d bloggers like this: