iPhone might have 3G switched on via upgrade? Probably not....

Believe us, by this point we're all feeling a little weary of all the mega-intense iPhone news/drama/speculation that's been going around these past few days, but we couldn't help but remark on John Markoff's comment in the New York Times yesterday that Apple could possibly add 3G to the iPhone via a software update. It's not unheard of for a firmware upgrade to unlock new features or functionality in a device, but the sources we've spoken to have made it pretty clear that Apple hasn't wedged a UMTS or HSDPA radio into this thing. Not that we wouldn't mind this being true. We're pretty bummed that the iPhone doesn't have HSDPA -- once you taste 3G, it's hard to go back to anything slower -- but it's semi-understandable that they'd want to use an EDGE radio that'd cost less and be less power hungry. Or at least that seems to be the prevailing theory, Jobsy hasn't exactly come out and said why a high-end handset that's due out in mid-2007 will be a generation behind in its wireless connectivity.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[YankInOz @ Jan 12th 2007 4:15AM]

go listen or watch the Keynote again - you will discover that 3G is definitely intended for the iPhone (or Apple Phone) Steve mentions it.
Have no fear - and no need ot be bummed...
;)

[Kyle Interra @ Jan 12th 2007 4:17AM]

Ok, this is really starting to bug me now.

Was Steve Jobs' shirt Brown or Black during the keynote? Pics say one thing, video (even high-quality), says otherwise.

[Mike @ Jan 12th 2007 5:18PM]

It depends. He was wearing a protoype shirt (the iWear) being developed by Apple Inc. . It changes color depending on your mood / what you're doing and I guess Stevie was making some grand claim at the time so the shirt changed color to indicate he was full of it.

:-)

[Dan @ Jan 12th 2007 4:26AM]

It was black. It must just be the lights coming down on the shirt making it look brown

[Zof @ Jan 12th 2007 4:47AM]

take a look at the second half of Cringely's column:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070111_001476.html

You'll have hints on why iPhone has no 3G...

[max andrews @ Jan 12th 2007 4:54AM]

Just wait until someone comes out with a 3rd party 3G dongle that plugs in to the dock connector. They'll be rich, we'll be happy, and eventually it will cause the phone to be opened up to other networks when they realize that this is a device they might not actually be able to control.

[MPG @ Jan 12th 2007 5:01AM]

This just shows that Markoff is absolutely clueless when it comes to mobile phones. Upgrading a phone from EDGE to UMTS is not something that can be done in software. It would be like trying to upgrade a CD drive to a DVD drive with a firmware update. UMTS/WCDMA requires complex programming that has to be done in hardware, and nobody would be stupid enough to put UMTS hardware into a phone and then use some kind of software lock to scale it back to EDGE.

So to sum up, Markoff is an idiot for a) believing that you can software-upgrade from 2.75G to 3G and b) listening to so-called "Apple insiders" who aren't insiders at all.

[John M @ Jan 12th 2007 11:21AM]

"This just shows that Markoff is absolutely clueless when it comes to mobile phones. Upgrading a phone from EDGE to UMTS is not something that can be done in software. It would be like trying to upgrade a CD drive to a DVD drive with a firmware update. UMTS/WCDMA requires complex programming that has to be done in hardware, and nobody would be stupid enough to put UMTS hardware into a phone and then use some kind of software lock to scale it back to EDGE."

RIM was, the 8700 series have UTMS radios that aren't active. Every UMTS chipset can fall back on EDGE. It's fully possible that there is a UMTS capable chipset in the iPhone that isn't being utilized to it's full capability for variety of reasons.

[Foof @ Jan 12th 2007 3:25PM]

MPG - this is pretty much correct, but there are plausible reasons why this could be the case. Hypothetically, the power-hungry UMTS radio may have dropped the iPhone's talk time to 3 hours with something like an unacceptable 12 hour standby. Or, Apple may have crammed so much into it that they realistically expect problems with FCC approval with active UMTS. Or, it may not even be blocked, and in the 6 month period between launch and availability, they may just want some big "new" announcement to make to get people excited again.

Nobody's saying full UMTS support can be crafted in firmware, but just like the "hidden" and locked 802.11 draft-N implementation in all their notebooks, Apple could easily have the hardware installed, with only EDGE functionality enabled for the time being. That could easily be unlocked with a firmware update.

[Lucas @ Jan 12th 2007 5:22AM]

Interesting statistic for you all...

"16% of Americans have a 3G phone, only 10% actually use 3G"

[pimp @ Jan 12th 2007 9:30AM]

Do you mean 10% of the 16% or 10% of the entire population? Obviously, there's a huge difference. :)

[cdc @ Jan 13th 2007 12:39AM]

Uh, there's NO WAY 16% of Americans have a 3G phone. Are you on drugs? Can I have some?

[bangraman @ Jan 12th 2007 5:35AM]

Hi

[DigitalFury @ Jan 12th 2007 5:44AM]

The dongle things seems to become the standard reply for missing features. Can swap the battery if it's dead? get a docking battery. Want 3G? get a dongle. Want a GPS? get a dongle. Instead of going with a bag full of dongles, I rather have the real McCoy - a N95.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Jan 12th 2007 5:46AM]

In other news - and that has hit Slashdot - http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/0430200

"In an interview with the New York Times, Steve Jobs confirms reports that the recently-announced iPhone will not allow third party applications to be installed. According to Jobs, 'These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them.' In a similar vein, Jobs said in a MSNBC article that, 'Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.'"

[Isaac @ Jan 12th 2007 10:47AM]

Hahahaha, I hadn't heard about not allowing 3rd party apps, that's hilarious. 'cause, ya know, all of the phones out there right *now* that allow 3rd party apps are such an incredible danger to Cingular's (or any provider's) network... God forbid there's a Linux-based OpenSource phone in the wild, OMG! Block it now before it kills us all!

[Intrepid @ Jan 12th 2007 5:52AM]

Rubbish. It would cost too much to add the 3G in to the phone when they aren't even going to release that feature for up to a year.

[Lucas @ Jan 12th 2007 5:59AM]

Obviously I am aware of technical restrictions on altering a devices ability to cooperate with a completely new tech. All Im saying that this is initial

Take this for example. The phone wont be available to the asian markets (where 3G is far more widepsread) untill 2008. Eu markets untill the end of 2007 probably.

This is plenty of time to create diffrnt flavours of the phone.

The announced specs were for the US market where 3G rollout has been hindered by your governments lust for the electromagnetic spectrum hogging :)

Altho you are catching up, all Im saying is that the decision not to use 3G was a logical one in my humble opinion, for the US market. (for the time being)

According to several surveys altho the 3G coverage is increasing at a high rate, adoption of 3G by mid market cosnumers is still relatively low. This is due to handsets still being somewhat bulky comapred to their super thin super sleep GSM counterparts. A fairly large percentage of users alotho 3G capable (owning a 3G handset) rarely use its features.

[barrowman @ Jan 12th 2007 6:10AM]

As a rabid apple fan-boy myself, I'm glad to see even Engadget is getting a bit weary of the iPhone hullabaloo and the worst thing is we'll have to put up with the conjecture until June, then put up with all the same commentators writing again, then speculate again if the iPhone will change for the European/Asian launch all for a phone that has a really, really nice interface/OS on years old technology. (oh and you need two hands to operate it!)

With a pointless (if you are out of the US (and perhaps if you are in the US too) - iTV) and a phone thats best use, is showing off, this MacWorld really really sucked!

[DigitalFury @ Jan 12th 2007 6:10AM]

Considering the shear number of Nokia and SE SmartPhones out there, Apple and Cingular might be surprised to learn that mobile networks are working just fine Worldwide.

Actually what Jobs is not saying is that Apple doesn't want to share profits being generated through the device, mostly that users will be "highly encouraged" to get content from Apple's own Itunes Store.

Opening the iPhone to 3rd party applications would open the door to others, same goes for the Apple TV.

[Steve @ Jan 12th 2007 6:19AM]

Wifi, certainly in the UK, is just not widespread enough to ever even come close to offering a good coverage system. You would be forever walking around trying to find a Starbucks (and having to buy a coffee just to get on the connection).

As for 3G, well for the phone to work in the UK it will need to support it. Only one network has EDGE (Orange), and it's not very popular as it was more or less just skipped for 3G.

[Rafael @ Jan 12th 2007 7:22AM]

You have to follow the history of Apple products launch to see why they are not making the IPHONE 3G ready. Besides the cost that is already elevated, they have to keep something under their sleeves. Remember the Nano and the almost inmediate launch of the Ipod Video?. I will say Iphone EDGE for June, IPOD 3G for XMAS 2007.
But I guess, that the people as consumers should let them know that we are not going to keep paying outrageous amount of money of Gadgets that become obsolete in 1 year. The case of the IPOD Video again, 60 GB = $400 a year later a 80 GB better and cheaper.

[T Man @ Jan 13th 2007 12:05AM]

Rafael, I think you mostly got it. Apple likes to keep everyone on the upgrade treadmill to feed the Jobs ATM. If you offered 3G out of the gate, then what would people have to upgrade to later on? Sure, they could put in more features, but the lack of 3G will be the most easily rectified and obvious thing they can do to upgrade this thing, and I'm sure they will announce it to great fanfare.

The same with 3rd party software support. Jobs wants you to buy everything through iTunes, so he'll sell widgets through iTunes, creating a nice constant revenue stream.

[Jeff @ Jan 12th 2007 7:39AM]

"but it's semi-understandable that they'd want to use an EDGE radio that'd cost less and be less power hungry. "

Yeah, because cost savings should be the overriding priority in a phone that costs $600 with a two year contract.

If this thing was free, that argument could be made. At almost twice the price of even the most expensive phone Cingular currently offers, I would expect the most advanced technology available. You're a sucker if you don't expect the same.

Anyone who buys the first iteration of this phone is an idiot. By 2008, it'll have 3G and cost $299. By the end of 2008, there will be several different models (including proper *phones*) starting at $199 and all including 3G.

[Mystic @ Jan 12th 2007 10:52AM]

@Jeff,
"Anyone who buys the first iteration of this phone is an idiot. By 2008, it'll have 3G and cost $299. By the end of 2008, there will be several different models (including proper *phones*) starting at $199 and all including 3G"

And in 2023 there will be 10G phones at wal-mart for $5. What's your argument here? If you can afford it, it's worth it. If not, buy something else.

[Bernard @ Jan 12th 2007 7:48AM]

Apple Belgium announced that 3G will be available depending on the local market demands, so.

[MPG @ Jan 12th 2007 7:53AM]

"Apple Belgium announced that 3G will be available depending on the local market demands, so."

What's new about that? Jobs said in his keynote speech that 3G will be available.

It's not like Apple is trying to cheat people. They are not keeping it a secret that a 3G phone is on the horizon. If someone doesn't like the EDGE iPhone, then waiting for the 3G version is an option.

Developing a dual-mode GSM/EDGE/UMTS phone takes significantly longer than a GSM/EDGE phone. Perhaps they just didn't want to wait any longer before releasing the phone? Sounds like the most obvious explanation to me.

[phil @ Jan 12th 2007 9:00AM]

Exactly, all 'new' technological devices that have just come out are always betas. The companies, like Apple, get them out quick, the richer consumer will buy it b/c they have to have the gadget, and then in two years, it'll be light years ahead of what it is now and offer capability we can only speculate at now.

While I generally cover music, I also cover news topics I care about (like this), featuring best songs in rock and indie rock and pop:

http://www.indierockcafe.com

[Matt @ Jan 12th 2007 9:02AM]

The average Apple/iPod fanboy does not care about 3G.

[John Gegier @ Jan 12th 2007 9:21AM]

This just in!

A million other sights including those that live to suck on Apples toes are already running all these stories.

Resist the temptation, besides 97% of the technically savvy community wont even buy it if it says Apple on it, why are you spending time paying homage to Steve "I've got just the car for you" Jobs?

[Shmoe @ Jan 12th 2007 9:45AM]

Just goes to show you that this phone, as much as I like it and want one, isn't perfect. It really pisses me off more that the battery isn't removable, which it seems would offset power-usage issues with HSDPA.

[Sqube @ Jan 12th 2007 9:58AM]

Can people please explain to me why they are even remotely surprised by this? This is Apple we're dealing with, after all. If there has been one consistent theme in their hardware development, it's that what you have always feels just one or two features short.

Conveniently, one of those two features will be in the next iteration, which we'll be selling in 20 minutes and which you will be buying because we've convinced you that this time, you won't need anything else.

Wash, rinse, repeat ad infintum. The 3G iPhone will come. I wouldn't be surprised to see it for Christmas, or Q2 2008 at the latest. After all, if you release the next generation too quickly, people get wise. But give it just enough time, and well... check Apple's track record for yourself. They know what they're doing when it comes to creating hardware and selling it.

[Russ @ Jan 12th 2007 10:02AM]

I cannot believe engadget's moron writers and all of you are complaining about it not having 3g. you've got to be kidding me. almost no one has 3g now, and even if they do how much do they use it, and even then it's only marginally faster..

if you guys care more about this than having a phone that works perfectly in every respect.. then you need to take a look at yourselves, and at least try to not be such huge nerds. seriously, not everyone into gadgets is a friggin star trek watching, fast food eating, blow-up doll swooning, geek.

[Pork Rind @ Jan 12th 2007 11:24AM]

"I cannot believe engadget's moron writers and all of you are complaining about it not having 3g. you've got to be kidding me. almost no one has 3g now, and even if they do how much do they use it, and even then it's only marginally faster.."

Only marginally faster? I regularly see more than 1 megabit/second on my Blackjack. That's a whole hell of a lot faster than Edge.

[Lion @ Jan 12th 2007 10:06AM]

"Jobsy hasn't exactly come out and said why a high-end handset that's due out in mid-2007 will be a generation behind in its wireless connectivity."

Why does he need to say why it doesn't have 3G support? The answer is right in that slide: "Wi-fi". Places with 3G networks are generally rife with Wi-fi hotspots. I'm not saying that G3 support wouldn't offer more reliable service for downloads than Wi-fi--it certainly would--but I think that the prevalance of Wi-fi hotspots in urban and suburban areas somewhat makes up for its absence.

[Rocco @ Jan 12th 2007 10:28AM]

He doesn't say it would, he suggest in the best case. And he doesn't say software-only - it may imply (for the technically advanced) that it might be included already, and just stripped down in the first place. Call it marketing reasons or whatever. For what do you need 3G ?
I switched it off, see no use of it, other than emptying your battery twice as fast.
So maybe they would wait until the TV-apps are finished ?
Or wait at all, and do not include it, as this is not a computer, has no camera at the front etc. ..?

[Rohit @ Jan 12th 2007 10:28AM]

Actually I disagree. It is not understandable that they give us EDGE. Its like giving a Ferrari and then limiting its maximum speed to 50 mph. That’s stupid. It looks amazing and has revolutionary UI but to me functionality wise it’s a half baked product. And I though Apple will never do what MS did with Zune.
I will wait for G2 of iPhone. Till then I will go with Palm or HTC

[Xinerauqs @ Jan 12th 2007 10:41AM]

What are Apple thinking? They've already screwed one industry of technology...why screw up another?

[Mystic @ Jan 12th 2007 10:47AM]

I don't know what the power requirements are for all these wireless chips, but if they can put wi-fi in there without worrying about battery life, then they could put in a 3G radio.

[bluemonq @ Jan 12th 2007 6:37PM]

"If you can afford it, it's worth it."

Whoa there. I'm willing to believe you have enough money to pay Mike Tyson $100 in the face. Is that automatically worth it?

[wabguard-email @ Jan 12th 2007 12:01PM]

It would make more money sense to build it with 3G, and disable it to EDGE. Then when they need a sale boost or reason to crush the other carriers BAM firmware update. Its the same with shareware software, you get the full version BUT it only works via shareware. It is easier to buy a key to unlock it then control a whole other program. Its all about the money.

[galeal zino @ Jan 12th 2007 12:37PM]

also burned out on this topic (thanks however engadget for the terrific coverage of it and CES this week), and promised I'd stop blogging on the iPhone, but I couldn't help blogging on the uPhone, the ultimate iPhone replacement:
http://blog.nextblitz.com

[Otsego @ Jan 12th 2007 1:11PM]

complain about 3G all you want, its still not wide spread enough to make it worth while in the 1st release of the iPhone (however i wont complain if it gets shoved in). I know i wont see 3G network for at least 2-3 years.. especially at the buildout speed of cingular.

[Michael @ Jan 12th 2007 1:21PM]

Apple didn't introduce the iPhone this week. They introduced the betaPhone -- to one billion beta testers.

[Spartacus @ Jan 12th 2007 2:05PM]

There are an awful lot of people that need to think before they start typing. While doing that thinking ask the right questions too.

"Is Apple retarded?" is not the question you should be asking yourself.

"Why would Apple do this?" is a better one. You're foolish if you think it's production price, 3G chips are ~$5 a pop, and I imagine EDGE is not much cheaper. As per Apple's usual I expect them to turn a nice margin on this product, and it certainly would not have been at stake but for the addition of a 3G chip. REAL MATH: If 1% fewer people buy an iPhone, because there is no 3G, it's a negative DOLLARS decision, and I don't think Apple would miss that.

As was said, UMTS chips are backwards compatible leaving open the POSSIBILITY that it is a UMTS chip. If that's the case why? FCC clearance could have something to do with it. Steve does not want to see this thing held up, and if he said June it means he's already pushed the go button on manufacturing. If the FCC has a problem with his 3G no biggie it was never there from the start. If not then he's got 'one more thing' to grab hold of you naysayers.

The other possibility I see is he didn't feel like talking to everyone in the industry to get this thing done. Maybe Apple didn't like any of the 3G controllers from their 'trusted' partners. Maybe he didn't want SE or Nokia to know he was going to have something with a 3G radio in it sometime soon.

At any rate the answer to this question is there was a strong business reason. It may even tie into part 2.

Why no user installable apps? If you have 3rd party installable OS X apps, how is it that you can prevent someone from installing a full fledged iTunes? If someone can install iTunes, and has complete internet access, how do you stop them from downloading a song from iTunes? You don't. And then how do you explain to Cingular why their entire west coast media downloading business just disappeared? I think Steve's answer was a lot more correct than most of you give him credit for. Cingular is far more concerned about revenues collapsing than they are about their network, and I'd bet Steve knows that as well as anyone. Network outages go untouched for weeks depending on the area, with CSRs just saying, "Sorry, we'll get to it ASAP."

This is, as best I can think, the very first time a relationship like this has existed. There are two very large corporate bodies trying to work symbiotically, but corporations are like virii, the more powerful they are the more toxic they are to everything. There has got to be a lot of back room whispers amongst the execs at both companies, each trying to get the upper hand in this thing, because that's just the way BoDs look at this stuff.

What would those sound like?

Apple: Let's keep 3G off this so the medianet experience is horrible, and everyone uses iTunes and syncs.

Cingular: Let's not announce our data rate, so if it turns out Apple screws us and our revenues die, we can just require a $60/month data package and kill this phone dead where it stands, for the next couple years we have gauranteed by contract.

Both these companies have their pants down right now, and like most men not wearing pants, believe that they are trying to protect their ass.

[veuveclicquot @ Jan 13th 2007 3:51PM]

"There are an awful lot of people that need to think before they start typing." You could replace "think" with "assume" in this sentence, too.

UMTS chips cost US$25-35 each. A GSM/EDGE chip costs less than $5. Equipping 10 million iPhones with a UMTS chip would result in an additional cost to Apple of $300 million. If 1% of these 10 million declined to buy the phone due to lack of UMTS, that's $60 million MAX in opportunity cost to Apple. Losing $300 million vs. losing $60 million. Gee. Wonder which one Steve'd choose.

The open UMTS chipset market (i.e., the market excluding the chips produced under contract for Nokia and Ericsson by TI and Infineon) is ruled by Qualcomm. Qualcomm's UMTS chips are NOT EDGE-capable. The logic is thus: If the iPhone has a UMTS chip, it's probably a Qualcomm chip. If it's a Qualcomm chip, the phone couldn't even do EDGE in the first place. In all likelihood, this phone does not have a UMTS chip in it.

I am puzzled as to the nature of the FCC tie-in here. In the USA - unlike Europe - cellular carriers can do anything they want with their radio spectrum, as long as they comply with radiated power and spurious emissions requirements set by the FCC. If carriers want to utilise UMTS, so be it. And when Apple buys a phone platform from a third party, it's already compliant with FCC emissions requirements. There is no FCC concern here.

I haven't seen anything written saying that there will be no associated data usage charge with the iPhone. If iPhone users pay the same rates for data as every other Cingular user, why would Cingular care if iTunes were accessed directly from the iPhone? The "no 3rd party apps" justification is, indeed, that US carriers are hyper-paranoid that a 3rd party application could screw up their network. This is not just Cingular's position on the issue, but all carriers' view. Why isn't 3G taking off world-wide? In addition to cost, it's because people aren't being allowed to do what they want with their phones in terms of applications. This isn't going to change any time soon, at least not in the USA, and at least not until WiMAX is in play. The ridiculous thing is that, if a phone app doesn't have access to the phone's radio hardware, it can do no more harm to a network than a cellular PC Card-equipped PC. Regardless, this is a short-term issue. This phone will be hacked just like the iPod was hacked. It's just a matter of time.

[Richard @ Jan 12th 2007 2:06PM]

I think the real reason that the iphone is just EDGE and not 3G, is in fact due to Qualcomm.

Qualcomm have the essential patents required for 3G, and they demand very large royalties. All the main cellphone manufacturers have been trying to reduce these charges with little success. The charges are so high, that most 3G handsets have very little profit, some even make a loss.

These charges would likely to be many 10's of dollars per iphone, and if Apple sell 10 million of them, that means paying Qualcomm hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

I would be very surprised indeed if we see 3G ever in the iphone for this reason.

If the iphone contained the 3G technology and it was simply disabled (as might be suggested in the article), Apple would still have to pay Qualcomm. So I doubt very much it is built in and can be switched on!

And, for sure, without the 3G hardware, there is no possibility of doing 3G as a software upgrade alone.

[Spartacus @ Jan 12th 2007 3:18PM]

Or you could just be pulling crap out your ass, but yeah, what you said or that.

In the tens of dollars? First of all the expression is horrible, second, people that actually know things put 4~5% of cost of manufacture on Qualcomm licensing for 3G. This is on phones whose wholesale cost is less than $150.

I can't think of any 3G phone which is sold by manufacturers to distributors at a loss. Carriers may take a loss after subsidy, but actually right now they are a lot closer to charging their cost then they were before 3G. LG CU500 Cost: $150 Price: $100 Nokia 6102i Cost: $120 Price: $10

Margins are up baby!

Never see a 3G iPhone? It was in the keynote that at some point there will be a 3G iPhone.

[veuveclicquot @ Jan 13th 2007 3:03PM]

Richard appears to have fallen for the European UMTS handset manufacturer anti-Qualcomm propaganda.

Here is the reality: If you do not buy a UMTS chipset from Qualcomm, the royalty is 5% of the price (not cost) of the unit. This royalty is the same for all UMTS handset manufacturers. (If you utilise a Qualcomm UMTS chipset, the royalty is built in to the price of the chip.) So every UMTS handset manufacturer starts on an equal footing. If a vendor loses money on UMTS handsets, you can't blame Qualcomm; you can only blame the vendor.

So let's do the math: At US$600 per unit, IF the phone contains a non-QC UMTS chip, that's US$30 to QC -- hardly the "many 10s of dollars" mentioned here. If the phone contains a QC chipset, that's US$25-35 to Qualcomm and no further royalty. Ten million iPhones shipped means $300 odd million to Qualcomm. It also means $6 billion to Apple. $300 million only seems exorbitant if you take the number completely out of context, as Euro handset vendors are so often wont to do.

I have no affiliation whatsoever with Qualcomm.

[odo in Seattle @ Jan 12th 2007 4:08PM]

I heard from a Cingular employee that one other problem with shipping the phone with 3G is that the visual voicemail system doesn't work on 3G yet. While this may imply that the device could ship with a firmware disabled 3G radio, the implication from this Cingular employee was that the phone will not ship with a disabled 3G radio.

I assume that even if the device ships with a disabled 3G radio, that information will be contained in the FCC filing, so we should know about it well in advance of the phone release.

odo