I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Well it makes sense to me. For ex. when I hike and am long out of range of any cell tower I put my iPhone in airplane mode for exactly the same reason: stop wasting battery power on an energy consuming function I’m not interested (or capable) of accessing.
That's not even remotely a normal use case, nor is it an apt analogy. Where in this article does it say it sucks up battery when you're not even connected to a 5G tower?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Does it? Why power a radio that you aren't using?
I often turn off bluetooth and wi-fi when I'm not using them too; no sense in power going to waste.
a) Who said you're powering 5G when not using it? They literally said their reason for doing it is the lack of coverage around them. Why turn it off if it's not being used anyway, and if it does get used it's minimal given the coverage?
b) That's ridiculous. Since iOS 11, toggling those switches in Control Center only disconnects you from devices/networks. If you're taking the time and going into Settings to actually disable them, you're both crippling your device(s) and wasting your time as neither uses much if any noticeable battery when not connected to a device/network. And when connected to WIFI, you're using far LESS energy than cellular data does! Location Services and Assisted GPS require both WIFI/Bluetooth. In my case it'd also disable my Watch, AirPods, AirPlay, Apple TV, AirDrop, SMS relay to my Mac, and who knows what else off hand that rely on either technology.
This is precisely why these kinds of things are intelligently managed by iOS and not the misinformed users of the world.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Well it makes sense to me. For ex. when I hike and am long out of range of any cell tower I put my iPhone in airplane mode for exactly the same reason: stop wasting battery power on an energy consuming function I’m not interested (or capable) of accessing.
That's not even remotely a normal use case, nor is it an apt analogy. Where in this article does it say it sucks up battery when you're not even connected to a 5G tower?
I do the same thing all the time - when I'm at work I'm in the middle of the building and have zero signal. If I turn off the cellular modem and leave on WiFi it makes a significant difference in battery usage because the cellular modem is not constantly looking for a signal. Apple actually recommends turning off the cellular modem to save energy.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Does it? Why power a radio that you aren't using?
I often turn off bluetooth and wi-fi when I'm not using them too; no sense in power going to waste.
a) Who said you're powering 5G when not using it? They literally said their reason for doing it is the lack of coverage around them. Why turn it off if it's not being used anyway, and if it does get used it's minimal given the coverage?
b) That's ridiculous. Since iOS 11, toggling those switches in Control Center only disconnects you from devices/networks. If you're taking the time and going into Settings to actually disable them, you're both crippling your device(s) and wasting your time as neither uses much if any noticeable battery when not connected to a device/network. And when connected to WIFI, you're using far LESS energy than cellular data does! Location Services and Assisted GPS require both WIFI/Bluetooth. In my case it'd also disable my Watch, AirPods, AirPlay, Apple TV, AirDrop, SMS relay to my Mac, and who knows what else off hand that rely on either technology.
This is precisely why these kinds of things are intelligently managed by iOS and not the misinformed users of the world.
a) If the phone is looking for a 5G signal to use then the modem has to be powered on. Even apple says this. Why would they have a "5G off" setting otherwise? b) if you don't need bluetooth or wifi then you're hardly 'crippling' your device. wifi may use less energy than cellular, but if you have both disabled then you're using even less.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Well it makes sense to me. For ex. when I hike and am long out of range of any cell tower I put my iPhone in airplane mode for exactly the same reason: stop wasting battery power on an energy consuming function I’m not interested (or capable) of accessing.
That's not even remotely a normal use case, nor is it an apt analogy. Where in this article does it say it sucks up battery when you're not even connected to a 5G tower?
I do the same thing all the time - when I'm at work I'm in the middle of the building and have zero signal. If I turn off the cellular modem and leave on WiFi it makes a significant difference in battery usage because the cellular modem is not constantly looking for a signal. Apple actually recommends turning off the cellular modem to save energy.
Yes, I know this. However, we're not talking about turning off cellular data altogether, which is why this is not an apt analogy. So assuming cellular data is ON, how do we know having 5G on uses up significant battery when it's not being used? That's the point.
a) If the phone is looking for a 5G signal to use then the modem has to be powered on. Even apple says this. Why would they have a "5G off" setting otherwise? b) if you don't need bluetooth or wifi then you're hardly 'crippling' your device. wifi may use less energy than cellular, but if you have both disabled then you're using even less.
a) So let's see proof that it uses battery while not actively being used before jumping to conclusions and disabling it.
b) Of course if you don't "need" either. However, I listed a plethora of things it affects including Location Services that nearly every single user uses at least one of if not multiple on a regular basis. As for your last example, why the fuck would you disable both cellular data AND WIFI? It most certainly cripples your device if you don't have any I/O. There's no good reason to do this.
Might as well turn off your screen to save battery. Or just power off the device entirely and the battery will last weeks! ¯\(°_o)/¯
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Why? If you live/work where there is zero 5G coverage why waste battery trying to find a network when you don't need to?
I'm not upgrading until at least this time next year. 5G in my area is scheduled for 2022/23 and with almost everyone travelling a lot less, there really is no need to rush into it.
As is the usual case, this “information” will be trotted out by trolls and haters, used as click bait by tech blogs, and disseminated among the technorati. But will it affect sales of the iPhone 12? Absolutely not! As is also the usual case, we’ll soon have a battery-gate, maybe a class action, and wagging tongues but it won't slow down the uptake of the iPhone 12 one tiny bit. The usual suspects here will proudly proclaim “DEAL BREAKER” but no one will listen or care.
And thats the difference between the techie (real and fake) alternate universe and the real world. Always has been, always will be.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Why? If you live/work where there is zero 5G coverage why waste battery trying to find a network when you don't need to?
I'm not upgrading until at least this time next year. 5G in my area is scheduled for 2022/23 and with almost everyone travelling a lot less, there really is no need to rush into it.
iPhone 12 only uses 5G when necessary to save battery life
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
Well, yes and no. As a consumer, I don't care what bands or frequencies are being used or how they use them. All I care about is what I see at the device. Of course, the reverse may also end up being true; if the frequency utilization in the U.S. means LTE is limited significantly below its potential then there may actually be more of a benefit to sub-6 5G here in terms of speed. For the time being that's not the case, though.
Verizon invested heavily in the spec game and has the fastest speeds but the worst coverage. The same article I read showed Verizon only having 5G coverage in 4% of the spots they tested. Hardly useful unless you just want bragging rights. If they actually want 5G people can use they'd better start rolling out the lower frequency coverage soon.
I have T-Mobile and for my uses it's fine but there coverage is horrible. If you look at their map it's great, but the real-life usability is quite poor. Much of the coverage area only gets 1 or 2 bars and I've been in areas with 2 bars and been unable to load a web page, use Siri to send a text message, etc. Keep that in mind when you look at their maps. Hopefully their acquisition of Sprint will allow them to improve but we'll see.
Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Does it? Why power a radio that you aren't using?
I often turn off bluetooth and wi-fi when I'm not using them too; no sense in power going to waste.
a) Who said you're powering 5G when not using it? They literally said their reason for doing it is the lack of coverage around them. Why turn it off if it's not being used anyway, and if it does get used it's minimal given the coverage?<
Why wouldn't it draw power? Most things use power when they're on and don't use power when they're off. Seems to me that the burden of proof would be on the counter claim rather than the common sense claim.
b) That's ridiculous. Since iOS 11, toggling those switches in Control Center only disconnects you from devices/networks. If you're taking the time and going into Settings to actually disable them, you're both crippling your device(s) and wasting your time as neither uses much if any noticeable battery when not connected to a device/network. And when connected to WIFI, you're using far LESS energy than cellular data does! Location Services and Assisted GPS require both WIFI/Bluetooth. In my case it'd also disable my Watch, AirPods, AirPlay, Apple TV, AirDrop, SMS relay to my Mac, and who knows what else off hand that rely on either technology.
This is precisely why these kinds of things are intelligently managed by iOS and not the misinformed users of the world.
How do you figure that I'm crippling my device by disabling things trhat I'm not using? If I'm not near a wi-fi network I trust then I don't need wi-fi on, and if I'm not using bluetooth peripherals then I don't need bluetooth on; they're just sucking battery unnecessarily. I can turn them on if and when I need them.
I have definitely noticed significant differences in battery life when I have different radios switched off. I see reason to think it'll be any different for 5G.
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
.... Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I think it is reasonable to expect that no carrier was investing much in 4G over the past year or two. So, we may very well see a surge of new towers sprouting 5G -- and 4G as well because there are far more 4G phones than 5G and will be for probably the next 3 or 4 years or so as the older phones die and get retired.
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
Well, yes and no. As a consumer, I don't care what bands or frequencies are being used or how they use them. All I care about is what I see at the device. Of course, the reverse may also end up being true; if the frequency utilization in the U.S. means LTE is limited significantly below its potential then there may actually be more of a benefit to sub-6 5G here in terms of speed. For the time being that's not the case, though.
Verizon invested heavily in the spec game and has the fastest speeds but the worst coverage. The same article I read showed Verizon only having 5G coverage in 4% of the spots they tested. Hardly useful unless you just want bragging rights. If they actually want 5G people can use they'd better start rolling out the lower frequency coverage soon.
I have T-Mobile and for my uses it's fine but there coverage is horrible. If you look at their map it's great, but the real-life usability is quite poor. Much of the coverage area only gets 1 or 2 bars and I've been in areas with 2 bars and been unable to load a web page, use Siri to send a text message, etc. Keep that in mind when you look at their maps. Hopefully their acquisition of Sprint will allow them to improve but we'll see.
Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I think the low band 5G (AT&T & Verizon) the carriers are rolling out here are speeds what LTE should have been all along. You are right about Verizon though. The speeds on their mmWave band are pretty incredible but I can't see them rolling that out everywhere. My guess is mmWave will be confined to city centers, hospitals, stadiums, etc. With mmWave only able to travel around 1,000 feet, Verizon would literally need to put basestations on every block. I highly doubt that will happen. Sure the speeds are great, but Verizon should have been investing in mid band 5G from the beginning. T-Mobile is far a long already from acquiring Sprint and their 2.5 GHz band.
Some of the benefits of 5G besides the speeds are higher capacity and better bandwidth. That will be helpful in congested cities around the country. What I really want to see is how 5G will benefit rural customers. I previously lived out in the country and I only had two options for internet. Both were painfully slow and very expensive.
I've never used T-Mobile so I have no opinion on their service. I previously had AT&T but I switched to Verizon years ago. A lake I would frequently visit 20 minutes away from the city had no bars whatsoever on AT&T. I had friends with Verizon who had full bars and that convinced me to switch.
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
Well, yes and no. As a consumer, I don't care what bands or frequencies are being used or how they use them. All I care about is what I see at the device. Of course, the reverse may also end up being true; if the frequency utilization in the U.S. means LTE is limited significantly below its potential then there may actually be more of a benefit to sub-6 5G here in terms of speed. For the time being that's not the case, though.
Verizon invested heavily in the spec game and has the fastest speeds but the worst coverage. The same article I read showed Verizon only having 5G coverage in 4% of the spots they tested. Hardly useful unless you just want bragging rights. If they actually want 5G people can use they'd better start rolling out the lower frequency coverage soon.
I have T-Mobile and for my uses it's fine but there coverage is horrible. If you look at their map it's great, but the real-life usability is quite poor. Much of the coverage area only gets 1 or 2 bars and I've been in areas with 2 bars and been unable to load a web page, use Siri to send a text message, etc. Keep that in mind when you look at their maps. Hopefully their acquisition of Sprint will allow them to improve but we'll see.
Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I think the low band 5G (AT&T & Verizon) the carriers are rolling out here are speeds what LTE should have been all along. You are right about Verizon though. The speeds on their mmWave band are pretty incredible but I can't see them rolling that out everywhere. My guess is mmWave will be confined to city centers, hospitals, stadiums, etc. With mmWave only able to travel around 1,000 feet, Verizon would literally need to put basestations on every block. I highly doubt that will happen. Sure the speeds are great, but Verizon should have been investing in mid band 5G from the beginning. T-Mobile is far a long already from acquiring Sprint and their 2.5 GHz band.
Some of the benefits of 5G besides the speeds are higher capacity and better bandwidth. That will be helpful in congested cities around the country. What I really want to see is how 5G will benefit rural customers. I previously lived out in the country and I only had two options for internet. Both were painfully slow and very expensive.
I've never used T-Mobile so I have no opinion on their service. I previously had AT&T but I switched to Verizon years ago. A lake I would frequently visit 20 minutes away from the city had no bars whatsoever on AT&T. I had friends with Verizon who had full bars and that convinced me to switch.
I suspect you are correct in saying mm-wave will be mostly used for specific, limited spaces like stadiums or industrial plants -- at least in the near term.
But, in my area, Verizon bought all the telephone poles -- so it would be very feasible for them to put several on each block. And, they not only bought them but are strengthening them and replacing any that have deteriorated. I can't believe they would have made such an investment simply to have some place to hang their cable -- since the poles were owned by a public utility and open to them all along.
This is interesting and was one of my concerns about including 5G - there's a both a financial and a performance cost with no benefit. Because of the test, it's hard to say how accurate it is, but another consideration is the fact that Android phones are able to take advantage of the 5G modem being built into the processor where Apple is required to use a discrete chip -this has financial, power and space costs. We'll see how this shapes up once more real world data is available.
Long term this is another reason Apple will want to make its own 5G modem. They can integrate and optimize it far better than a discrete 3rd party chip.
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
What makes zero sense - turning off a feature that isn't useful or needed and takes extra battery life? Or how everyone is pushing for 5G when there's no real use for it? Or maybe just your comment?
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
I still think rushing to include 5G was pointless, and driven by android manufacturers who always need to include as many features as possible if they wanna ship more than four units.
Sure, future-proofing is all well and good, but 5G won’t be of any real interest for another year or two, and 4G is still more than enough for normal people.
You are, of course, completely right. A couple months ago PC Mag did a comparison of 5G coverage and speeds. The bottom line is speeds were marginally better and sometimes actually slower than LTE speeds, coverage was widely variable and latency was not different enough to matter. Of note, LTE speeds in Canada were actually better than 5G speeds in the U.S. And not one person on this site has been able to give a real life example of a use that requires 5G in a smartphone.
Someday 5G may be important, but certainly not today and probably not for at least 1-2 years. I know I'll get jumped on for this statement, but we were having the exact same discussion a year ago and the zealots were all touting how fast 5G was being rolled out. Well, here we are a year later and virtually nothing has changed. For now, if you need a new phone, go ahead and get an iPhone 12, but don't rush out and get one just for 5G.
I've seen all those 5G comparisons. I think it's a bit misleading to say Canada's LTE speeds are better than the 5G speeds in the U.S. Lot of those comparisons are from countries using completely different 5G bands. With the acquisition of Sprint, T-Mobile has been rolling out their 2.5 GHz band with average download speeds of 300 Mbps. That's already available in over 200 cities. That number is supposed to reach the thousands by the end of the year. Verizon has the worlds fastest download speeds on their mmWave band. All the carriers in the U.S. are a bit behind T-Mobile when it comes to mid band 5G rollout. Verizon just spent big at the FCC auction for mid band and I imagine they will spend a lot more at the next auction in December. As more carriers roll out their mid band 5G networks, the speeds won't even compare to LTE anymore. It unfortunately is going to take time though.
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
Well, yes and no. As a consumer, I don't care what bands or frequencies are being used or how they use them. All I care about is what I see at the device. Of course, the reverse may also end up being true; if the frequency utilization in the U.S. means LTE is limited significantly below its potential then there may actually be more of a benefit to sub-6 5G here in terms of speed. For the time being that's not the case, though.
Verizon invested heavily in the spec game and has the fastest speeds but the worst coverage. The same article I read showed Verizon only having 5G coverage in 4% of the spots they tested. Hardly useful unless you just want bragging rights. If they actually want 5G people can use they'd better start rolling out the lower frequency coverage soon.
I have T-Mobile and for my uses it's fine but there coverage is horrible. If you look at their map it's great, but the real-life usability is quite poor. Much of the coverage area only gets 1 or 2 bars and I've been in areas with 2 bars and been unable to load a web page, use Siri to send a text message, etc. Keep that in mind when you look at their maps. Hopefully their acquisition of Sprint will allow them to improve but we'll see.
Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I think the low band 5G (AT&T & Verizon) the carriers are rolling out here are speeds what LTE should have been all along. You are right about Verizon though. The speeds on their mmWave band are pretty incredible but I can't see them rolling that out everywhere. My guess is mmWave will be confined to city centers, hospitals, stadiums, etc. With mmWave only able to travel around 1,000 feet, Verizon would literally need to put basestations on every block. I highly doubt that will happen. Sure the speeds are great, but Verizon should have been investing in mid band 5G from the beginning. T-Mobile is far a long already from acquiring Sprint and their 2.5 GHz band.
Some of the benefits of 5G besides the speeds are higher capacity and better bandwidth. That will be helpful in congested cities around the country. What I really want to see is how 5G will benefit rural customers. I previously lived out in the country and I only had two options for internet. Both were painfully slow and very expensive.
I've never used T-Mobile so I have no opinion on their service. I previously had AT&T but I switched to Verizon years ago. A lake I would frequently visit 20 minutes away from the city had no bars whatsoever on AT&T. I had friends with Verizon who had full bars and that convinced me to switch.
The higher capacity and bandwidth will be very hard to quantify or notice with routine use. In general, it's not an issue with routine use; it's more in very congested areas like sporting events as you mention. Since towers will have both 4 and 5G capabilities for the foreseeable future, it may well be that adding 5G devices will also improve things for the 4G devices connected to the same tower. Ultimately, everything is limited by the capacity of the internet backbone the tower is connected to.
I haven't seen any information at all about rural service with 5G. It's the same frequencies, so I wouldn't necessarily expect them to penetrate or carry any further than 4G does. Unless carriers add towers I'm not sure there would be much difference. I have read some articles that describe 5G using beam forming. I don't know if that would increase the range or just help to decrease the total power usage by the antenna.
.... Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I think it is reasonable to expect that no carrier was investing much in 4G over the past year or two. So, we may very well see a surge of new towers sprouting 5G -- and 4G as well because there are far more 4G phones than 5G and will be for probably the next 3 or 4 years or so as the older phones die and get retired.
The push will definitely be towards 5G equipment, but as you say, the new towers will have both and I wouldn't be surprised if they do some updating as they upgrade the towers. As you say, 4G will be around for the foreseeable future, and there are many people who just don't care about 5G and keep their phones for 6-7 years. (my mother still has an iPhone 5c that we'll have to replace in January when T Mobile sunsets support for it.)
I’ll be switching off 5G completely as there’s not really any coverage to speak of around here anyways.
That makes zero sense.
Does it? Why power a radio that you aren't using?
I often turn off bluetooth and wi-fi when I'm not using them too; no sense in power going to waste.
a) Who said you're powering 5G when not using it? They literally said their reason for doing it is the lack of coverage around them. Why turn it off if it's not being used anyway, and if it does get used it's minimal given the coverage?<
Why wouldn't it draw power? Most things use power when they're on and don't use power when they're off. Seems to me that the burden of proof would be on the counter claim rather than the common sense claim.
b) That's ridiculous. Since iOS 11, toggling those switches in Control Center only disconnects you from devices/networks. If you're taking the time and going into Settings to actually disable them, you're both crippling your device(s) and wasting your time as neither uses much if any noticeable battery when not connected to a device/network. And when connected to WIFI, you're using far LESS energy than cellular data does! Location Services and Assisted GPS require both WIFI/Bluetooth. In my case it'd also disable my Watch, AirPods, AirPlay, Apple TV, AirDrop, SMS relay to my Mac, and who knows what else off hand that rely on either technology.
This is precisely why these kinds of things are intelligently managed by iOS and not the misinformed users of the world.
How do you figure that I'm crippling my device by disabling things trhat I'm not using? If I'm not near a wi-fi network I trust then I don't need wi-fi on, and if I'm not using bluetooth peripherals then I don't need bluetooth on; they're just sucking battery unnecessarily. I can turn them on if and when I need them.
I have definitely noticed significant differences in battery life when I have different radios switched off. I see reason to think it'll be any different for 5G.
I told you why turning those things off cripples your device. If you're not using any single one of those things affected by disabling radios, great. I'd say a not insignificant percentage of users actually use one or more of those features even passively (assisted GPS/location services for one). Disable every single feature and you'll get amazing battery life! But is it worth the decrease in functionality? For most people, no.
Comments
That's not even remotely a normal use case, nor is it an apt analogy. Where in this article does it say it sucks up battery when you're not even connected to a 5G tower?
a) Who said you're powering 5G when not using it? They literally said their reason for doing it is the lack of coverage around them. Why turn it off if it's not being used anyway, and if it does get used it's minimal given the coverage?
b) That's ridiculous. Since iOS 11, toggling those switches in Control Center only disconnects you from devices/networks. If you're taking the time and going into Settings to actually disable them, you're both crippling your device(s) and wasting your time as neither uses much if any noticeable battery when not connected to a device/network. And when connected to WIFI, you're using far LESS energy than cellular data does! Location Services and Assisted GPS require both WIFI/Bluetooth. In my case it'd also disable my Watch, AirPods, AirPlay, Apple TV, AirDrop, SMS relay to my Mac, and who knows what else off hand that rely on either technology.
This is precisely why these kinds of things are intelligently managed by iOS and not the misinformed users of the world.
a) If the phone is looking for a 5G signal to use then the modem has to be powered on. Even apple says this. Why would they have a "5G off" setting otherwise?
b) if you don't need bluetooth or wifi then you're hardly 'crippling' your device. wifi may use less energy than cellular, but if you have both disabled then you're using even less.
a) So let's see proof that it uses battery while not actively being used before jumping to conclusions and disabling it.
b) Of course if you don't "need" either. However, I listed a plethora of things it affects including Location Services that nearly every single user uses at least one of if not multiple on a regular basis. As for your last example, why the fuck would you disable both cellular data AND WIFI? It most certainly cripples your device if you don't have any I/O. There's no good reason to do this.
Might as well turn off your screen to save battery. Or just power off the device entirely and the battery will last weeks! ¯\(°_o)/¯
I do agree with your take on 5G though. It will definitely be important in the future, but as of now, it's going to be a mixed bag for users as carriers continue their rollouts. I don't think it's a bad thing at all Apple's new iPhone's are 5G. Plenty of cities have it now.
And thats the difference between the techie (real and fake) alternate universe and the real world. Always has been, always will be.
iPhone 12 only uses 5G when necessary to save battery life
Apple’s Smart Data Mode is designed to save power
Verizon invested heavily in the spec game and has the fastest speeds but the worst coverage. The same article I read showed Verizon only having 5G coverage in 4% of the spots they tested. Hardly useful unless you just want bragging rights. If they actually want 5G people can use they'd better start rolling out the lower frequency coverage soon.
I have T-Mobile and for my uses it's fine but there coverage is horrible. If you look at their map it's great, but the real-life usability is quite poor. Much of the coverage area only gets 1 or 2 bars and I've been in areas with 2 bars and been unable to load a web page, use Siri to send a text message, etc. Keep that in mind when you look at their maps. Hopefully their acquisition of Sprint will allow them to improve but we'll see.
Tow things that I haven't seen any true data on are how 5G will improve LTE and whether 5G will actually allow better coverage than 4G. some of 5G is new towers and antennae, but some of it is backbone infrastructure, and that should help everyone, no matter how they connect. With the coverage, if 5G allows better coverage with the same towers then there could be big benefits but if the coverage requires more towers then nothing's going to change.
I have definitely noticed significant differences in battery life when I have different radios switched off. I see reason to think it'll be any different for 5G.
I think it is reasonable to expect that no carrier was investing much in 4G over the past year or two. So, we may very well see a surge of new towers sprouting 5G -- and 4G as well because there are far more 4G phones than 5G and will be for probably the next 3 or 4 years or so as the older phones die and get retired.
Some of the benefits of 5G besides the speeds are higher capacity and better bandwidth. That will be helpful in congested cities around the country. What I really want to see is how 5G will benefit rural customers. I previously lived out in the country and I only had two options for internet. Both were painfully slow and very expensive.
I've never used T-Mobile so I have no opinion on their service. I previously had AT&T but I switched to Verizon years ago. A lake I would frequently visit 20 minutes away from the city had no bars whatsoever on AT&T. I had friends with Verizon who had full bars and that convinced me to switch.
I haven't seen any information at all about rural service with 5G. It's the same frequencies, so I wouldn't necessarily expect them to penetrate or carry any further than 4G does. Unless carriers add towers I'm not sure there would be much difference. I have read some articles that describe 5G using beam forming. I don't know if that would increase the range or just help to decrease the total power usage by the antenna.
The push will definitely be towards 5G equipment, but as you say, the new towers will have both and I wouldn't be surprised if they do some updating as they upgrade the towers. As you say, 4G will be around for the foreseeable future, and there are many people who just don't care about 5G and keep their phones for 6-7 years. (my mother still has an iPhone 5c that we'll have to replace in January when T Mobile sunsets support for it.)