"Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?

Post by Don Y
For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
assuming? ac? ax?

Probably n now in most places with modern chipsets. Cell phones have a
lifecycle of about 5 years before the battery swells and dies.

Post by Don Y
If you extend that to include *all* phones currently in service
(e.g., 4G onwards), where would you put the cutoff? n? g?
[US market]

Probably around n for the Wifi link but you can still find places in
rural areas where the cell phones are on 2.5G mobile connections. Only
in the cities can you safely assume 5G and adequate backhaul.

4G mobile broadband service tends to saturate when large crowds all try
to do the same thing at once (eg at football matches).

--
Martin Brown

Don Y

2024-05-17 10:28:02 UTC

Probably n now in most places with modern chipsets. Cell phones have a
lifecycle of about 5 years before the battery swells and dies.

I'd have thought a more "current" WiFi generation. I have iPhones
dating back to 2015/2017 that all tout ac. Android phones from
the same era are n or ac. Current iPhones are ax.

Does apple tend to design to a higher performance level than
(e.g.) android? I.e., should I be looking at phones OTHER than
iPhones for a true feel?

Post by Don Y
If you extend that to include *all* phones currently in service
(e.g., 4G onwards), where would you put the cutoff? n? g?
[US market]

I think 3G is gone, here. I know none of my 3G phones will even display
the correct time of day!

Post by Martin Brown
4G mobile broadband service tends to saturate when large crowds all try to do
the same thing at once (eg at football matches).

I don't see a phone maker touting their WiFi capability as a selling
point -- but, I don't shop for cell phones so can't speak to the mindset
of folks who do.

The other question is whether or not the phones can saturate such a pipe
or if their capabilities are more "bursty"... lower *average* data rates.
It seems like most phone uses (excepting streaming video) tend to be
more interactive/bursty. The processors used SHOULD be able to do a fair
bit of work. This, assuming their OSs are slick enough and power management
doesn't too aggressively meter the CPUs abilities.

It seems like multitasking, in phones, is driven heavily by which app
has the focus. So, any other ACTIVE apps likely don't place much demand
on resources (?)

File transfers could pose a longer-term load on the connection. But, they
inherently have very little *processing* involved.

The iPhone "garden" makes it hard for me to deploy a benchmark to
test their capabilities. But, I should be able to do something
on android.

Bill Sloman

2024-05-17 13:44:56 UTC

<snip>

Post by Don Y
Does apple tend to design to a higher performance level than
(e.g.) android? I.e., should I be looking at phones OTHER than
iPhones for a true feel?

Apple does like to create the impression that they have the latest and
greatest.

Google, who created the Android operating system for mobile phones, is
an actual technical pioneer, which is why a number of mobile phone
suppliers use their operating system.

You should put in enough work to get past the marketing hype.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Dan Purgert

2024-05-17 12:55:02 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Don Y

2024-05-17 16:30:47 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.

The most commonly referenced include: 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g,
802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax and, most recently, 802.11be. The
last four of these are now referenced as "WiFi 4" thru "WiFi 7".
E.g., the APs in my house are compatible with all *to* "WiFi 6".

The level/revision of WiFi implemented by phones vary -- with
their date of manufacture, along with the goals of their
designers. E.g., the examplars that I presented (elsewhere)
show iPhones supporting (802.11)ac while other manufacturers
were still supporting n.

[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]

Dan Purgert

2024-05-20 11:02:08 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.

Post by Don Y
[Note that n is a ~2008 era technology while ac is ~2015
and ax is ~2020. Does this suggest that any phone made
"within the last 5 years" -- an interval Martin suggests
should cover "most" phones now in use -- should be "ax"?]

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.

Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of
"forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how
10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Don Y

2024-05-20 11:23:14 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.

Martin suggests phones have a useful life of 5 years.
If so, the majority of phones currently in use were
likely designed long after 802.11a/b (1999), g (2003),
n (2008), ac (2014) and even ax (2019).

If a phone does NOT support WiFi (perhaps some of the
"closed" markets?), then it has no impact on the data.

Post by Dan Purgert
The most basic support is still 802.11b; and that'll probably be kind of
"forever" (at least until 2.4 GHz is completely abandoned), same as how
10mbit is still the most basic ethernet-over-twisted-pair support.

But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.

Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.

[would you design an enet device that ONLY expected to be capable
of accessing 10mb bandwidth]

Dan Purgert

2024-05-20 11:37:12 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.

802.11a/b/g/n. Flagship models (or former flagships) will have 802.11ac
or ax; as appropriate for their release date.

But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.

It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.

Post by Don Y
Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.

Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.

It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Don Y

2024-05-20 12:59:40 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

It's almost like that list is ... all of the options.

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

I am trying to figure out what the "basic" WiFi capabilities
of "the vast majority" of cell phones currently in use are
likely to be.

802.11a/b/g/n. Flagship models (or former flagships) will have 802.11ac
or ax; as appropriate for their release date.

But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.

It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.

Post by Don Y
Designing for the lowest POSSIBLE vs. LIKELY means unnecessarily
limiting the capabilities that you can exploit.

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

Post by Dan Purgert
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...

You're missing the point, completely.

You're going to shoot a movie for direct-to-consumer distribution.

IF YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH IT, you shoot in black & white,
with monophonic sound, 10KHz bandwidth in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The old
geezer in east bumphuck will be able to watch it on his VHS attached to
his 1950's Philco -- and, the yuppie on Park Avenue will also be able to
watch it on his 120" 4K set with 5+1 surround sound!

Or, you shoot it in a wide format and then (pay to) post-process it (pan&scan)
to fit that ancient VHS/CRT viewer.

*OR*, you decide you can *ignore* some portion of your POSSIBLE market
and just shoot in a more modern format with better sound on the assumption
that your REAL market will likely now -- or RSN! -- have one of those
new-fangled TVs and will appreciate the capabilities in that medium THAT
YOU EXPLOITED DURING FILMING/PRODUCTION.

"Let's make N different productions to fully exploit the capabilities
of the various ages of technology that folks MIGHT use... and, folks
using older/cheaper/less capable technology will be disappointed with
the product because it is so crippled TO THEIR TECHNOLOGY! ('Gee,
this looks SO much better on YOUR screen than on mine...')"

When you want to install W11 on a PC, doesn't it REQUIRE a certain level
of capability in the PC's hardware/configuration? Why can't it install
on my 1990 vintage lunchbox?? Obviously, MS looked at their LIKELY
market and felt it a safe bet to set the minimum/base requirements
where they did -- KNOWING that it would exclude some machines (that may
even have been purchased "recently")

Dan Purgert

2024-05-20 17:03:40 UTC

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY*
trying to ask for?

There are several different "generations" of WiFi, each with
different effective (data) bandwidths.
[...]

No. /FLAGSHIP/ models certainly have a high chance of supporting
802.11ax, but that doesn't mean "any" phone.
Again, what are you *REALLY* trying to ascertain here?

But, in practice, most phones support something more capable
than 802.11b -- just like most enets support something more
capable than 10BaseT/2.

It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel
width, and at least 3x3 spatial streams. Assuming, of course:

- that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND
- The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate,
ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND
- There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones
using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND
- The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.)
to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone.
- The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O,
etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.

Or, I don't use WiFi (to a phone or otherwise) because if I *need*
1gpbs, then a wire's gonna give me that without any of the conditions
imposed by half-duplex radio communications.

Post by Dan Purgert
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...

You're missing the point, completely.

It's almost like the whole reason I've repeatedly asked "what do you
*REALLY* want to know" is because your question is vague.

- If you're building some form of WiFi access point --> who cares,
the phone will negotiate with the AP for the best common mode
between them given local conditions (e.g. 802.11n @ MCS2)

- If you're building some form of application that needs some minimum
data rate --> you can't really guarantee you're going to get that
rate, unless it's less than 1Mbps (802.11a/b/g) or MCS0
(802.11n/ac/ax; exact rate varies depending on available spatial
streams).

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Don Y

2024-05-20 18:39:21 UTC

Post by Dan Purgert
It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel
- that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND
- The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate,
ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND
- There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones
using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND
- The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.)
to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone.
- The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O,
etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.

Etc. But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.

E.g., I can replace gigabit with whatever I decide the application
requires. Or, design the application to use the capabilities
*expected*.

Post by Dan Purgert
Or, I don't use WiFi (to a phone or otherwise) because if I *need*
1gpbs, then a wire's gonna give me that without any of the conditions
imposed by half-duplex radio communications.

Then you're stuck with a cable.

Post by Dan Purgert
It's not like an 802.11ax AP doesn't support a/b/g/n/ac ...

You're missing the point, completely.

It's almost like the whole reason I've repeatedly asked "what do you
*REALLY* want to know" is because your question is vague.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE. What's so vague about that?

Find every phone currently in use. Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications. Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.

I could similarly ask for the nominal WEIGHT of phones currently in
use. Or, size. Or, color. Or, ... The approach would be the same.
Would it MATTER how I was using this information? Or, why? Would
the data CHANGE??

Had I (or YOU!) personal experience DESIGNING cell phones, I
could enumerate the criteria that were used in selecting the
feature set for the phone and extrapolate that to other manufacturers.

"Do we want the WiFi bandwidth to be comparable to the available
cellular data rate? What do we envision the user relying on the
WiFi connection for, given the existing data capability? Etc."

But, I don't KNOW how manufacturers (designers) set these features.
I don't see phones advertised highlighting their WiFi capabilities;
instead, it's OS, 4G/5G, camera, screen size, battery life. And, I
suspect if I were to canvas phone owners and ask them what THEIR phones'
WiFi capabilities are, I would get a blank stare from most.

[Gee, does this mean WiFi is a useless feature?]

Post by Dan Purgert
- If you're building some form of WiFi access point --> who cares,
the phone will negotiate with the AP for the best common mode
- If you're building some form of application that needs some minimum
data rate --> you can't really guarantee you're going to get that
rate, unless it's less than 1Mbps (802.11a/b/g) or MCS0
(802.11n/ac/ax; exact rate varies depending on available spatial
streams).

Or, unless you control the environment that the phone is operating in.
Didn't that occur to you? Or, are you limited by your ASSUMPTIONS
about how the phone would be used?

I'm an engineer. Assume I can "do engineering". I asked a question
to gather opinions as to a survey of available *equipment*. If you
can't provide that information, that's understandable.

Martin Brown

2024-05-21 09:58:49 UTC

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

That sort of continuous datarate would probably overheat many (most?)
mobile phones. Some of them can get quite hot when worked hard.

Post by Dan Purgert
Then I buy a phone that can support 802.11ac Wave2 with 160 MHz channel
   - that the AP supports those minimum requirements as well, AND
   - The conditions allow for negotiation of MCS8 (~2300 mbps link rate,
     ballpark 1gpbs sustained data rate, but WiFi math is "fun") AND
   - There aren't other devices also requesting airtime (especially ones
     using slower options -- 2x2 streams, 802.11n, MCS5, etc.) AND
   - The server has enough bandwidth (incl. read buffers, disk I/O, etc.)
     to sustain that 1gpbs transfer to my phone.
   - The phone has enough bandwidth (incl. write buffers, "disk" I/O,
     etc.) to sustain a 1gbps transfer from the server.

Etc. But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE. What's so vague about that?

It varies depending on who is using them. There are a lot of people
glued to their less than year old super phone 24/7 who have the latest
of everything and OLED screens. Then there are the people (typically
parents or grandparents of the above) who have the hand me down phones.

And a bunch of Luddites still on completely dumb phones for their
extended battery life or other elderly friendly features like large
buttons. I reckon there are still a fair proportion of totally dumb
phones in the older generation and a bunch of people in the UK who are
going to be very surprised when the 3G signals are finally switched off.

I have a feeling that 2.5G will outlive 3G since some remote areas have
nothing else. 5G is now common in cities and 4G elsewhere.

Find every phone currently in use. Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications. Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.

You could probably make a fairly safe assumption that any phone in
regular use for more than 5 years will be on its last legs now (and/or
slowed down from as new performance by battery saver tricks).

Just look back to see what network capabilities were most common in
popular models 5 years ago. Secondhand smart phones from a few years
back sell for quite low prices these days unless they are iToys.

I could similarly ask for the nominal WEIGHT of phones currently in
use. Or, size. Or, color. Or, ... The approach would be the same.
Would it MATTER how I was using this information? Or, why? Would
the data CHANGE??

The annoying thing for me is that with each new generation the mobile
phone gets larger which is good from the point of view of the handset
being more nearly compatible with the distance form ear to mouth but bad
from the point of view of it falling out of a shirt pocket!

All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top
edge of the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...

--
Martin Brown

John R Walliker

2024-05-21 10:43:28 UTC

And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

That sort of continuous datarate would probably overheat many (most?)
mobile phones. Some of them can get quite hot when worked hard.

Etc. But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE. What's so vague about that?

It varies depending on who is using them. There are a lot of people
glued to their less than year old super phone 24/7 who have the latest
of everything and OLED screens. Then there are the people (typically
parents or grandparents of the above) who have the hand me down phones.
And a bunch of Luddites still on completely dumb phones for their
extended battery life or other elderly friendly features like large
buttons. I reckon there are still a fair proportion of totally dumb
phones in the older generation and a bunch of people in the UK who are
going to be very surprised when the 3G signals are finally switched off.
I have a feeling that 2.5G will outlive 3G since some remote areas have
nothing else. 5G is now common in cities and 4G elsewhere.

Find every phone currently in use. Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications. Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.

You could probably make a fairly safe assumption that any phone in
regular use for more than 5 years will be on its last legs now (and/or
slowed down from as new performance by battery saver tricks).
Just look back to see what network capabilities were most common in
popular models 5 years ago. Secondhand smart phones from a few years
back sell for quite low prices these days unless they are iToys.

The annoying thing for me is that with each new generation the mobile
phone gets larger which is good from the point of view of the handset
being more nearly compatible with the distance form ear to mouth but bad
from the point of view of it falling out of a shirt pocket!
All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top
edge of the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...

I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
i have disabled 802.11b and nobody has complained. The reason for
doing this is that some devices such as high-definition cameras
and screen sharing devices send large amounts of data using
multi-casting. If one WiFi recipient is connected very slowly
this uses up all the available WiFi bandwidth causing the whole
network to grind to a halt.
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.

John

Don Y

2024-05-21 22:26:53 UTC

I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,

So, these are "closed"/private spaces (NOT "coffee shops" open to
public access)?

Do you have an idea as to the mix of clients (laptops, phones,
appliances)?

And, how "saturated" the airspace is?

i have disabled 802.11b and nobody has complained. The reason for
doing this is that some devices such as high-definition cameras
and screen sharing devices send large amounts of data using
multi-casting. If one WiFi recipient is connected very slowly
this uses up all the available WiFi bandwidth causing the whole
network to grind to a halt.

Yes. OTOH, you can use multiple radios to move the slowpokes
out of the way.

Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.

But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?

Martin Brown

2024-05-22 09:07:20 UTC

I can offer some real-world data that may be of use. I manage
WiFi access points in offices around the world. In every case,
Setting a minimum connection speed of 12MHz at 2.4GHz and 24MHz
at 5GHz is also useful and does not appear to cause any problems.

But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?

My instinct is that there are still a *lot* of phones out there (at
least in the UK) where wireless n is the fastest they support.
Give it another 3 years or so and that will change. Do you care if some
Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many
people scream at you.

--
Martin Brown

Don Y

2024-05-22 10:49:08 UTC

But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?

Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
being the new "commodity level"?

Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

No; that was the point of my "1950's Philco" anecdote.

BUT (!), I don't want to restrict the market to only folks who like
gold-plating!

Think of the disappointment you feel when something you want isn't
compatible with "what you have". E.g., why can't I run Windows
on my ______. Or, why can't I keep using my 5 year old printer
(has marking technology advance to the point that 5 years makes
something obsolete??) Or...

"For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."

It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
(in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.

[Yes, you can try to scale capabilities to fit different users
but that comes at a cost. It also affects your positioning.]

The only way to know for sure would be to disable n and see how many people
scream at you.

Martin Brown

2024-05-22 14:17:11 UTC

But, how much *higher* than that might you be able to go without
folks complaining about "equipment incompatibilities"?

Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?

Not necessarily. I suspect the market will diversify between those who
value respectable battery service life and those that insist on
streaming full 4k video onto an 4" OLED screen. They must have
incredible eyesight is all I can say!

Post by Don Y
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
being the new "commodity level"?

We have sort of reached that stage with the consumer grade PCs.
Improvements for single threaded usage are now very slow indeed.

Post by Martin Brown
Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

Pretty much. You can extend the life of some kit with third party
drivers or other tricks but the OS has a nasty habit of prohibiting
useful things to make life easier for the lowest common denominator of
user. Windows Safe mode or whatever it is called Lock In for instance.

Many things today are clipped and glued together on a one time basis
with no reasonable prospect of safely prizing it apart again even though
the glue used is nominally thermoplastic.

Post by Don Y
"For 'nominal' cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest), ..."
It's a balancing act; if you extend your support "backwards"
(in time/capabilities), then you potentially address more users.
But, you offer a product with diminished capabilities.

Famously IBM got it completely wrong insisting that OS/2 must run on the
then shipping 286 models even though it was dire on that hardware.
Conflating the OS/2 launch with lockin PS/2 MCA hardware didn't help.

It opened a Window for MS to take market share with Win3 that targetted
the 386 only. We all know the outcome of that monumental IBM cock up. It
united all of the PC clone makers to produce the EISA standard bus.

--
Martin Brown

Don Y

2024-05-23 00:02:38 UTC

Do you expect "whatever is the current standard" to be the new "design in"?

Not necessarily. I suspect the market will diversify between those who value
respectable battery service life and those that insist on streaming full 4k
video onto an 4" OLED screen. They must have incredible eyesight is all I can say!

Do you think the radioS are a single component/chipset? Or, components that
are individually selected and thrown together? Given the high volumes
involved (and the small spaces available). I.e., will the phone designer
have this choice or the *radio* designer?

Post by Don Y
Or, will there still be some manufacturing premium for that (even in cell
phone quantities!) so that something "a bit older" (at THAT time) ends up
being the new "commodity level"?

We have sort of reached that stage with the consumer grade PCs. Improvements
for single threaded usage are now very slow indeed.

Yes. But, I wonder how much of that is related to the fact that
PCs (esp "consumer grade") are not really the subject of intense
optimization/improvement, any longer?

Luddites can't use whatever it is you are making?

Pretty much. You can extend the life of some kit with third party drivers or
other tricks but the OS has a nasty habit of prohibiting useful things to make
life easier for the lowest common denominator of user. Windows Safe mode or
whatever it is called Lock In for instance.
Many things today are clipped and glued together on a one time basis with no
reasonable prospect of safely prizing it apart again even though the glue used
is nominally thermoplastic.

Yup. I have adopted the "no user serviceable parts inside" philosophy.
It's almost essential if you want small, inexpensive and reliable.
And, as you drive your product costs down, the notion of repair is
almost impractical.

Famously IBM got it completely wrong insisting that OS/2 must run on the then
shipping 286 models even though it was dire on that hardware. Conflating the
OS/2 launch with lockin PS/2 MCA hardware didn't help.
It opened a Window for MS to take market share with Win3 that targetted the 386
only. We all know the outcome of that monumental IBM cock up. It united all of
the PC clone makers to produce the EISA standard bus.

Sadly, people keep making the "non-portable" design decisions and, as
a result, keep having to reinvent the wheel. OS designers are smart
enough to realize the value of an HAL; but, application designers
haven't made that realization, yet!

Don Y

2024-05-21 11:52:46 UTC