Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Promises Gigabit LTE Speeds and New Chips to Power Smartwatches (google.com)

Posted by yaelk on from the fast-and-furious dept.

Qualcomm may have been losing steam (and jobs and sales), but it looks like the major telecommunications corporation is back in the lead when it comes to pushing out new LTE technologies. Qualcomm announced today the new Snapdragon X16 modem, which together with the WTR5975 transceiver, boasts Category 16 LTE download speeds of up to 1Gbps. Qualcomm also announced new chips that will power the next generation of wearables. Although you shouldn't hold your breath just yet, the implications could be huge!

46 comments

  1. Now my unmentionables can tweet by Rhaize · · Score: 1

    Interesting Implications! first

    --
    Within the arms of tragedy, there is little comfort in being right.
    1. Re:Now my unmentionables can tweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary said the implications would be huge, not average-sized.

  2. This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is sweet! Now my next smartwatch will be able to do absolutely nothing useful way faster than my current one can!

    1. Re:This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

    2. Re:This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beowulf only had two arms (unless you count the ones he tore off Grendel, but that's still only four).

    3. Re:This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly because you bought a piece of junk Android watch.

      Those of us that have Pebble do a whole lot more. Hell you can write an app for the pebble online in less than 2 hours. Android wear takes 10X that time just to install the build environment.

    4. Re: This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow so you can CUSTOMISE the nothing useful and write apps that add to the nothing useful? Amazing!

    5. Re:This is awesome news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK terima kasih banyak
      lancar terus ya gan
      http://inibutiklucu.blogspot.com

  3. Yeah but who's going to buy them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is who's going to buy them. Qualcomm's business was built to support a few large companies in high volume like Samsung and some Chinese phone manufacturers. The reason their sales are tanking is not because their processors aren't good, it's because Korea and China have chosen to build their own domestic industries around semi-conductor development.

    So if Apple's not going to buy (they make their own chips), and Samsung's not going to buy, and the Chinese manufacturers aren't going to buy, and most wearables these days are like FitBit, not nearly complex enough to require something like a Snapdragon, who are they going to sell to?

    1. Re: Yeah but who's going to buy them? by dothasmurfysmurf · · Score: 1

      I thought Samsung made Apple's processors.

    2. Re:Yeah but who's going to buy them? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and their bands

    3. Re: Yeah but who's going to buy them? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      They are the fab for Apple's processors. They do not design them.

  4. Trackables. Not Wearables. by zenlessyank · · Score: 2

    Let's get this term right. IoT is the Internet of Trackables. Anyone who says different is a liar. Our society won't be happy until all the HAVES will be in total control of the HAVE-NOTS.

    1. Re:Trackables. Not Wearables. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our society won't be happy until all the HAVES will be in total control of the HAVE-NOTS.

      When have the "haves" NOT had total control of the "have-nots"?

      Sure, sometimes the have-nots revolt, but the haves always put them down again.

      That's how it's been, that's how it is, and that's how it'll always be. Don't fight it. Embrace it.

    2. Re:Trackables. Not Wearables. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Whilst I like your verbiage about the 'trackables,' I do have to wonder, who do you consider to be a "HAVES?" No, really? I'm genuinely curious. What is a HAVE vs. a HAVE not for you? Where's that line drawn and why?

      Are you not the least bit concerned about painting with such a large brush? Are you not the least bit concerned with prejudice that might be unwarranted? I imagine we won't know that until we have some good definitions. I'm not really sure what you consider to be a "HAVES" here.

      Is it the 1% again? Top 2%? .01%? Is it the CEOs or executives of a corporation? I want to take a stab at this and see how I do but I'd be worried that would color your response. You probably think I'm joking, I assure you that I am not. Nor do I troll.

      It's a bit of a favor and you needn't do so but, if you will, I'd like to ask you to do something. Okay? Go back to your feelings when you wrote your post. When you articulated the "HAVES" aspect of your quote, what exactly is in that group? What does this "HAVES" look like, to you at least. Is it one thing? Is it multiple things? Is it a combination of certain things?

      Assuming I don't delete all my reply notifications by mistake, for the second time in as many weeks, I'll do what I can to objectively process your response and give you an in-kind reply and, perhaps, make it worth the five minutes to type up your reply. I'd really like to take a stab in the dark and reply to what I believe you're saying but I try not to make assumptions.

      'Cause if I could take that stab in the dark, I'd think you're probably painting with a broad brush and missing the finer details. It's possible that you have a persecution complex. I know some folks who have seriously accumulated some wealth, literally at or near a ten digit sum (of which I am not one), and they don't actually like this much either. The thing is, you'd probably count them in the group you're railing against. They're the ones who are in the best position to help avoid this sort of thing. It's not like you or I can stop it.

      Other than that, I concur that it's turning into an Internet of Tracking. I find it unfortunate but I find it even more unfortunate that people are willfully opting into this sort of thing. But, if you can tell me what "HAVES" look like to you, then I can probably offer you a better reply.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. I just need to know one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you released the firmware and source code for this? OpenWRT support when?

  6. What implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the "the implications could be huge" part it's worth a more detailed comment, right?

  7. Great by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gigabit LTE means that you'll be able to use up your entire high speed data quota in less than a minute, unless the carriers finally update their data pricing models.

    How is it that we've ended up with $10 for 10Gb or less of data now for about ten years? In the meantime, we've gone from inefficient EDGE to unbelievably efficient LTE, with HSPA+ available now for, what, the last five years on most GSM family networks?

    Yet the data prices haven't budged. The carriers have more bandwidth than ever, more efficient ways of using it than ever, but they still think they're running ancient EDGE or cdma2000 networks.

    On a positive note, this is more bandwidth than most people's cable modems. I wonder if the cable industry will catch up.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Great by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      So we should stop all wireless research because a country that is not even in the top 10 of Smartphone penetration has a mafia in charge of telecom?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The US is not even top 20 by internet access in mobile devices.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    2. Re:Great by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Americans constantly whine about data costs, endlessly - as if it's somehow a magical unlimited bucket of data available in the spectrum.
      I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd like it too - but it seems only the Americans 'don't get it' when it comes to this. It's pretty straightforward, there's limits to it, period.

      How's this, in the last 10 years, what if instead you didn't have 4G / LTE etc, instead you just still had "inefficient EDGE" BUT unlimited data, all month long, endlessly?

      You can't have both. Especially with more and more devices out there.
      The idiot Liberal (it means conservative here) Govt in Australia at one point, tried denying the need to build an advanced comms network (NBN) one of their excuses was "oh 3G / 4G etc will be XYZ GBs in a few years, laying fibre down is dumb!" because idiots don't understand the limits of wireless communications tech.

      Personally, I have a 16GB phone, 32GB microSD slot. I get 1.5GB per month (!) and I use about half of it (but I don't go out too much) I imagine were I to travel more, I could envision a need of say 5 to 7GB at most, which is available right now at semi-reasonable prices.

      Wireless is not a magical fountain of unlimited bandwidth, a million posts in a million articles won't change this.

    3. Re:Great by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Gigabit LTE means that you'll be able to use up your entire high speed data quota in less than a minute, unless the carriers finally update their data pricing models.

      How is it that we've ended up with $10 for 10Gb or less of data now for about ten years? In the meantime, we've gone from inefficient EDGE to unbelievably efficient LTE, with HSPA+ available now for, what, the last five years on most GSM family networks?

      Yet the data prices haven't budged. The carriers have more bandwidth than ever, more efficient ways of using it than ever, but they still think they're running ancient EDGE or cdma2000 networks.

      Easy - profits.

      Remember just a few years ago when people paid 25 cents per text? And some even paid another 25 cents to RECEIVE a text? Same reason - it was a massive profit center

      Then texting stopped being a thing - with many ways to avoid it been iMessages and IM apps and Hangouts etc which used much cheaper data instead of SMS. Plus competition made it such that carriers started offering unlimited text plans for $20 extra. And of course, they realized they had a new profit center - data. Even better, they charge by the kilo and not kibi, and for good measure, they toss in the OTA headers as well in the byte count.

      So yeah, they're charging because they can because it makes them massive amounts of money. On the bright side, they do adopt the new technologies quickly in an attempt to make you overuse your data plan and pay even more outrageous overage charges.

    4. Re:Great by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to start downloading enormous amounts of data to my phone just because I can, however faster LTE means that the data I'm currently downloading will get to me faster, and the network as a whole will have more capacity.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    5. Re: Great by dothasmurfysmurf · · Score: 1

      I have Sprint unlimited and regularly use north of 30 gigabytes a month with no throttling.

    6. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, people whine, it is in their nature, and their right as americans..

      HOWEVER.. it does not cost $1.00 usd to deliver 1 gigabyte of data over unthrottled full speed 4g.... one-tenth of that would cover costs while still providing a *reasonable* profit margin to the carrier...

      but $1.00 a gigabyte isn't what american carriers charge.. it's $5.00 per gigabyte.. or $50 for 10 gigs.. or worse yet (and still quite common).. $50 for only 5 gigs. plus ridiculous overage charges.... we pay even more.. $60 for 5 gigabytes... at home, six miles from town in a county where 80%+ live in the country, less than a half mile from the nearest neighbor with dsl, because there is no alternative other than dialup (hah) or satellite (worse than wireless carriers).

      with only a handful of choices, and often only one or (if you're "lucky") two with sufficient coverage, the carriers know they've got customers by the ballsack and charge accordingly.

    7. Re:Great by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      If you got 10GB for $10 in 2006 I am in serious awe of your bargain-finding skills.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:Great by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Gb != GB.

    9. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the problem with the NBN is the poor to non existent costing, political interference in the role out, bllshitting about how it will allow remote medical procedures outback, the outback isn't really getting fibre anyway unless you lived in a politically sensitive town, jobs for mates, and Steven Conroy. Then Malcolm Turnbull.

      But hey, ultimate free stuff!

    10. Re:Great by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I guess us Europeans have no need to whine, as we don't have such caps. Don't recall ever having one (I live in Finland). The terms of service generally include a right to throttle the connection in extreme situations, though it's hard to tell if this has ever happened to me. There are so many variables once the traffic is outside your ISP's network. We also understand the ISP may not have a total capacity equal to the sum of customer speeds. But this has little to do with monthly caps, unless you only think of data rates in monthly averages.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    11. Re:Great by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to home internet or 3/4G (LTE) data?
      These are 2 VASTLY different services.

    12. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in that case, his bargain finding skills fucking suck today. It's way cheaper than that.

    13. Re:Great by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      How's this, in the last 10 years, what if instead you didn't have 4G / LTE etc, instead you just still had "inefficient EDGE" BUT unlimited data, all month long, endlessly?

      You mean... what if the cellphone carriers didn't take advantage of any of the advances in technology that had happened, and just gave us the same shit sandwich they were giving us 11 years ago?

      I'd be pretty pissed about that completely different situation too. I'd say to them "Look, why not use the new spectrum the government is opening up for you, use something really efficient like LTE, and offer us more bandwidth for the same cost given we're paying you the same amount of money now as we were when you were still upgrading your network?"

      Technology has improved. You'd expect that to result in actual improvements beyond being able to see a web page render more quickly on your mobile. We know capacity has improved, so why can't we access it?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Great by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      The argument has never changed, who said you can't have the speed? You're welcome to it but you can't have 300GB a month AND fast AND reliable. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
      Fast, reliable, cheap
      Pick any 2 you like.

    15. Re:Great by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      If Americans had better access to better (and better-maintained) landline infrastructure to homes and businesses and more free and secure Wi-Fi in populated areas, the demand for unlimited data over cellular would be a lot less.

      As it stands, companies like Verizon have monopolies over the landlines in large swaths of the states, and rather than using this monopoly to offer modern broadband that keeps up with the ever-increasing demand for bandwidth, they only offer languishing ADSL with early-2000s speeds and horrible reliability to the vast majority of their customers.

      That's right, the vast majority of the customers who are stuck under a Verizon monopoly cannot get FiOS or anything similar. No fiber to the node, no fiber to the neighborhood, just nothing. You're either one of the Lucky Ones, or you're not. And if you're not, your alternatives are to move your life and work at enormous personal time and money investment (if it's even possible at all), or hope that cellular might be good enough.

      Speaking of "a million posts in a million articles" not changing anything, people like you continually seem to conveniently ignore the fact that simply increasing tower density proportionally to population density is a viable strategy for increasing the amount of bandwidth a cellular network can push. And, no, you don't have to connect each of those towers to wired backhaul -- we have commercially available carrier-grade GHz-band directional microwave solutions on the market today that can push data by the tens of gigabits across long distances between towers.

      They're just not profit-motivated to enhance their network in these ways to provide needed access. They aren't profit-motivated to dig up suburban streets and provide FiOS to a majority (let alone all) of their customers, either. And the law prevents a competitor from doing it instead.

      Just because there's no profit motive for something, that doesn't mean it's necessarily something bad or not worth investing in. The profit motive is effectively in the net commercial activity in the digital economy at large that is brought about by providing great Internet speeds. It doesn't matter how fast you think is "enough"; that amount is going to constantly change and increase over time. The point is to deliver speeds (without data caps, or with outrageously large caps) that are competitive with the other advanced industrialized economies in the world. Right now only the elite and the lucky get that in the US.

      But go ahead and defend the telecoms for helping to ensure that the US becomes a relative backwater in the digital economy.

  8. A product without a market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wants 1 gigabit LTE speeds when all it will do is burn through your data cap in a couple of days? Until the wireless carriers stop bending everyone over with ridiculous data limits these chips are really not of much use to anyone.

    1. Re:A product without a market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >when all it will do is burn through your data cap in a couple days?

      Yeah, but now you can do it with your watch!

  9. It's not power... by swan5566 · · Score: 1

    ...it's the having to "charge my watch" that makes me not buy one. Until they somehow fix that, smartwatches will always be more inconvenient that convenient.

    --
    In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
    1. Re:It's not power... by swb · · Score: 1

      For me it's charging and obsolescence.

      A smart watch that can't do much on its own and can't be paired in any way with a phone because it is no longer a supported software release sounds dumb.

      I don't know if they did, but I wish Apple had built in some protocol primitives that while they could be extended, would also retain full backwards compatibility so that you could push basic data that isn't likely to change (SMS or contact info or whatever) over a long timespan.

    2. Re: It's not power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Apple would do something that reduced their ability to shaft their army of zealots on a regular product cycle.

  10. And the backhaul required? by aphelion_rock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With potentially hundreds of gigabit capable devices connected to on tower, it will be interesting to see how the carriers deal with the backhaul requirements for the ever escalating demand on data.

    1. Re:And the backhaul required? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      With potentially hundreds of gigabit capable devices connected to on tower, it will be interesting to see how the carriers deal with the backhaul requirements for the ever escalating demand on data.

      How will they deal with it? That answer is easy. They won't. They'll just stick to their current data caps.

    2. Re:And the backhaul required? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Decrease monthly data quotas, charge more and reap more profits.

  11. a Cable node has less users then 1 cell tower by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    a Cable node has less users then 1 cell tower. Also what is the backhual from the towers?

  12. Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to exhaust my Verizon monthly data cap in under 20 seconds. That will have me clamoring for the next phone with this chipset.

  13. Datacap per second speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW!! I am so excited to be introduced to new and exciting mobile carrier billing nightmares!

    Realistically speaking, faster transmission speeds will hopefully result in less overall network utilization. With less meantime utilization, there ought to be less bottlenecks. With less bottlenecks, there should be less of this counter-productive throttling going on...

    With less of all that, the mobile carriers could reintroduce à la carte data plans once again.

    1. Re:Datacap per second speeds? by SherifHanna · · Score: 1

      Give the man a prize! You hit the nail on the head. It's not about reaching your data cap faster -- it's that whatever you're downloading, you get it faster to 1. enjoy your device more 2. save battery life 3. improve network capacity so ALL users get better speeds (even those with older modems).