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?
1) I think I found where you got your panties bunched. The ITU has a formal definition of '4G' just like many organization before it, but that does not mean that any and all use of '4G' is defined by the ITU. In the Venn diagram there would be two circles: everything that can be defined as '4G' and formal terms of the ITU with a sliver of overlap for '4G'.
2) It's you that have fallen victim to the ITU's marketing of '4G' that it has since relaxed.
Following a detailed evaluation against stringent technical and operational criteria, ITU has determined that “LTE-Advanced” and “WirelessMAN-Advanced” should be accorded the official designation of IMT-Advanced. As the most advanced technologies currently defined for global wireless mobile broadband communications, IMT-Advanced is considered as “4G”, although it is recognized that this term, while undefined, may also be applied to the forerunners of these technologies, LTE and WiMax, and to other evolved 3G technologies providing a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed. The detailed specifications of the IMT-Advanced technologies will be provided in a new ITU-R Recommendation expected in early 2012.
3) Why do you think that consumers should abide by, much less know of, the ITU definitions? Why is it so important to you that the AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and every other company and person in the world eschew the use of '4G' unless referring to the ITU's fluctuating definition which you've shown you don't actually know? You're still working off of old data when a static 100Mb/s specification made your eyes wide as saucers.
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.
As I recall EDGE was once considered a '3G' technology.
edit: These transitions are anything but concise. Not that they should be with so many complex technologies evolving at their own rate, but I kind of wish the ITU wasn't so quick to append a generational designation so far in advance.
Hard to justify a switch to Sprint even if they offer unlimited....slower and no data/voice multitasking.
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
I wonder if Verizon's charge against Apple in the Samsung case is a clue that they aren't getting anything special this time around.
For the general public it doesn't matter what "G" it is as long as they get the speed.
The general public is usually misinformed but they understand that more G is better than less G. If G actually meant something like horsepower it would be fair but G is not a unit of measurement.
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
Neither was Tim Cook; earlier this year, he mentioned "design compromises" that made LTE unfeasible at the time.
Let's face it, Apple has LTE-equipped iPhone prototypes somewhere in a lab in Cupertino. They have probably sampled every single LTE chipset available and they still can't find a part that is suitable for their design specifications. What we know right now, there is no LTE chip that includes the functions of the Qualcomm Gobi (GSM/UTMS/HSPA/HSPA+ as well as CDMA/EV-DO). That means a separate chip for LTE which implies bulk and power drain.
Next generation LTE chipsets are supposed to be sampled in Q4 of this year, with volume shipments early 2012. That doesn't work in the prototyping schedule for the upcoming iPhone 5 which likely had its final hardware components selected 2-3 months ago. When cellular chip manufacturers come up with their next generation designs, I'm certain that Apple will be amongst the first companies to sample the chips and stick them into prototypes.
The fact of the matter is that someone at Apple is rather picky of the components that go into the phone and is sensitive about how those parts relate to the overall user experience. That person's name was Steve and he probably green lighted the final fifth-generation iPhone design.
It remains to be seen who will make those final design decisions in future products, but if they are true Apple folks, they will likely be thinking, "What would Steve do?"
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
I wonder if Verizon's charge against Apple in the Samsung case is a clue that they aren't getting anything special this time around.
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
I'm so tired of all the, "that's not real 4G" BS. It's gotten way worse than the marketing hype around 4G ever could have been to begin with.
Look, here we are with 3G, and a long way to go before 100mbs. So in the meantime, allow the marketing people to put the spin on it, and in this context, 4G really makes sense, but also get published bandwidth speeds.
21mbps, is friggin' awesome...if it's widely available. Hell, currently on AT&T, I'm usually getting 3mbps, which is fast enough that I usually don't bother turning on WiFi unless I'm at home or someplace where there's WiFi, but no 3G. It's what I call "Starbucks" speed, which is only slightly faster than "hotel" speed.
As I recall EDGE was once considered a '3G' technology.
.
Aha, a reasonable reference. If I recall correctly, it was tossed around as something that could be called 3G but it was NEVER marketed as such by the major carriers. But why be forgiving of them now for calling anything faster than 3G as 4G?
Neither was Tim Cook; earlier this year, he mentioned "design compromises" that made LTE unfeasible at the time.
Let's face it, Apple has LTE-equipped iPhone prototypes somewhere in a lab in Cupertino. They have probably sampled every single LTE chipset available and they still can't find a part that is suitable for their design specifications.
[?]
It remains to be seen who will make those final design decisions in future products, but if they are true Apple folks, they will likely be thinking, "What would Steve do?"
I think Apple would try to match up the longevity of the device over trying to match up data rates across disparate network types.
Quote:
What we know right now, there is no LTE chip that includes the functions of the Qualcomm Gobi (GSM/UTMS/HSPA/HSPA+ as well as CDMA/EV-DO). That means a separate chip for LTE which implies bulk and power drain.
This is the last I've read on the Gobi chips with LTE?
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
They did. The HTC Inspire and Samsung Infuse were marketed as 4G phones. If you look closely at the full specs, they were called 4G phones running on the HSPA+ 4G network.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
Absolutely. T-Mobile USA first called HSPA+ '4G'. AT&T initially objected but had to cave in order to keep up the perception. As mstone stated, "The general public is usually misinformed but they understand that more G is better than less G." AT&T has been calling their devices with HSPA+ '4G' since they came aboard.
Why is it so important to you that the AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and every other company and person in the world eschew the use of '4G' unless referring to the ITU's fluctuating definition which you've shown you don't actually know? .
Really? Did you read what I wrote and what you yourself quoted?
They did. The HTC Inspire and Samsung Infuse were marketed as 4G phones. If you look closely at the full specs, they were called 4G phones running on the HSPA+ 4G network.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
Sorry, I shoulda been more specific. If they add the iPhone to that list they'll be the only US carrier saying "We have the iPhone 4, 4G!" I'm on the side of preferring more specific terms that show the difference but there is no marketing standards body. It's gonna get ugly but we are seeing what happens when carriers pick tech that doesn't end up winning out globally. Verizon and Sprint rolled the dice and crapped out.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
Again, why are you so far up the ITU's assoc. that anything they said years prior is canon when it comes to a usage that is clearly not intended by the teclos and handset makers. Nowhere do they state they are using the ITU's definition of '4G'. Nowhere!
This is telco and handset makers definition of '4G' to consumers. It's perfectly valid. This is the only definition that matters to consumers. When you're part to the ITU group you can grouse about your dogmatist ideals and how the consumer is too stupid to know that HSPA+ and LTE aren't real '4G'.
Comments
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?
1) I think I found where you got your panties bunched. The ITU has a formal definition of '4G' just like many organization before it, but that does not mean that any and all use of '4G' is defined by the ITU. In the Venn diagram there would be two circles: everything that can be defined as '4G' and formal terms of the ITU with a sliver of overlap for '4G'.
2) It's you that have fallen victim to the ITU's marketing of '4G' that it has since relaxed.3) Why do you think that consumers should abide by, much less know of, the ITU definitions? Why is it so important to you that the AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and every other company and person in the world eschew the use of '4G' unless referring to the ITU's fluctuating definition which you've shown you don't actually know? You're still working off of old data when a static 100Mb/s specification made your eyes wide as saucers.
PS: The '5G' iPhone will have '4G' HSPA+.
Ignorance should not be so broadly advertised.
Rather than supply facts and links to refute his assertions, you insult. Thanks for your participation.
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.
As I recall EDGE was once considered a '3G' technology.
edit: These transitions are anything but concise. Not that they should be with so many complex technologies evolving at their own rate, but I kind of wish the ITU wasn't so quick to append a generational designation so far in advance.
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.
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
I wonder if Verizon's charge against Apple in the Samsung case is a clue that they aren't getting anything special this time around.
Ignorance should not be so broadly advertised.
*snicker* LOL!
For the general public it doesn't matter what "G" it is as long as they get the speed.
The general public is usually misinformed but they understand that more G is better than less G. If G actually meant something like horsepower it would be fair but G is not a unit of measurement.
I hope to buy the iPhone 100.
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
Neither was Tim Cook; earlier this year, he mentioned "design compromises" that made LTE unfeasible at the time.
Let's face it, Apple has LTE-equipped iPhone prototypes somewhere in a lab in Cupertino. They have probably sampled every single LTE chipset available and they still can't find a part that is suitable for their design specifications. What we know right now, there is no LTE chip that includes the functions of the Qualcomm Gobi (GSM/UTMS/HSPA/HSPA+ as well as CDMA/EV-DO). That means a separate chip for LTE which implies bulk and power drain.
Next generation LTE chipsets are supposed to be sampled in Q4 of this year, with volume shipments early 2012. That doesn't work in the prototyping schedule for the upcoming iPhone 5 which likely had its final hardware components selected 2-3 months ago. When cellular chip manufacturers come up with their next generation designs, I'm certain that Apple will be amongst the first companies to sample the chips and stick them into prototypes.
The fact of the matter is that someone at Apple is rather picky of the components that go into the phone and is sensitive about how those parts relate to the overall user experience. That person's name was Steve and he probably green lighted the final fifth-generation iPhone design.
It remains to be seen who will make those final design decisions in future products, but if they are true Apple folks, they will likely be thinking, "What would Steve do?"
I don't think you are getting what he is trying to say. 5G = 5th generation iPhone, which is correct.
Sorry, but you're the one not getting it.
For the general public it doesn't matter what "G" it is as long as they get the speed.
That is the problem. What speed are they getting?
This is getting the thread back on track. It seems like Apple would want to keep these phones on the most similar data speed planes possible. But can LTE be added to a device the size of the iPhone along with all the other cellular tech and still get good battery life? I'm not so sure.
I wonder if Verizon's charge against Apple in the Samsung case is a clue that they aren't getting anything special this time around.
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
Look, here we are with 3G, and a long way to go before 100mbs. So in the meantime, allow the marketing people to put the spin on it, and in this context, 4G really makes sense, but also get published bandwidth speeds.
21mbps, is friggin' awesome...if it's widely available. Hell, currently on AT&T, I'm usually getting 3mbps, which is fast enough that I usually don't bother turning on WiFi unless I'm at home or someplace where there's WiFi, but no 3G. It's what I call "Starbucks" speed, which is only slightly faster than "hotel" speed.
As I recall EDGE was once considered a '3G' technology.
.
Aha, a reasonable reference. If I recall correctly, it was tossed around as something that could be called 3G but it was NEVER marketed as such by the major carriers. But why be forgiving of them now for calling anything faster than 3G as 4G?
Neither was Tim Cook; earlier this year, he mentioned "design compromises" that made LTE unfeasible at the time.
Let's face it, Apple has LTE-equipped iPhone prototypes somewhere in a lab in Cupertino. They have probably sampled every single LTE chipset available and they still can't find a part that is suitable for their design specifications.
[?]
It remains to be seen who will make those final design decisions in future products, but if they are true Apple folks, they will likely be thinking, "What would Steve do?"
I think Apple would try to match up the longevity of the device over trying to match up data rates across disparate network types.
What we know right now, there is no LTE chip that includes the functions of the Qualcomm Gobi (GSM/UTMS/HSPA/HSPA+ as well as CDMA/EV-DO). That means a separate chip for LTE which implies bulk and power drain.
This is the last I've read on the Gobi chips with LTE? PS: I'd say that China Mobile is large enough their GSM/TD-SCMA network would get its own iPhone.
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
They did. The HTC Inspire and Samsung Infuse were marketed as 4G phones. If you look closely at the full specs, they were called 4G phones running on the HSPA+ 4G network.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
I wonder, if it has HSPA+ in the US, if AT&T will market it as 4G...
Absolutely. T-Mobile USA first called HSPA+ '4G'. AT&T initially objected but had to cave in order to keep up the perception. As mstone stated, "The general public is usually misinformed but they understand that more G is better than less G." AT&T has been calling their devices with HSPA+ '4G' since they came aboard.
Why is it so important to you that the AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and every other company and person in the world eschew the use of '4G' unless referring to the ITU's fluctuating definition which you've shown you don't actually know? .
Really? Did you read what I wrote and what you yourself quoted?
They did. The HTC Inspire and Samsung Infuse were marketed as 4G phones. If you look closely at the full specs, they were called 4G phones running on the HSPA+ 4G network.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
Sorry, I shoulda been more specific. If they add the iPhone to that list they'll be the only US carrier saying "We have the iPhone 4, 4G!" I'm on the side of preferring more specific terms that show the difference but there is no marketing standards body. It's gonna get ugly but we are seeing what happens when carriers pick tech that doesn't end up winning out globally. Verizon and Sprint rolled the dice and crapped out.
Edit: all good for me as I'm in an HSPA+ area.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
Again, why are you so far up the ITU's assoc. that anything they said years prior is canon when it comes to a usage that is clearly not intended by the teclos and handset makers. Nowhere do they state they are using the ITU's definition of '4G'. Nowhere!
This is telco and handset makers definition of '4G' to consumers. It's perfectly valid. This is the only definition that matters to consumers. When you're part to the ITU group you can grouse about your dogmatist ideals and how the consumer is too stupid to know that HSPA+ and LTE aren't real '4G'.
If they add the iPhone to that list they'll be the only US carrier saying "We have the iPhone 4, 4G!"
It's the 5G iPhone that will get 4G HSPA+ which will cost me about 3Gs over 2 years, 1 way or another.
It's the 5G iPhone that will get 4G HSPA+ which will cost me about 3Gs over 2 years, 1 way or another.
And we are all ok with that sort of confusing marketing here?
Nope. Apple is not going to allow any fake 4g claims.
Again, why are so far up the ITU's ass
This sort of talk needs banning. Now!