or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › New EU directive pushes toward replaceable iPhone batteries
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New EU directive pushes toward replaceable iPhone batteries - Page 4

post #121 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Silicon doubles speed every 18 months, software lags behind silicon and battery efficiency lags behind software....

Hardcore gamers seem to complain that hardware lags behind software.

Quote:
Do you know how badly apple is with power efficiency --- the HTC Touch HD (with a 480x800 screen) has a smaller battery (1350 mah) than the iphone (1400 mah).

Yes Apple's legendarily so bad with power efficiency that the iPhone 3G outlast every other popular HSDPA smartphone.
post #122 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The problem is that battery efficiency is a 1000x slower in innovation than the silicon valley's need for more powerful CPU's and bigger LCD screens.....

Silicon doubles speed every 18 months, software lags behind silicon and battery efficiency lags behind software....

Do you know how badly apple is with power efficiency --- the HTC Touch HD (with a 480x800 screen) has a smaller battery (1350 mah) than the iphone (1400 mah).

I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!

So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward
post #123 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Hardcore gamers seem to complain that hardware lags behind software.

Yes Apple's legendarily so bad with power efficiency that the iPhone 3G outlast every other popular HSDPA smartphone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I doubt anyone will call the HTC Touch HD more power efficient than the iPhone. I also doubt that anyone will consider Apple bad with power efficiency. The iPhone has a 10 hours talk time over Edge and HTC Touch HD has only 5.2 hours only over Edge as well!

So, do you suggest that we will be using the same batteries we use today 3 to 5 years from today?! I really doubt it! Other that batteries there are many technologies being tested now that will make batteries last longer and easier to charge without wires. These technologies might or might not be available in the market but at least someone is pushing the technology forward

We still don't have much PC games that run on DX10.

And all the other smartphones in that test come with a smaller battery.

For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.
post #124 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

For a laptop or a cell phone like the Touch HD with a 480x800 screen --- the largest power sucker has been the LCD screen. It's a much bigger screen than the iphone.

The processor is a huge draw on power. What type and how fast is the HTC CPU. The iPhone uses an ARM11 running at 412MHz.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 156
The HTC Touch HD runs an ARM11-based Qualcomm chipset running at 528 MHz.

http://www.htc.com/www/product.aspx?id=64796

Touch HD's (with a smaller battery) got better 3G talk time and longer standby time than the 3G iphone.
post #126 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The HTC Touch HD runs an ARM11-based Qualcomm chipset running at 528 MHz.

Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #127 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Nice, it even has double the RAM of the iPhone which will use more power. But do we know if their processor is underclocked to save juice, like the iPhone's 612MHz CPU?

The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.
post #128 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The CPU manufacturers offer several speed options --- but it is the handset manufacturer that pick the CPU speed. HTC stated 528 MHz as the speed in their website --- so that is the actual speed without any underclocking.

I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.

For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #129 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.

For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.

In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.

It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.

As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.
post #130 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed, as well as the posted battery time as the actual battery time in the same manner in which Apple (and now Sony) test.

For instance, they list "Up to 2 Mbps up-link and 7.2 Mbps down-link speeds", which is theoretically true for the radios, but we both know that those speeds are not possible, especially with a 500MHz CPU needed to process the data. So while I can see the CPU being run at the speed it does introduce some doubt and I'd wager that the battery time is considerably lower than listed if given similar real world tests.

Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.
post #131 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.

It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.

As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.

Actually the 3G iPhone battery tests conducted by many where within the stated 5 hours talk time.

post #132 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Yeah. That's why I was comparing Edge talk time not 3G since it didn't make since that the difference is 80 minutes, which contradict many tests that compare 3G and Edge talk time for many phones.

The VAST difference in GSM talk time is easy to explain.

The 3G iphone uses TWO different chips --- one for GSM and a second one for 3G. The Touch HD uses a single Qualcomm chip that does both 2G and 3G.

http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html

A specialized GSM chip is going to have a much longer talk time than a 2G/3G integrated chip.
post #133 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The VAST difference in GSM talk time is easy to explain.

The 3G iphone uses TWO different chips --- one for GSM and a second one for 3G. The Touch HD uses a single Qualcomm chip that does both 2G and 3G.

http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html

A specialized GSM chip is going to have a much longer talk time than a 2G/3G integrated chip.

That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G
post #134 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

That's good. Hopefully we will see something similar in the next iPhone giving us 10 hours 3G talk time. Too bad I might not be able to buy it unless Apple offers the same deal they offered 1st gen iPhone owners who wanted to upgrade to 3G

That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #135 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

In terms of iphone's CPU speed --- the problem is that we get the Infineon MHz information from its ARM11 core (which ARM offers 600 Mhz). Neither Infineon nor Apple actually stated the CPU speed in their specs. We only speculated that the iphone was underclocked because ARM offers a 600 Mhz CPU core.

The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.

Quote:
It is very different from the HTC Touch HD --- in that the handset manufacturer actually stated what the MHz is. There is no speculation.

An independent test may find different.

Quote:
As to the "stated" battery life --- I agree with you that they (including Apple) all lie about that and the actual real life battery life is much shorter. All I can say to that is that the Touch HD's stated 3G talk time and the stated standby time is longer.

Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.

On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.
post #136 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Touch HD's (with a smaller battery) got better 3G talk time and longer standby time than the 3G iphone.

Looking at the link what I see is GSM talk time 310 minutes - 5.1 hours. GSM standby 390 minutes - 6.5 hours.

That's no better than the iPhone.
post #137 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That offer will have to come from AT&T since they are the ones who have already paid Apple for the agreed upon cost of the handset, but I don't think that will happen as AT&T stopped paying Apple the monthly profit sharing for those who upgraded, so there was no loss to AT&T this last time around.

I know.. I was just dreaming
post #138 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The reason we found out the iPhone was underclocked is because CPU speed tests were conducted.

An independent test may find different.

Independent battery tests were done on the iPhone and most found it around what Apple lists.

On the Touch HD spec page the find print says the battery times are subject to network and usage. We need to wait for tests to see what the reality is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Looking at the link what I see is GSM talk time 310 minutes - 5.1 hours. GSM standby 390 minutes - 6.5 hours.

That's no better than the iPhone.

It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).

http://www.gearlog.com/2007/07/iphon...msung_s3c6.php

It's a Qualcomm integrated chip for the HTC --- they are a CDMA/WCDMA expert, not a GSM expert. So it is perfectly normal for them to have less than perfect GSM battery life. An hour and a half longer in 3G talk time on a smaller battery, with a higher speed CPU and a bigger LCD screen.

All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.

Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.
post #139 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It was confirmed later by CPU speed test --- but before that, the thought process was from leaked firmware and the teardown, they found out that the CPU was a Samsung ARM11 chip (and that chip has 620 Mhz).

That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.

Quote:
All the ev-do smartphones that had longer battery life than the 3G iphone in the PC World article also have Qualcomm chipsets. They are very good with their 3G stuff.

This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.

Quote:
Also, you people keep on complaining about how bad AT&T's 3G network is and how bad 2G data speed is --- now you are using the slow 2G stuff to make a argument supporting the iphone.

Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out. If this phone can do better, then it's a definite plus, but using their listed stats as proof is just speculation with plenty of proof that those numbers are probably excessively high. So far, I only know of Apple and Sony are using real world battery tests. I suspect that others will follow suit here, and maybe HTC has already, but you understand if I am reluctant.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #140 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is why you can't look at the CPU speed listed and claim that it's not speculation that it's actually running at that speed. You'll just have to wait for testing and breakdown. The only thing we do know for sure is multiple testings of the iPhone's 2G and 3G talk times and other usage tests from various independent testers, the actual speed of the iPhone's CPU and the clocked speed of iPhone's CPU.

Pointing out the talk times for both network settings is not an excuse, it's being through with the statistical claims. Even on 3G, the only smartphones tested that actually bested the iPhone in real world usage was a BB handset, and it only barely beat it out.

No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz. HTC put it on their websites stating that the CPU is 528 Mhz. If they said it's a 528 Mhz CPU on their website and they underclock it without telling anyone --- then they are going to get sued. So there is no speculation on the part of the Touch HD's CPU speed.

You have to remember that some of these 3G smartphones have a standard battery that is much much smaller than the 3G iphone --- of course the test result in the PC World article is going to favor the iphone.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/14834...ts_rivals.html

As the PC world stated, the HTC Touch Dual (not a BB handset, but a Windows Mobile handset) came the closest to the 3G iphone in battery life for the HSDPA network. What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah. The difference in talk time in the PC World test is 5:18 for the Touch Dual and 5:38 for the iphone --- a 20 minute difference for a battery size 25% larger.

http://www.htc.com/www/product.aspx?id=316
post #141 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, there is a real difference here --- Apple never put it in their ads saying that the CPU is 620 Mhz.

You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.

Quote:
What they don't say is that the Touch Dual came with a 1120 mah battery. The 3G iphone has a 25% more battery capacity at 1400 mah.

What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #142 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You keep saying no, but then you make my point for me. Apple has never listed the PCU speed. They also don't list their AEBS as being capable of 540Mbps, they simply say 5x faster than 802.11g. Apple usually doesn't list specs just to list specs, but they also usually won't win in a spec sheet war so why would they. So we have to rely on independent studies to get the facts.

What difference does that make? According to you the HTC has 24% faster CPU. When you measure how long the unit will last in a real world test you are adding or subtracting time based on the individual parts. It's about the whole device. To say that the HTC gets a 25% handicap because of the smaller battery is disingenuous.

My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.

I agree with you that it is very important to look at the whole package. That's why a couple of pages ago --- I made the comment that this whole thing about non-replaceable battery is about Apple made a design choice to cheapen out with a unknown chipset with a questionable reception and battery life --- which cause them to (1) have to force everybody to carry an extended battery (the LG Voyager's optional extended battery is only slightly bigger at 1500 mah) and (2) left Apple no room to put in the battery door because the iphone is already big enough and thick enough to accomodate the huge extended battery ---- which is the topic of this thread.

Maybe if Apple spend the money and get the more expensive Qualcomm chipset --- then they could have use a smaller battery, then they could have made a battery door available and still have a decent size handset footprint.
post #143 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

My point is not about the iphone, my point is about the Touch HD --- they listed their specs, so they are not going to lie about it. I am just responding to your comment that you have "reason to doubt the posted speed as the actual running speed" for the Touch HD. There is no reason to doubt that HTC is lying about the spec.

They are listing HW, so saying that it has HSUPA radios capable of 7.2Mbps is not a lie, but we both know that it will never see that with a 500MHz ARM CPU, even if we account for the best non-theoretical speeds. The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.

As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #144 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The same goes for the CPU. Just because they listed the actual HW doesn't mean that they may not under-clock it, even a little in the firmware if they find that the usage is just as smooth at a lower speed while increasing the battery life. That would be responsible of them.

As for the battery, I have no doubt in my mind that the durations listed are accurate as tested, but until we get some independent testing we really don't have any idea as we don't know the metrics they are using. Apple has really turned their battery testing around in past few years, but I still don't trust their battery stats until they are independently tested.

What you are talking about it's not strictly underclocking CPU speed --- what you are talking about is more like how Intel designed laptop CPU's with variable speed. You plug-in the laptop to AC power, then the CPU runs at full speed. You run the laptop on battery, it runs on reduced speed. It's a hardware and software combination with the OS being able to throttle the CPU.

Intel tells you about that in their ads (and Microsoft tells you about the power management feature in Windows XP) They don't hide this fact because they could get sued. They don't call it underclocking --- they call it power management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedStep

Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.

Apple can do whatever they want with their battery testing --- but when they picked a chipset manufacturer with a single digit market share, Apple isn't going to be able to perform miracles.
post #145 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Call me old fashion, when they tell you that the CPU is 528 Mhz, it is 528 Mhz.

Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #146 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Underclocking and overclocking a CPU means that you make the speed ceiling lower or higher than the original ceiling speed. Apple using a 620MHz CPU that only has a ceiling speed of 412MHz because it has been underclocked.

That's not how the ARM chip market operates.

ARM doesn't make the actual chips --- they design the ARM core. Other companies license the core design, add a few additional features, and then contract out to the silicon foundries to manufacture the actual chip.

ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.

In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.

http://www.qctconnect.com/products/msm_7201.html
post #147 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's not how the ARM chip market operates.

We understand how the ARM chip market operates. This has nothing to do with chips being underclocked.


Quote:
ARM advertised that the ARM11 core is capable of running at 620 Mhz. Samsung licensed that core and add a few million silicon gates in order to become a mobile phone CPU --- maybe the stuff that Samsung add are not capable of 620 Mhz. So there is no way to know if the CPU is designed to run at 620 mhz --- because Samsung never said anything about it.

The iPhone uses Samsung S3C6400 a ARM1176JZ based ARM chip. Samsung actually lists it at 667MHz.

Samsung S3C6400

Quote:
In the case of the HTC Touch HD, Qualcomm advertised the chipset to be running at 528 Mhz --- the same speed as HTC advertised. So there is no underclocking there.

Just because Qualcomm lists the maximum speed of the chip doesn't mean its not underclocked later.
post #148 of 156
It likely means that Samsung --- a relatively newcomer to the mobile CPU market --- cannot offer their CPU at the performance/battery life as advertised.

Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.

However if you ask me whether Qualcomm deploy some sort of variable clocking technoloy like Intel laptop CPU's --- then I would say it most very likely. So that means if the phone does nothing (it may be clocked at 200 mhz), if you are talking on the phone (it may be clocked at 400 mhz), if you are running apps (it may be clocked at 528 mhz).

That's very different from Samsung/Apple --- where a 667 Mhz CPU is underclocked to 400 Mhz all the time (maybe even slower if the iphone does nothing).
post #149 of 156
There is a reason they are called the Nanny State.
post #150 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It likely means that Samsung --- a relatively newcomer to the mobile CPU market --- cannot offer their CPU at the performance/battery life as advertised.

Qualcomm has been in the cell phone business for a long time --- if they say it's 528 Mhz, and if HTC say it's 528 Mhz, then I don't have any reason to doubt them.

This is nothing but pure speculation to support your point. You are just making stuff up as you go along.
post #151 of 156
ifixit.com's teardown of the iPhone 3G indicated that it has a 1150 mAh battery, not a 1400 mAh like in the first gen.
post #152 of 156
It is my opinion that this legislation will have a negative impact on the environment. As it is right now, all iPhone batteries are recycled when replaced. If the iPhone had a user accessible battery, people would just buy a new one, pop it in, and throw the old in the trash.

I have an opinion on whether the iPhone should or should not have an accessible battery, but no matter what that opinion is... this particular part of the legislation is complete bullshit. (from an environmental perspective).
post #153 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is a benefit of using CDMA/CDMA2000-based networks. Even with "3G" turned on the phone still uses "2G" to send and receive and calls. GSM/UMTS-based phones aren't capable of this, regardless of the chips used.

Bollocks. I had a Nokia 6680 that could do it.

There was an option in settings: make voice calls using GSM or packet data. I left it on GSM. The sound quality may have been a little worse, but it made the battery last a whole lot longer.

Amorya
post #154 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

Bollocks. I had a Nokia 6680 that could do it.

It's not something with the handset. It's about how the towers handoff the signal. GSM was only designed for hard handovers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handoff...ity_of_Handoff
http://oldwww.com.dtu.dk/research/ne...S_handover.pdf
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/cor...es/2003011.pdf
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's not something with the handset. It's about how the towers handoff the signal. GSM was only designed for hard handovers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handoff...ity_of_Handoff
http://oldwww.com.dtu.dk/research/ne...S_handover.pdf
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/cor...es/2003011.pdf

Doesn't change that I had a phone that did it! I don't know how, but it worked

Amorya
post #156 of 156
In my opinion, the legislation is counter-productive to its own stated goal.

User replaceable batteries are almost always thrown in the trash when replaced.
Factory replaceable batteries are always recycled when replaced.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › New EU directive pushes toward replaceable iPhone batteries