The group case analysis report should be written in the following format: 1-inch all-around margins, double space and Times New Roman 12-point font.
Page | 2 Apple and Smartphones 1. General Environment 1.1 Miniaturization of MOSFETs (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors) Moore’s Law, first proposed in 1965, suggests that the transistor density on a chip may double every 18 months. Not only are economies of scale in manufacturing realized (more transistors per chip) but, in general, reducing the size of a transistor shortens its electron flow channel, enabling reduced power consumption and faster switching1. Faster switching means that microprocessors may carry out more instructions per second (have a higher clock rate), while reduced power consumption also helps to reduce heat dissipation requirements. Finally, smaller transistors mean that more peripherals (integrated circuits) may be packed on a chip, permitting quicker communication among the components. 1.2 Improved Wireless Networks for mobile devices Like Moore’s Law, Edholm’s Law predicts that bandwidth and data rates for digital wide area networks would double every 18 months, which has proven to be true since the 1970s2, and that wireless and wired networks are in lockstep and converging3. Most of the essential elements of wireless networks are built from MOSFETs, including the mobile transceivers, base station modules, routers, RF amplifiers, telecommunications circuits, RF circuits, and radio transceivers in 2G, 3G, and 4G wireless networks. In the field of wide-area mobile communications, a "generation" generally refers to a change in the fundamental nature of the service. There is usually non-backwards-compatible transmission technology, and productivity improvements include higher peak bit rates, new frequency bands, wider channel frequency bandwidth in Hertz, and higher capacity for traffic (many simultaneous data transfers - higher system spectral efficiency in bit/second/Hertz/site). Table 1: Generations of Wide Area Wireless Networks for Mobile Devices Date First implementation Network and Signal characteristics Standards for network Theoretical maximum transfer speed 1979 Japan (NTT DoCoMo); AT&T (Chicago) Cells and base units containing towers; more dense; multiple frequencies per tower; low power transmission (signals don’t interfere, can use same frequency in multiple cells); computerized hand-offs between base stations Analog; FDMA (frequency division multiple access); 1G standards 1991 Finland Development of Metal-Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistors; bursts and compression and decompression of signal (digital) and allows multiple access but introduces some latency Digital; TDMA (time division multiple access); 2G standards 40k bits/sec 2001 Japan (NTT DoCoMo) Signal chopped into bits (= code) and phase-shifted; speed and capacity allow viable Internet browsing CDMA (code division multiple access); 3G standards 144 k bits/sec (3.5G and 3.75G over 1M bits/sec) 2009 Sweden and Norway all Internet protocol packet-switched (not circuit-switched). Potential and current applications include amended mobile web access, VOIP, gaming services, high-def mobile TV, video conferencing, 3D TV. 4G standards; 100M bits/sec for high mobility wireless; 1G bits/sec for low speed or stationary wireless 2019 So. Korea Higher frequency radio waves (unused part of spectrum); denser, mini-base stations (antennae) vs. towers; directional transmission vs. omnidirectional (Beam-Division Multiple Access, BDMA); full duplex. Slingshots the mobile phone into the multi-media arena, allowing for cellphone users to stream live video feeds, download full feature movies, high definition games, and more. 5G standards; fast enough to compete with ISP for cable Internet; also new applications possible in IoT, autonomous driving. Low band 100-900M bits/sec High-band 1-3 G bits/sec; eventually 10 G bits/sec Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1G-5G; https://spectrum.ieee.org/video/telecom/wireless/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g Local area networks (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) also enable mobile access to the Internet and permit communications between devices. As Table 2 suggests, similar technological improvements have enabled parallel, accelerated gains in data transfer speeds for wireless local area networks. Table 2: Local Area Network (Wi-Fi) Internet Access Date Org/Std. Improvement Peak Speed 1971 AlohaNet First wireless packet network 1985 FCC Releases ISM Band (2.4 GHz) 1991 NCR, ATT Precursor to 802.11 standard 1992-6 CSIRO Important patent 1997 Vic Hayes, IEEE Original 802.11 standards 2 Mbits/sec 1999 Wi-Fi Trade Alliance 2003 802.11g Orthogonal freq. division multiplexing 54 Mbits/sec 2009 802.11n MIMO antennae, 2.4 & 5 GHz bands 54-600 Mbits/sec 2011 802.11 ad 60 GHz (range is less) 7 Gbits/sec 2012 802.11a 5 GHz band 54 Mbits/sec 2013 802.11ac 5 GHz band, MIMO, higher order mod. 1.3 Gbits/sec Pending 802.11x 4x speed of 802.11ac 5.2 Gbits/sec Pending 802.11ay Extension of 802.11ad, 60GHz band 20 Gbits/sec https://www.cablefree.net/wireless-technology/history-of-wifi-technology/ 1.3 Power Sources4 Desktop computers, because they can be wired to an unlimited source of power (a wall socket), have been designed to exploit this advantage. They may have larger screen sizes, more on-board storage (terabytes vs. gigabytes), faster CPUs, more RAM, and more powerful software than wireless devices. Wireless devices must contain their own power source (usually a battery). The advent of the lithium ion battery has improved the power supply for mobile devices. However, as batteries still have limited lives and power supplies (moderate cell phone usage will usually require recharging the battery after about one day), the design of wireless devices must take this bottleneck into account. 1.4 Improved, less expensive sensors Modern-day smartphones contain a host of sensors – accelerometers and gyroscopes for sensing orientation and motion, magnetometers to orient maps, GPS for navigation, proximity sensors to prevent unwanted or inadvertent input, ambient light sensors to help adjust screen brightness, microphones for sensing sound, capacitive touchscreens, bar code sensors, heart rate sensors and pedometers for fitness, fingerprint sensors for unlocking, thermometers for measuring the phone’s internal temperature. Some also contain air humidity sensors and Geiger counters5. Many are microelectromechanical (MEMS) devices that became practical once it was realized that that they could be fabricated using standard semiconductor device fabrication techniques6. Some have low power consumption that is compatible with a mobile device (e.g., accelerometers),7 and they usually consist of a central unit that processes data (an IC chip such as microprocessor) and several components that interact with the surroundings (microsensors). Because of the large surface area to volume ratio of MEMS, forces produced by ambient electromagnetism (e.g., electrostatic charges and magnetic moments) and fluid dynamics (e.g., surface tension and viscosity) are more important design considerations than with larger scale mechanical devices6. The cost of sensors has fallen dramatically. In 2004, the average sensor price was $1.30. In 2020, it is expected to decline to $0.38,7 while, due to increased volume, producer revenues continue to rise8. Furthermore, some sensors can be leveraged to provide unforeseen applications by making software or hardware upgrades9. Accelerometers, for instance, have been used to implement pedometers, GPS navigation, intelligent power consumption, tapping-to-mute, virtual mouse, hard-disk protection, camera stabilization, image rotation, e-compass tilt compensation, motion dialing, menu navigation/scrolling, and games. 2. Competitors 2.1 Psion. In the early 1980s, Psion created software for inexpensive (<$100) mini home computers10. by 1985 it had diversified into hardware, creating programmable calculators and the first practical personal digital assistant (pda). in 1991, it made a handheld computer 2 years before apple’s newton and five years before microsoft’s handheld computer. psion’s partnership with acorn, also a partner of apple’s, allowed it to expand into the next generation of organizers by adopting the arm processor in its series 5 in 1997. the series 5 incorporated a 640x200 resistive touch screen display and a full mini keyboard into a pocket-sized form factor, making it closer to microsoft’s plans for the wince handheld pc than the palm pilot or newton. even so, the series 5 was years ahead of microsoft's wince. psion also developed an entirely new operating system, called epoc 32, for the series 5's 32-bit arm processor. it featured preemptive multitasking and memory protection and was designed to accommodate third party licensees by making it easy to develop custom graphical interfaces based on a core set of gui classes. in mid-1998, psion's software unit was spun off into the symbian partnership with investment from hardware partners like ericsson, nokia, panasonic, and motorola. epoc32 became known as the symbian os. the top mobile makers invested heavily in the development of symbian. the resulting stability of the os, paired with an easy to customize interface, made symbian a quick and easy choice for mobile phone development. around 75% of the world's 32-bit embedded devices used arm processors, and a similar majority of smartphones ran symbian in 2006. however, some coordination problems with this approach surfaced11. licensees who simply wanted to crank out a phone product with a customized veneer (e.g., sony ericsson) may have benefitted from the work already done in symbian, however, if the integration wasn’t handled properly, slapping together good bits of hardware and good bits of software may have resulted in an unimpressive product that didn’t really work well. sony’s licenses to obtain the palm os for pdas and windows xp for vaio pcs demonstrate this. in addition, nokia and symbian made the new s60 version 3 incompatible with previous versions of s60, so none of the old symbian apps would work on any new phones. moreover, uiq has never been source code or binary compatible with s60. partners also contended that symbian's reputation as a modern, robust, stable and advanced os for smartphones was not well deserved11. sources close to nokia say that it was dissatisfied with the os but was more or less stuck with symbian since it didn’t have the competence or the time to make a new os from the ground up. thus, nokia invested in s60 middleware to be used on top of symbian - giving nokia more opportunity to add and change things on its own. sony ericsson, as one of the other large symbian owners and licensee, also bought uiq to offer its own flavor of symbian. thus, it has been argued that there really are no ‘symbian’ phones in the market, but rather three incompatible and diverging oss: nokia’s symbian s60, sony ericsson’s symbian uiq, and ntt docomo's symbian moap for asia, developers also suggested that a new symbian os may be desirable11. they argued that some of its design decisions may have been acceptable in 1993-94, when psion's epoc and epoc32-based series 3 & 5 were resource and memory constrained, but not now. in particular, they argued that symbian addresses c++ problems of the past with arcane fixes, while newer c++ releases may offer more elegant solutions. too, they contended that it may cling to outmoded functions or omit new c++ features altogether. in addition, they suggested that the developer’s environment may also be difficult and time-consuming to install and be incompatible with other, more modern programming tools. in sum, the problems seemed to make symbian more difficult program for - requiring additional coding, consuming developer’s time, and slowing production. too, such problems made code difficult to mini="" home="" computers10.="" by="" 1985="" it="" had="" diversified="" into="" hardware,="" creating="" programmable="" calculators="" and="" the="" first="" practical="" personal="" digital="" assistant="" (pda).="" in="" 1991,="" it="" made="" a="" handheld="" computer="" 2="" years="" before="" apple’s="" newton="" and="" five="" years="" before="" microsoft’s="" handheld="" computer.="" psion’s="" partnership="" with="" acorn,="" also="" a="" partner="" of="" apple’s,="" allowed="" it="" to="" expand="" into="" the="" next="" generation="" of="" organizers="" by="" adopting="" the="" arm="" processor="" in="" its="" series="" 5="" in="" 1997.="" the="" series="" 5="" incorporated="" a="" 640x200="" resistive="" touch="" screen="" display="" and="" a="" full="" mini="" keyboard="" into="" a="" pocket-sized="" form="" factor,="" making="" it="" closer="" to="" microsoft’s="" plans="" for="" the="" wince="" handheld="" pc="" than="" the="" palm="" pilot="" or="" newton.="" even="" so,="" the="" series="" 5="" was="" years="" ahead="" of="" microsoft's="" wince.="" psion="" also="" developed="" an="" entirely="" new="" operating="" system,="" called="" epoc="" 32,="" for="" the="" series="" 5's="" 32-bit="" arm="" processor.="" it="" featured="" preemptive="" multitasking="" and="" memory="" protection="" and="" was="" designed="" to="" accommodate="" third="" party="" licensees="" by="" making="" it="" easy="" to="" develop="" custom="" graphical="" interfaces="" based="" on="" a="" core="" set="" of="" gui="" classes.="" in="" mid-1998,="" psion's="" software="" unit="" was="" spun="" off="" into="" the="" symbian="" partnership="" with="" investment="" from="" hardware="" partners="" like="" ericsson,="" nokia,="" panasonic,="" and="" motorola.="" epoc32="" became="" known="" as="" the="" symbian="" os.="" the="" top="" mobile="" makers="" invested="" heavily="" in="" the="" development="" of="" symbian.="" the="" resulting="" stability="" of="" the="" os,="" paired="" with="" an="" easy="" to="" customize="" interface,="" made="" symbian="" a="" quick="" and="" easy="" choice="" for="" mobile="" phone="" development.="" around="" 75%="" of="" the="" world's="" 32-bit="" embedded="" devices="" used="" arm="" processors,="" and="" a="" similar="" majority="" of="" smartphones="" ran="" symbian="" in="" 2006.="" however,="" some="" coordination="" problems="" with="" this="" approach="" surfaced11.="" licensees="" who="" simply="" wanted="" to="" crank="" out="" a="" phone="" product="" with="" a="" customized="" veneer="" (e.g.,="" sony="" ericsson)="" may="" have="" benefitted="" from="" the="" work="" already="" done="" in="" symbian,="" however,="" if="" the="" integration="" wasn’t="" handled="" properly,="" slapping="" together="" good="" bits="" of="" hardware="" and="" good="" bits="" of="" software="" may="" have="" resulted="" in="" an="" unimpressive="" product="" that="" didn’t="" really="" work="" well.="" sony’s="" licenses="" to="" obtain="" the="" palm="" os="" for="" pdas="" and="" windows="" xp="" for="" vaio="" pcs="" demonstrate="" this.="" in="" addition,="" nokia="" and="" symbian="" made="" the="" new="" s60="" version="" 3="" incompatible="" with="" previous="" versions="" of="" s60,="" so="" none="" of="" the="" old="" symbian="" apps="" would="" work="" on="" any="" new="" phones.="" moreover,="" uiq="" has="" never="" been="" source="" code="" or="" binary="" compatible="" with="" s60.="" partners="" also="" contended="" that="" symbian's="" reputation="" as="" a="" modern,="" robust,="" stable="" and="" advanced="" os="" for="" smartphones="" was="" not="" well="" deserved11.="" sources="" close="" to="" nokia="" say="" that="" it="" was="" dissatisfied="" with="" the="" os="" but="" was="" more="" or="" less="" stuck="" with="" symbian="" since="" it="" didn’t="" have="" the="" competence="" or="" the="" time="" to="" make="" a="" new="" os="" from="" the="" ground="" up.="" thus,="" nokia="" invested="" in="" s60="" middleware="" to="" be="" used="" on="" top="" of="" symbian="" -="" giving="" nokia="" more="" opportunity="" to="" add="" and="" change="" things="" on="" its="" own.="" sony="" ericsson,="" as="" one="" of="" the="" other="" large="" symbian="" owners="" and="" licensee,="" also="" bought="" uiq="" to="" offer="" its="" own="" flavor="" of="" symbian.="" thus,="" it="" has="" been="" argued="" that="" there="" really="" are="" no="" ‘symbian’="" phones="" in="" the="" market,="" but="" rather="" three="" incompatible="" and="" diverging="" oss:="" nokia’s="" symbian="" s60,="" sony="" ericsson’s="" symbian="" uiq,="" and="" ntt="" docomo's="" symbian="" moap="" for="" asia,="" developers="" also="" suggested="" that="" a="" new="" symbian="" os="" may="" be="" desirable11.="" they="" argued="" that="" some="" of="" its="" design="" decisions="" may="" have="" been="" acceptable="" in="" 1993-94,="" when="" psion's="" epoc="" and="" epoc32-based="" series="" 3="" &="" 5="" were="" resource="" and="" memory="" constrained,="" but="" not="" now.="" in="" particular,="" they="" argued="" that="" symbian="" addresses="" c++="" problems="" of="" the="" past="" with="" arcane="" fixes,="" while="" newer="" c++="" releases="" may="" offer="" more="" elegant="" solutions.="" too,="" they="" contended="" that="" it="" may="" cling="" to="" outmoded="" functions="" or="" omit="" new="" c++="" features="" altogether.="" in="" addition,="" they="" suggested="" that="" the="" developer’s="" environment="" may="" also="" be="" difficult="" and="" time-consuming="" to="" install="" and="" be="" incompatible="" with="" other,="" more="" modern="" programming="" tools.="" in="" sum,="" the="" problems="" seemed="" to="" make="" symbian="" more="" difficult="" program="" for="" -="" requiring="" additional="" coding,="" consuming="" developer’s="" time,="" and="" slowing="" production.="" too,="" such="" problems="" made="" code="" difficult="">$100) mini home computers10. by 1985 it had diversified into hardware, creating programmable calculators and the first practical personal digital assistant (pda). in 1991, it made a handheld computer 2 years before apple’s newton and five years before microsoft’s handheld computer. psion’s partnership with acorn, also a partner of apple’s, allowed it to expand into the next generation of organizers by adopting the arm processor in its series 5 in 1997. the series 5 incorporated a 640x200 resistive touch screen display and a full mini keyboard into a pocket-sized form factor, making it closer to microsoft’s plans for the wince handheld pc than the palm pilot or newton. even so, the series 5 was years ahead of microsoft's wince. psion also developed an entirely new operating system, called epoc 32, for the series 5's 32-bit arm processor. it featured preemptive multitasking and memory protection and was designed to accommodate third party licensees by making it easy to develop custom graphical interfaces based on a core set of gui classes. in mid-1998, psion's software unit was spun off into the symbian partnership with investment from hardware partners like ericsson, nokia, panasonic, and motorola. epoc32 became known as the symbian os. the top mobile makers invested heavily in the development of symbian. the resulting stability of the os, paired with an easy to customize interface, made symbian a quick and easy choice for mobile phone development. around 75% of the world's 32-bit embedded devices used arm processors, and a similar majority of smartphones ran symbian in 2006. however, some coordination problems with this approach surfaced11. licensees who simply wanted to crank out a phone product with a customized veneer (e.g., sony ericsson) may have benefitted from the work already done in symbian, however, if the integration wasn’t handled properly, slapping together good bits of hardware and good bits of software may have resulted in an unimpressive product that didn’t really work well. sony’s licenses to obtain the palm os for pdas and windows xp for vaio pcs demonstrate this. in addition, nokia and symbian made the new s60 version 3 incompatible with previous versions of s60, so none of the old symbian apps would work on any new phones. moreover, uiq has never been source code or binary compatible with s60. partners also contended that symbian's reputation as a modern, robust, stable and advanced os for smartphones was not well deserved11. sources close to nokia say that it was dissatisfied with the os but was more or less stuck with symbian since it didn’t have the competence or the time to make a new os from the ground up. thus, nokia invested in s60 middleware to be used on top of symbian - giving nokia more opportunity to add and change things on its own. sony ericsson, as one of the other large symbian owners and licensee, also bought uiq to offer its own flavor of symbian. thus, it has been argued that there really are no ‘symbian’ phones in the market, but rather three incompatible and diverging oss: nokia’s symbian s60, sony ericsson’s symbian uiq, and ntt docomo's symbian moap for asia, developers also suggested that a new symbian os may be desirable11. they argued that some of its design decisions may have been acceptable in 1993-94, when psion's epoc and epoc32-based series 3 & 5 were resource and memory constrained, but not now. in particular, they argued that symbian addresses c++ problems of the past with arcane fixes, while newer c++ releases may offer more elegant solutions. too, they contended that it may cling to outmoded functions or omit new c++ features altogether. in addition, they suggested that the developer’s environment may also be difficult and time-consuming to install and be incompatible with other, more modern programming tools. in sum, the problems seemed to make symbian more difficult program for - requiring additional coding, consuming developer’s time, and slowing production. too, such problems made code difficult to>