NYT's David Pogue: 'AT&T’s EDGE network is excruciatingly slow'

[AppleInsider]

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Chetnik]

everything sounds good execpt EDGE. But I guess having some form of internet is better than none huh? Well, I will still be in line anyways :P

[xenocobramac]

Can somebody out there explain to me why Apple went with Edge. Is there some technical reason for using this technology that seems out of date and has had problems for several years?

Also, don't they require all cell phones to have a GPS chip for E911 services?

Thanks.

[Robin Hood]

Why is EDGE so slow on AT&T's network? I wonder why, because on the only EDGE network in Ireland (everyone else went straight to 3G and skipped EDGE), average speeds are 120-200kbps. That isn't exactly 3G, but it's much faster than dialup.

[bigmig]

Originally Posted by xenocobramac

Can somebody out there explain to me why Apple went with Edge. Is there some technical reason for using this technology that seems out of date and has had problems for several years?

3G coverage is not that great right now. More importantly, most of the current 3G hardware sucks battery life like there's no tomorrow. This would be something of a non-starter on a phone w/o a removable battery. In the future it will undoubtedly be more practical.

Also, keep in mind that even HSDPA and EV-DO Rev A (3G, or even 3.5G standards) are still a lot slower to use than WiFi.

[LordJohnWhorfin]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Why is EDGE so slow on AT&T's network? I wonder why, because on the only EDGE network in Ireland (everyone else went straight to 3G and skipped EDGE), average speeds are 120-200kbps. That isn't exactly 3G, but it's much faster than dialup.

Yes, that's what it is here in the US, between 15 and 20 kilobyte per second. That may not sound that bad, but one wonders what possessed Steve to strike the deal with YouTube. People are going to go crazy trying to play videos over this horribly slow network. In comparison, AT&T's 3G gives you a consistent 60 to 80 kilobyte per second throughput. It may only sound like 4 times faster than EDGE, but it's the difference between pokey and broadband-like. I guess it's all a matter of what you're used to and what your expectations are...

[backtomac]

The real potential of the iPhone will be experienced when wi max is rolled out and the iPhone takes advantage of this technology. Excellent speed, wide area coverage, bye-bye Edge.

[tasslehawf]

Originally Posted by bigmig

3G coverage is not that great right now. More importantly, most of the current 3G hardware sucks battery life like there's no tomorrow. This would be something of a non-starter on a phone w/o a removable battery. In the future it will undoubtedly be more practical.

Also, keep in mind that even HSDPA and EV-DO Rev A (3G, or even 3.5G standards) are still a lot slower to use than WiFi.

I wish people knew this because there is so much hate for edge when they don't realize they might have have coverage in their area if it was 3g. Well I can't complain it just may mean others will skip so I can get one friday.

[jackbauer]

There's a perception out there that AT&T's 3G coverage isn't as good as Verizon or Sprints. I don't know if it's true, but I imagine that could be a reason that the iPhone doesn't have it yet, and why Apple went to Verizon first before they turned them down.

[kcmac]

I travel a lot and never have trouble finding wifi. And its pretty easy to find where I live. I see EDGE as being the 2nd option.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by jackbauer

There's a perception out there that AT&T's 3G coverage isn't as good as Verizon or Sprints.

It's not a perception. Even ATT/Cingular's CEO has admitted in interviews that ATT's 3G deployment is 12 to 18 months behind Verizon's. They're prolly about the same amount of time behind Sprint's deployment as well.

Simply put, yeah, Verizon and Sprint both have much better 3G coverage than ATT. But ATT's 3G coverage should be pretty good in a year or so.

.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by Chetnik

everything sounds good execpt EDGE.

Well that, and ATT's network in general:

Pogue: The bigger problem is the AT&T network. In a Consumer Reports study, AT&T’s signal ranked either last or second to last in 19 out of 20 major cities.

My tests in five states bear this out. If Verizon’s slogan is, “Can you hear me now?” AT&T’s should be, “I’m losing you.”




Hopefully, ATT can improve fairly quickly. Don't wanna see 'em dragging the iPhone down.

.

[McDave]

OK, I've just looked our 3G broadband plans here in NZ and a few things are becoming clear (no iTS purchases and 3G) - there's no way I'm going to spend $3,570/month on the same plan that costs $50/month at home - even in Kiwi dollars! Especially as coverage is not much better than WiFi.

I think when I'm on the move, I'll relax, have a coffee and surf at high speed for free (especially if that school/govt department/house don't have good security on their WLAN). If I'm disorganised, I deserve EDGE speeds.

McD

[momusicman]

Pogue is an idiot. This is the same man that has gotten virtually everything wrong in his prognosis of everything Apple: the iPod, the Mac Os and oh by the way, "sell Apple stock now" when it was $26 a share. I read his reviews with mirth.

[eat@me]

it's going to get slower.....a great wifi phone though......

tmobile hotspots should see a boost even if they lose customers.


apple had 2 viable options:

1) GSM carrier in US. They can roll out GSM phones for international markets
- ATT
- TMobile

Were the only options. Verizon with its proprietary sandbox Brew would not work for apple even though CDMA networks are far superior technically to GSM networks. GSM has widest coverage globally.

2) Apple MVNO

This is where Apple SHOULD go when their ATT contract comes up for renewal. They could buy an existing MVNO later on---Helio? Amp'd or one of the others and become like Virgin Mobile.


They were very smart to control the customer (billing) via iTunes for content billing. This ensures that they could transfer more easily to MVNO or Apple MVNO in the future.


They need GPS. The chips only cost $2-5 bucks now. SiRF makes them for GSM phones.

[Thelonius]

Originally Posted by eat@me

apple had 2 viable options:

1) GSM carrier in US. They can roll out GSM phones for international markets
- ATT
- TMobile

I think that whole idea of a world phone is negated when you can't remove the card and put in another when you travel. Sure you phone will work, but it would be cheaper to just buy a new smart phone every time you need to make a call.

I think the reason they went with edge was simple. Yes it is slower, but it is more wide spread in the US which will allow Apple to sell their initial product to the widest possible audience. As they introduce additional models they can include standards and features that attract smaller more targeted audiences.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by momusicman

Pogue is an idiot..

So is Mossberg an idiot too, because he also pointed out some things about the iPhone that were less than perfect?

You gotta remember, its not an accident that these two guys are among the very first putting out real reviews for the iPhone... Apple granted them advance access based on their expertise and their history of being pretty pro-Apple.

If they're pointing these things out, just wait until more of the mainstream press gets their hands on the thing. It's going to be a bit rougher.

.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by eat@me

[Apple was] very smart to control the customer (billing) via iTunes for content billing. This ensures that they could transfer more easily to MVNO or Apple MVNO in the future.

NICE. I didn't see that one coming. And, bonus, they get even more folks to dload iTunes.

Wonder if Ballmer threw a chair?

.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by momusicman

Pogue is an idiot. This is the same man that has gotten virtually everything wrong in his prognosis of everything Apple: the iPod, the Mac Os and oh by the way, "sell Apple stock now" when it was $26 a share. I read his reviews with mirth.

I actually happen to disagree with you quite vehemently. I think that he is one of the best tech reviewers around.

However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise: Instead of a stream-of-consciousness slam, could you please provide any links to or citations for how he was "wrong in his prognosis of everything Apple: the iPod, the Mac Os and oh by the way, "sell Apple stock now" when it was $26 a share."

[theapplegenius]

The video David Pogue put together had me in stitches.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/nytimes-p...iew-272554.php

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by theapplegenius

The video David Pogue put together had me in stitches.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/nytimes-p...iew-272554.php

Classic!

*crowd mobs Pogue for his iPhone*

Pogue: Guys! GUYS! It's AT& T ONLY!!

Crowd: Awww. *walks away*



The Secret Service-looking dude was funny too.
.

[mrpiddly]

Am i wrong to say that apple would not be able to sell a 3g iPhone if they had made one due to the recent law suit. Im not sure but i think it locks sales of phones with those 3g chips, which is about all of them. Previously sold phones still can use 3g. So either apple would only be able to make a few, how ever many they had for launch which cold be like 3 million, or they would not be able to sell any.


Im not really sure about the lawsuit so this may be completly wrong.



(also if it is true that you can no longer buy the 3g chip, what will apple do.)

[msantti]

Wow.

Great reviews from everyone so far and people can only bitch about AT&T's Edge.

[bigmig]

Originally Posted by eat@me

They need GPS. The chips only cost $2-5 bucks now. SiRF makes them for GSM phones.

I used to think this, but no longer. The thing with GPS is it takes a long time to get a position fix. Even with our Garmin (a dedicated GPS unit with an antenna - much better than any cell phone) it takes 30-60 seconds; on many phones (e.g. Nokia N95) it can take 3-5 minutes. So the only way to have a quick fix is to always have the GPS active, but then your phone will run out of battery very quickly.

Of course, I live in the city and I want to use it to do searches and directions when I'm on foot. For that, just showing it my location will always be way faster than waiting for a GPS fix. For suburbanites who drive everywhere, then GPS is more useful (but even an iPhone will not be nearly as good as a real GPS unit).

[Able-X]

Well, in my opinion being AT&T only is a deal killer. We use AT&T for all our blackberries at work, and not only is their coverage horrible, but their customer service is worse. I was trying to get a blackberry fixed just yesterday and when I was on the phone they transferred me from business care, over to migrations, who proceeded to hang up on me after saying they only did residential and that I needed to speak to Business Care. It's taken 2 days just to get one account migrated WITHIN their own systems from old AT&T to new AT&T. And it's still not migrated, it only just works again.

AT&T is currently at the top of my list, having surpassed even Verizon in my utter hatred.

[Haggar]

Originally Posted by bigmig

I used to think this, but no longer. The thing with GPS is it takes a long time to get a position fix. Even with our Garmin (a dedicated GPS unit with an antenna - much better than any cell phone) it takes 30-60 seconds; on many phones (e.g. Nokia N95) it can take 3-5 minutes. So the only way to have a quick fix is to always have the GPS active, but then your phone will run out of battery very quickly.

The other option would be the ability to pair the iPhone with a bluetooth GPS receiver.

[Solar]

The New York Times’s home page took 55 seconds to appear

Hmm My Nextel Blackberry just took 345 seconds to load the NYT. I thought Nextel's data plan is is supposed to be faster than EDGE.

It seems like it used to be faster but has been more than unbearably slow lately. I'd love an iPhone but unless it gets a PTT button, GPS, and they have corperate plans, no iPhone for me. Not that I like the PTT and GPS, but it's a requirement for my company. I'm too spoiled to buy a second phone even if it makes my current one look like a button covered turd.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by backtomac

The real potential of the iPhone will be experienced when wi max is rolled out and the iPhone takes advantage of this technology. Excellent speed, wide area coverage, bye-bye Edge.

Who, exactly is rolling out WiMax for at&t? Clearwire?

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

So is Mossberg an idiot too, because he also pointed out some things about the iPhone that were less than perfect?

You gotta remember, its not an accident that these two guys are among the very first putting out real reviews for the iPhone... Apple granted them advance access based on their expertise and their history of being pretty pro-Apple.

If they're pointing these things out, just wait until more of the mainstream press gets their hands on the thing. It's going to be a bit rougher.

.

I thought Pogue and Mossberg's reviews were more than fair, and they probably could have ripped into at&t even more than they did.

[Splinemodel]

Originally Posted by bigmig

3G coverage is not that great right now. More importantly, most of the current 3G hardware sucks battery life like there's no tomorrow. This would be something of a non-starter on a phone w/o a removable battery. In the future it will undoubtedly be more practical.

Also, keep in mind that even HSDPA and EV-DO Rev A (3G, or even 3.5G standards) are still a lot slower to use than WiFi.

Bull. My sprint 3G works fast in all but the most podunk of towns. In the SF Bay Area, the coverage is thick and fast -- more than I can say for AT&T. I get real-world 1Mbps, which is plenty for downloading the reduced-size content quickly. A coffee shop full of laptops and hotspot-enabled smart phones will bring the WiFi down to a crawl, so 1Mbps is quite a good figure. Plus, Sprint quantizes the voice transmission an extra bit or two, which is noticeable when using the phone as a phone.

APple went AT&T for political reasons. As far as I've come to know, AT&T is the most low-tech and generally the poorest QoS network in any developed nation.

[poguenyt]

Originally Posted by momusicman

Pogue is an idiot. This is the same man that has gotten virtually everything wrong in his prognosis of everything Apple: the iPod, the Mac Os and oh by the way, "sell Apple stock now" when it was $26 a share. I read his reviews with mirth.

I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!

I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.

And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.

So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.

--David Pogue

[chris v]

It's quite possible he got you confused with Paul Thurrott, who has been consistently dismissive of Apple over the last 10 years.

The video was a hoot -- especially the message scrawled on the mirror.

[Bergermeister]

If that is really you, David, welcome to AI. I'm sure you've been hanging around for a long time. We hope you become an active, contributing member.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Who, exactly is rolling out WiMax for at&t? Clearwire?

AT &T recently sold some spectrum to clearwire making them the second largest owner of that spectrum. ATT still holds a small amount of this spectrum. Maybe they have other agreements in place as a part of that deal (the deal was finished after the iPhone was announced). I hope ATT realize that they can't continue forward with EDGE. It limps on now but there is no way that is a viable solution for the future.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

If that is really you, David, welcome to AI. I'm sure you've been hanging around for a long time. We hope you become an active, contributing member.

+1

Originally Posted by chris v

It's quite possible he got you confused with Paul Thurrott, who has been consistently dismissive of Apple over the last 10 years.

+1

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by poguenyt

I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!

I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.

And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.

So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.

--David Pogue

A big WELCOME to AI. Like Berg I hope you come back often and contribute.

[TenoBell]

That's really funny. Kind of kills that anonymity of the internet if you disparage someone well known and they can actually respond.

[BlackSummerNight]

Can you send me your iPhone. Thanks a million. Nice review by the way.

Originally Posted by poguenyt

I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!

I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.

And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.

So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.

--David Pogue

[PeterLobl]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

Bull. My sprint 3G works fast in all but the most podunk of towns. In the SF Bay Area, the coverage is thick and fast -- more than I can say for AT&T. I get real-world 1Mbps, which is plenty for downloading the reduced-size content quickly.

My experience with Sprint is not very good. Their tether'd EVDO to my laptop thru Treo 700 cuts out often and at weird times - and in NYC and Philly there have been down times lasting days.

Coverage neither thick nor fast, and on the smaller handheld screens, browsing is so poor that any additional speed is wasted.

as for customer service: No support yet for Vista tho it's been promised for months by the "technical" staff - I have had to trod out old laptop on the road...

I have stayed with them for years, paid the $599 for treo 700p, and its true that compared to earlier nets with Treo 600 & 650, EVDO is nicer, but no way is it great.

Apple T&T has my company's 5 lines coming its way

[scottiB]

whoops.