Chinese carrier says Apple's iPhone 5 will support high-speed HSPA+

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Sadly, the ITU caved in to the pressure and now classifies both HSPA+ and the first LTE release as 4G technologies.



    Let them have their archaic, incorrect notion of a numerical value followed by the letter 'G' is somehow a sacred designation sent by the gods. It's apparent they can't deal with the truth.





    Sent from my '4G' iPhone aka iPhone 4.
  • Reply 22 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Let them have their archaic, incorrect notion of a numerical value followed by the letter 'G' is somehow a sacred designation sent by the gods. It's apparent they can't deal with the reality.



    Ah yes, reality is whatever the carriers' marketing says.
  • Reply 23 of 82
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ontheinside View Post


    I think you're on to the fact that the slide is probably just a randomly made-up slide and has no bearing in fact. The iPhone 4 (CDMA) was the only iPhone ever to support CDMA. So the fact that they're listing the previous models with CDMA underneath is entirely wrong. Could that also mean they're wrong about the next gen iPhone???



    WCDMA and CDMA, while different by only one letter in their acronym, are entirely different technologies. WCDMA runs on GSM network.
  • Reply 24 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Ah yes, reality is whatever the carriers' marketing says.



    It's a number followed by a single letter abbreviation. It's not a technical definition. It's colloquial, it's informal. It's not copyrighted. It's not trademarked. It's a number followed by a single letter abbreviation.





    PS: The next iPhone will be 5G.
  • Reply 25 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by albatross83 View Post


    4G is a marketing term anyway, not a technical specification. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Demand that your carriers provide real-world average Mbps for peak and off-peak usage. That's the only stat that matters, and none of the carriers are even close to maxing out "3G" technologies by that metric.



    While 3G and 4G have been usurped by carriers' marketing tactics, they are in fact formal technical specifications. If you don't care about formal specifications, fine. Don't say they don't exist just because you are intransigent.
  • Reply 26 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It's a number followed by a single letter abbreviation. It's not a technical definition.



    Of course it is a technical specification.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It's colloquial, it's informal.



    Of course it is formal.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It's not copyrighted. It's not trademarked.



    And how does that support your arguments.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: The next iPhone will be 5G.



    Tsk tsk, not your strongest argument. Not your finest moment.
  • Reply 27 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    While 3G and 4G have been usurped by carriers' marketing tactics, they are in fact formal technical specifications. If you don't care about formal specifications, fine. Don't say they don't exist just because you are intransigent.



    Where it this "formal technical specification" that doesn't allow any other product or technology it's 4th generation as deemed by that entity to use the number 4 and letter G? Where does the ITU-R have this worldwide dominance to say Apple can't refer to the iPhone as the 4th generation iPhone or that Verizon can't say they're forth major network inclusion isn't '4G'? You honestly think it's makes sense for Version to call their CDMA2000 '3G' and then add LTE just to call it '3G'? You honestly don't see how that would be bad for business on several very, very obvious levels?
  • Reply 28 of 82
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    LTE is 4G.



    100 Mb/s?
  • Reply 29 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    While 3G and 4G have been usurped by carriers' marketing tactics, they are in fact formal technical specifications. If you don't care about formal specifications, fine. Don't say they don't exist just because you are intransigent.



    My understanding was that IMT-Advanced was the technical specification that the ITU was proposing should comprise the requirements for devices marketed as 4G. That would not make 4G the technical specification. Additionally, I also can't see how they can impose a definition on a marketing term.



    LTE does not meet the IMT-Advanced specs.
  • Reply 30 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Nope.



    Is too.



    Edit: because there seems to be something of a teenaged pride-fight going on about this the facts are:



    - LTE was 4G when it was announced, in fact it was the primary 4G technology (according to the International Telecommunication Union which is the relevant authority)

    - when "LTE Advanced" was announced regular LTE sort of wasn't 4G for a short while (it was no longer "pure" or some such BS because it's not 100% IP based)

    - the International Telecommunication Union then agreed that LTE *was* 4G again as long as it's moving toward "LTE Advanced," (which basically all LTE implementations are.)
  • Reply 31 of 82
    deleted
  • Reply 32 of 82
    deleted
  • Reply 33 of 82
    Just a number followed by a letter?



    Some may argue that sticking to formal technical specifications is for geeks and bureaucrats. But it is also important for consumers. Before AT&T was ready to launch their LTE network, they called their HSPA+ network 4G. It's only surprising that now they are not referring to their LTE network as 5G.



    Carriers stuck to formal specifications when they deployed 2G and 3G networks. The problem with the current transition to 4G is that the ITU did not include the transitional technologies (e.g. WiMAX, HSPA+, LTE) in its specifications. So the carriers went ahead and labeled everything as 4G for marketing purposes and one-upmanship over each other.



    To be fair (or least accurate in historical accounting), the ITU has recently formally include LTE, WiMAX and HSPA+ as 4G, under pressure from the industry. The problem this poses for consumers is that how do they know what they are really getting. What happens when LTE-advanced comes out?



    For the average consumer, being confused by marketing is common. In this forum, many of you poo-pooing the (erstwhile) formal definition of 4G are also the same ones who would argue tooth and nail about the definition of a single word on other threads. Why? Because you deem yourselves better informed than the average consumer. So why don the hat of an ignorant hypocrite now?
  • Reply 34 of 82
    So it's "4G" not 4G.



    iPhone 5 at "Faux G" speed.. Cool!
  • Reply 35 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    My understanding was that IMT-Advanced was the technical specification that the ITU was proposing should comprise the requirements for devices marketed as 4G. That would not make 4G the technical specification. Additionally, I also can't see how they can impose a definition on a marketing term.



    LTE does not meet the IMT-Advanced specs.



    The problem is that ITU has about as much clout as the UN or WHO. Less, actually. It does not help when you have happy-to-be-ignorant pundits like those here.
  • Reply 36 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Tsk tsk, not your strongest argument. Not your finest moment.



    I don't think you are getting what he is trying to say. 5G = 5th generation iPhone, which is correct. There are many phones in the market called "something 4G". It doesn't have to mean it is using officially certified 4G networks tech.



    A number followed by the letter G doesn't mean it have to conform to any specs. The argument T-Mobile made was that 4G refers to their 4th generation network deployment. First being GRPS, second being EDGE, and third being HSPA.



    For the general public it doesn't matter what "G" it is as long as they get the speed.
  • Reply 37 of 82
    So, will Apple market 2 different iPhones?



    3G-CDMA: Sprint, Verizon, 3 mbs

    4G-HSPA+: AT&T, 21 mbs



    Hard to justify a switch to Sprint even if they offer unlimited....slower and no data/voice multitasking.
  • Reply 38 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    To be fair (or least accurate in historical accounting), the ITU has recently formally include LTE, WiMAX and HSPA+ as 4G, under pressure from the industry. The problem this poses for consumers is that how do they know what they are really getting. What happens when LTE-advanced comes out?



    Commercials? Salespersons? Opinion and rumor blogs?



    Seriously - same problem we have today that all 3Gs aren't the same and some are very unequal. Nothing can take the place of an informed consumer. I just wish we had some more of those in my country.
  • Reply 39 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    The problem is that ITU has about as much clout as the UN or WHO. Less, actually. It does not help when you have happy-to-be-ignorant pundits like those here.



    I agree that the ITU has no clout. IMT-Advanced is their specification though. I was responding to your comment that 3G and 4G are formal technical specifications rather than marketing terms. If so, where are those specifications defined, and by whom?
  • Reply 40 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Sadly, the ITU caved in to the pressure and now classifies both HSPA+ and the first LTE release as 4G technologies.



    Correct.



    In December 2010, they redefined 4G to include first-generation LTE, WiMax and HSPA+.
Sign In or Register to comment.