Qualcomm Promises Gigabit LTE Speeds and New Chips to Power Smartwatches

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!

Now my unmentionables can tweet

[Rhaize]

Interesting Implications! first

This is awesome news!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Yeah but who's going to buy them?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Yeah but who's going to buy them?

[Johnny Truant]

I thought Samsung made Apple's processors.

Re:

[Lunix Nutcase]

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

Re:

[unixisc]

Microsoft and their bands

Trackables. Not Wearables.

[zenlessyank]

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.

Re:

[KGIII]

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% agai

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

a Cable node has less users then 1 cell tower

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Re:

[indi0144]

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/... [wikipedia.org]

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

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

Re:

[AbRASiON]

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. Especial

Re: Great

[Johnny Truant]

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

Re:

[TeknoHog]

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 thin

Re:

[AbRASiON]

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

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[AbRASiON]

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.

Re:

[allquixotic]

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 a

Re:

[tlhIngan]

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 efficie

Re:

[amRadioHed]

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.

Re:

[kamapuaa]

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

Re:

[Lunix Nutcase]

Gb != GB.

It's not power...

[swan5566]

...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.

Re:

[swb]

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.

And the backhaul required?

[aphelion_rock]

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.

Re:

[rudy_wayne]

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.

Re:

[Lunix Nutcase]

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

Re:

[Sherif Hanna]

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).