3 ms·

Qualcomm allegedly bribed Apple into not making a WiMAX iPhone

22 points by vezycash 10y ago

simonh 10y ago
Interesting, but let's not overstate whatever impact this might have had. WiMAX was pure snake oil. The enormous cells had far too little bandwidth to support a significant number of subscribers. Also for most of the cell area the signal was too attenuated to penetrate buildings. You could roll out a network quickly, but the network would become saturated just as fast. At the time I worked for MSI, a vendor of cellular radio network planning systems. We implemented a WiMax planning module but as soon as you simulated the network with significant subscriber maps, it became pretty clear it wasn't workable. So I'm not saying this deal didn't happen, or that Qualcomm aren't culpable, just that we shouldn't take this to mean that Qualcomm was responsible for killing WiMAX. It was doomed anyway.
- msh 10y ago
  Maybe wimax would have cougth up to lte by the time lte got to the market without this interference. We of course don't know but I don't think you can say it was doomed anyway, esp as there are carriers operating semi successful wimax networks. A example: http://www.au.kddi.com/english/mobile/service/wimax-2plus/ http://www.au.kddi.com/english/mobile/service/wimax-2plus/
  - simonh 10y ago
    That's a hybrid WiMax/LTE network. I'm not saying WiMAX didn't work at all, but that it was massively over-hyped. Where it has been got to do useful work, it's mainly as a complementary technology to other wireless networks.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  So was there ever an actual time when 802.16 was considered to be even in the same game as LTE? The people I know who were messing with it were specialized in underserved areas, where the cell size was a plus. Mobile was an afterthought. Where LTE was the DNA of a handset protocol stack that has been pressed into service as a MAN, 802.16 was the other way 'round. And no, I have no idea what Sprint was thinking.
  - simonh 10y ago
    >specialized in underserved areas Arguably WiMAX did useful work in Africa where it's long range was a particular advantage and it was better able to address the relatively low subscriber density. It filled a gap before being supplanted by more capable LTE networks.
ksec 10y ago
Even IF Apple did make a WiMax iPhone, it wouldn't have helped WiMax one bit. The tech wasn't ready for prime time, Intel being too greedy and NO one wants another x86 monopoly on the Telecoms market. Remember that was before the era iPhone took off and ARM has won the SoC race. Now all there is for Intel is X86 on Desktop and Server. Although in many ways, WiMax do live on as TD-LTE, which is 80% similar to WiMax.

22 points by vezycash 10y ago

Interesting, but let's not overstate whatever impact this might have had. WiMAX was pure snake oil. The enormous cells had far too little bandwidth to support a significant number of subscribers. Also for most of the cell area the signal was too attenuated to penetrate buildings. You could roll out a network quickly, but the network would become saturated just as fast. At the time I worked for MSI, a vendor of cellular radio network planning systems. We implemented a WiMax planning module but as soon as you simulated the network with significant subscriber maps, it became pretty clear it wasn't workable. So I'm not saying this deal didn't happen, or that Qualcomm aren't culpable, just that we shouldn't take this to mean that Qualcomm was responsible for killing WiMAX. It was doomed anyway.

msh 10y ago
Maybe wimax would have cougth up to lte by the time lte got to the market without this interference. We of course don't know but I don't think you can say it was doomed anyway, esp as there are carriers operating semi successful wimax networks. A example: http://www.au.kddi.com/english/mobile/service/wimax-2plus/ http://www.au.kddi.com/english/mobile/service/wimax-2plus/
- simonh 10y ago
  That's a hybrid WiMax/LTE network. I'm not saying WiMAX didn't work at all, but that it was massively over-hyped. Where it has been got to do useful work, it's mainly as a complementary technology to other wireless networks.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
So was there ever an actual time when 802.16 was considered to be even in the same game as LTE? The people I know who were messing with it were specialized in underserved areas, where the cell size was a plus. Mobile was an afterthought. Where LTE was the DNA of a handset protocol stack that has been pressed into service as a MAN, 802.16 was the other way 'round. And no, I have no idea what Sprint was thinking.
- simonh 10y ago
  >specialized in underserved areas Arguably WiMAX did useful work in Africa where it's long range was a particular advantage and it was better able to address the relatively low subscriber density. It filled a gap before being supplanted by more capable LTE networks.

ksec 10y ago

Even IF Apple did make a WiMax iPhone, it wouldn't have helped WiMax one bit. The tech wasn't ready for prime time, Intel being too greedy and NO one wants another x86 monopoly on the Telecoms market. Remember that was before the era iPhone took off and ARM has won the SoC race. Now all there is for Intel is X86 on Desktop and Server. Although in many ways, WiMax do live on as TD-LTE, which is 80% similar to WiMax.