I can understand how Apple will control technical customer support with the iPhone... that makes sense. But I don't understand how Apple is going to take care of billing and things like that, which presumably would be through ATT/Cingular's billing system, not Apple's. ATT reps would seem to be the experts in that, having dealt with it for years.
I guess I'm wondering if Apple will take care of all customer support for the iPhone, if you follow.
.
Dunno. It'll be interesting to see how they're working it out, because it may be confusing to be shuffling customers back and forth depending on they're specific question. But then, when I call AT&T for support for my DSL, I usually have to go through a couple of different departments to find out anything, anyway. The first guys that answer are generally just the "is it plugged in?" type of tech support to weed out the non-problem problems.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
You have more of a point here than I initially gave you credit for.
One thing I forgot was that there are phones out there that do both HSDPA(3G) and EDGE. It's a fairly recent development (phones with it started appearing late last year), but it was there as an option for Apple.
The main downsides of such an arrangement are battery life (3G sucks significantly more juice), cost, and potentially, space used inside the phone.
I seems they figured Wifi was a good alternative, and that going 3G/EDGE/WIFI was overkill. I'd say they were wrong about that, especially considering that firm iPhone battery life specs have just now appeared, and are a lot better than anticipated, i.e. it could've handled the 3G battery drain.
Oh well. Perhaps Apple figures it can sell everyone a second iPhone when they finally get around to releasing an HSDPA/EDGE version. \
UMTS[1] has nothing to do with EDGE. EDGE is an evolved version of GPRS for GSM networks, while UMTS is entirely separate.
A UMTS phone (outside of Japan) would thus have two radios[2]: a UMTS one, and a GSM/GPRS/EDGE one.
i.e. EDGE support is entirely dependant on the GSM chipset used, and has nothing to do with UMTS. As many GSM/UMTS networks use EDGE outside of their UMTS coverage most UMTS phones ever made (again, outside of Japan) have EDGE as part of their GSM chipset.
If Apple wanted to add UMTS support to the iPhone it had nothing to do with also having EDGE support. Cost? Perhaps but plenty of other feature packed expensive to make phones have 3G in the iPhone price range, or less. For single band chips, to be fair.
As for size, there are UMTS phones in Japan down to 12mm (again, single band chips). As for battery life, and using Softbank for reference as they have GSM/UMTS mobiles, here's some numbers:
It seems standby time is worse to better, and talk time is worse or (at best) equal. Some concerns, but keep in mind UMTS is only turned on when you need it and battery life looks quite a bit better.
Anyway Apple has to release a 3G phone by 2008 for Japan irregardless of American network coverage (and having a 3G phone for Europe would probably be a good idea) so even if Revision A lacks it, Revision B will have it.
Perhaps they're waiting for cheaper/smaller tri-band UMTS chips so they don't have to release different iPhones for different markets[3]. Instead of having separate iPhones for North America and the rest of the world, they can just stick with one model. The downside to this is having to wait until tri-band UMTS chips approach single or dual band UMTS chips in size and cost (power use doesn't change, as you only power on what you need).
[1] It gets complicated. The short version is that WCDMA is the air interface to UMTS. HSDPA is a speed upgrade for WCDMA on UMTS networks (and HSPUA is the next speed upgrade).
So when talking about 3GSM networks, UMTS is what they all are?while their speed differs based on whether they're using WCMDA or HSDPA, and within those two standards are a wide spread of upload/download speeds.
[2] Since a UMTS radio would not work on GSM networks (and vice versa) two radios or crystals or some other form of multi-format radio is required, although they may be part of one chip.
[3] Everybody but North America and Australia use 2100 MHz only. North America uses 850/1900 MHz (on AT&T and Rogers) and Australia uses all three.
T-Mobile uses 2100 MHz, but one which is different from all other 2100 MHz.
-----------
All of the above technical stuff aside? The lack of UMTS isn't going to hurt them much if at all until Europe, at least.
UMTS[1] has nothing to do with EDGE. EDGE is an evolved version of GPRS for GSM networks, while UMTS is entirely separate.
Yup. One thing we often forget to do is decipher the alphabet soup for folks who are not familiar with it.
Quote:
A UMTS phone (outside of Japan) would thus have two radios[2]: a UMTS one, and a GSM/GPRS/EDGE one.
True dat. A bit like how trimode (digital plus AMPS) phones have had two seperate radios for years now.
Quote:
i.e. EDGE support is entirely dependant on the GSM chipset used, and has nothing to do with UMTS. As many GSM/UMTS networks use EDGE outside of their UMTS coverage most UMTS phones ever made (again, outside of Japan) have EDGE as part of their GSM chipset.
If Apple wanted to add UMTS support to the iPhone it had nothing to do with also having EDGE support. Cost? Perhaps but plenty of other feature packed expensive to make phones have 3G in the iPhone price range, or less. For single band chips, to be fair.
As for size, there are UMTS phones in Japan down to 12mm (again, single band chips).
Good to know. I don't know the Japanese (or South Korean) markets super-well, and as the most advanced in the world they're influential, so its good to hear stuff like this. Though in the US, we have 3G phones as slim as 9mm, already (Samsung Upstage).
Quote:
As for battery life, and using Softbank for reference as they have GSM/UMTS mobiles, here's some numbers:
It seems standby time is worse to better, and talk time is worse or (at best) equal. Some concerns, but keep in mind UMTS is only turned on when you need it and battery life looks quite a bit better.
Bear in mind that in the US, talk time is what matters. Our phone plans are much more generous with minutes than, say, Europe, so people here talk lots, as opposed to talking a little and texting lots (to handle short conversations).
Judging from your stats, the average battery life hit in talk time with 3G is around 30%, which is significant.
Quote:
Anyway Apple has to release a 3G phone by 2008 for Japan irregardless of American network coverage (and having a 3G phone for Europe would probably be a good idea) so even if Revision A lacks it, Revision B will have it.
Absolutely. No 3G in Europe or Japan would seriously hurt the iPhone in those markets, likely to the point of failure. Consumer expectations are higher for phones there than in the US, and the competition is better. For example, there is no Nokia N95 or Prada phone in the US as of yet.
Quote:
Perhaps they're waiting for cheaper/smaller tri-band UMTS chips so they don't have to release different iPhones for different markets[3]. Instead of having separate iPhones for North America and the rest of the world, they can just stick with one model. The downside to this is having to wait until tri-band UMTS chips approach single or dual band UMTS chips in size and cost (power use doesn't change, as you only power on what you need).
It makes a lot of sense that iPhone 2.0 (US) will be very similar to the European/Asian iPhone. I just feel bad for iPhone 1.0 US customers, who are stuck with EDGE. \
Quote:
All of the above technical stuff aside? The lack of UMTS isn't going to hurt them much if at all until Europe, at least.
Its going to hurt some in the US, but you're right, not as much as it would in Europe (or Asia)... at least not until a worthy competitor comes out in the US, something like a touchscreen 'iPhone wannabe' that's cheaper and has 3G.
Even so, even US customers will be wondering why a $500-600 phone that trumpets having 'the real Internet' surfs at around dialup speeds when not at an accessible Wifi hotspot, i.e. most of the time. \
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
And you are right, from what I read. I never realised that CDMA was newer technology. Though in many markets it is not available. From my point of view it is great that Apple went with GSM (living in the UK).
An interesting note is that CDMA signals do interfere with GSM... With AT&T beefing up their GSM network I hope the opposite doesn't hold true
You have more of a point here than I initially gave you credit for.
One thing I forgot was that there are phones out there that do both HSDPA(3G) and EDGE. It's a fairly recent development (phones with it started appearing late last year), but it was there as an option for Apple.
The main downsides of such an arrangement are battery life (3G sucks significantly more juice), cost, and potentially, space used inside the phone.
I seems they figured Wifi was a good alternative, and that going 3G/EDGE/WIFI was overkill. I'd say they were wrong about that, especially considering that firm iPhone battery life specs have just now appeared, and are a lot better than anticipated, i.e. it could've handled the 3G battery drain.
Oh well. Perhaps Apple figures it can sell everyone a second iPhone when they finally get around to releasing an HSDPA/EDGE version. \
.
We keep talking battery life without actually looking at the phones that do include 3G, to see what their actual battery life is.
You'll find that it's about the same. I get the same thing with my Treo 700p as anyone with a comparable phone gets that doesn't have it.
GSM phones get a bit more battery life than CDMA phones do as well.
I really think that battery life is a bugaboo, just as WiFi life is. I don't agree with Monk's figures, because the published ones are never correct. Some are better than others.
I don't see anyone now complaining about the iPhone life with WiFi, as they did for the Zune, or other NON APPLE products.
And that's the key here, really.
If it's a non Apple product, and it has a feature, people here will disparage that feature, UNTIL Apple implements it as well. Then, suddenly, the problems are forgotten, and the advantages are extolled.
Look at how people are pretending that WiFi is better than 3G.
If Apple included 3G instead of WiFi, those same people would be saying how much better 3G is than WiFi.
We can't win here.
My bet is that when Apple does come out with 3G, as Jobs said they would, all of the arguments against it will disappear.
Oh I think including 3G would have been the right move to make. No question about it.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small?like a WiFi chip?but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets .
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Oh I think including 3G would have been the right move to make. No question about it.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small?like a WiFi chip?but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets .
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Basically, I agree with that. But, I don't agree about the differences being the same relatively. Some come closer to their published ratings, while others don't. A few actually have better life than their ratings suggest. It depends on how conservative the manufacturer is.
Look at Apple's battery ratings for their iPods. All the reviews I've seen over the years peg them as having longer battery life then Apple's specs. But, Creatives sometime meet their specs, sometimes are less, and sometimes are more. I don't remember what I read avout the Zune.
Anyway, I don't think the battery issue is important. People aren't going to look at battery life when buying phones, unless it is either very short, or very long.
We keep talking battery life without actually looking at the phones that do include 3G, to see what their actual battery life is.
You'll find that it's about the same. I get the same thing with my Treo 700p as anyone with a comparable phone gets that doesn't have it.
GSM phones get a bit more battery life than CDMA phones do as well.
I really think that battery life is a bugaboo, just as WiFi life is.
It really isn't a bugaboo, Mel. In fact, one of the major things that slowed 3G adoption in the early days in Europe and Asia was the tragic battery life of many early 3G handsets.
Its under better control now, but all things being equal, 3G equals less battery life. It may not be a good idea to compare your Treo to others, as things like power management may differ between models.
That said, I'm not trying to give Apple too many excuses here. They knew they'd need 3G to have a chance in Europe and Asia, and they knew they'd have to conquer said battery life issues (especially considering the iPhone's battery is non-replaceable). Apple is shafting the US with ver 1.0 because it can get away with it, sorta kinda.
Quote:
I don't agree with Monk's figures, because the published ones are never correct. Some are better than others.
Yeah, but he provided figures for 5 phones. Any errors should balance out, more or less.
Quote:
I don't see anyone now complaining about the iPhone life with WiFi, as they did for the Zune, or other NON APPLE products.
And that's the key here, really.
If it's a non-Apple product, and it has a feature, people here will disparage that feature, UNTIL Apple implements it as well. Then, suddenly, the problems are forgotten, and the advantages are extolled.
Look at how people are pretending that WiFi is better than 3G.
If Apple included 3G instead of WiFi, those same people would be saying how much better 3G is than WiFi.
We can't win here.
The Apple Apologista Squad in action! Check my sig.
Quote:
My bet is that when Apple does come out with 3G, as Jobs said they would, all of the arguments against it will disappear.
Yup. Though, stepping away from the Apologista aspects of that, it does appear from the latest batt life specs that Apple has really gotten a handle on the iPhone's power management (and/or has one helluva battery), so now its fine to include 3G.
Fairer to say that all the fanboi arguments against it ("WiFi is good enough!", "No one cares about 3G!") will disappear.
Oh I think including 3G would have been the right move to make. No question about it.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small—like a WiFi chip—but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets .
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Comments
I can understand how Apple will control technical customer support with the iPhone... that makes sense. But I don't understand how Apple is going to take care of billing and things like that, which presumably would be through ATT/Cingular's billing system, not Apple's. ATT reps would seem to be the experts in that, having dealt with it for years.
I guess I'm wondering if Apple will take care of all customer support for the iPhone, if you follow.
.
Dunno. It'll be interesting to see how they're working it out, because it may be confusing to be shuffling customers back and forth depending on they're specific question. But then, when I call AT&T for support for my DSL, I usually have to go through a couple of different departments to find out anything, anyway. The first guys that answer are generally just the "is it plugged in?" type of tech support to weed out the non-problem problems.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
You have more of a point here than I initially gave you credit for.
One thing I forgot was that there are phones out there that do both HSDPA(3G) and EDGE. It's a fairly recent development (phones with it started appearing late last year), but it was there as an option for Apple.
The main downsides of such an arrangement are battery life (3G sucks significantly more juice), cost, and potentially, space used inside the phone.
I seems they figured Wifi was a good alternative, and that going 3G/EDGE/WIFI was overkill. I'd say they were wrong about that, especially considering that firm iPhone battery life specs have just now appeared, and are a lot better than anticipated, i.e. it could've handled the 3G battery drain.
Oh well. Perhaps Apple figures it can sell everyone a second iPhone when they finally get around to releasing an HSDPA/EDGE version.
.
UMTS[1] has nothing to do with EDGE. EDGE is an evolved version of GPRS for GSM networks, while UMTS is entirely separate.
A UMTS phone (outside of Japan) would thus have two radios[2]: a UMTS one, and a GSM/GPRS/EDGE one.
i.e. EDGE support is entirely dependant on the GSM chipset used, and has nothing to do with UMTS. As many GSM/UMTS networks use EDGE outside of their UMTS coverage most UMTS phones ever made (again, outside of Japan) have EDGE as part of their GSM chipset.
If Apple wanted to add UMTS support to the iPhone it had nothing to do with also having EDGE support. Cost? Perhaps but plenty of other feature packed expensive to make phones have 3G in the iPhone price range, or less. For single band chips, to be fair.
As for size, there are UMTS phones in Japan down to 12mm (again, single band chips). As for battery life, and using Softbank for reference as they have GSM/UMTS mobiles, here's some numbers:
707SCII
Talk Time: 165min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 310min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Time
705NK
Talk Time
Standby Time
910T
Talk Time
Standby Time
813SH
Talk Time
Standby Time
810P
Talk Time
Standby Time
It seems standby time is worse to better, and talk time is worse or (at best) equal. Some concerns, but keep in mind UMTS is only turned on when you need it and battery life looks quite a bit better.
Anyway Apple has to release a 3G phone by 2008 for Japan irregardless of American network coverage (and having a 3G phone for Europe would probably be a good idea) so even if Revision A lacks it, Revision B will have it.
Perhaps they're waiting for cheaper/smaller tri-band UMTS chips so they don't have to release different iPhones for different markets[3]. Instead of having separate iPhones for North America and the rest of the world, they can just stick with one model. The downside to this is having to wait until tri-band UMTS chips approach single or dual band UMTS chips in size and cost (power use doesn't change, as you only power on what you need).
[1] It gets complicated. The short version is that WCDMA is the air interface to UMTS. HSDPA is a speed upgrade for WCDMA on UMTS networks (and HSPUA is the next speed upgrade).
So when talking about 3GSM networks, UMTS is what they all are?while their speed differs based on whether they're using WCMDA or HSDPA, and within those two standards are a wide spread of upload/download speeds.
[2] Since a UMTS radio would not work on GSM networks (and vice versa) two radios or crystals or some other form of multi-format radio is required, although they may be part of one chip.
[3] Everybody but North America and Australia use 2100 MHz only. North America uses 850/1900 MHz (on AT&T and Rogers) and Australia uses all three.
T-Mobile uses 2100 MHz, but one which is different from all other 2100 MHz.
-----------
All of the above technical stuff aside? The lack of UMTS isn't going to hurt them much if at all until Europe, at least.
(Warning, acronym city ahead
UMTS[1] has nothing to do with EDGE. EDGE is an evolved version of GPRS for GSM networks, while UMTS is entirely separate.
Yup. One thing we often forget to do is decipher the alphabet soup for folks who are not familiar with it.
A UMTS phone (outside of Japan) would thus have two radios[2]: a UMTS one, and a GSM/GPRS/EDGE one.
True dat. A bit like how trimode (digital plus AMPS) phones have had two seperate radios for years now.
i.e. EDGE support is entirely dependant on the GSM chipset used, and has nothing to do with UMTS. As many GSM/UMTS networks use EDGE outside of their UMTS coverage most UMTS phones ever made (again, outside of Japan) have EDGE as part of their GSM chipset.
If Apple wanted to add UMTS support to the iPhone it had nothing to do with also having EDGE support. Cost? Perhaps but plenty of other feature packed expensive to make phones have 3G in the iPhone price range, or less. For single band chips, to be fair.
As for size, there are UMTS phones in Japan down to 12mm (again, single band chips).
Good to know. I don't know the Japanese (or South Korean) markets super-well, and as the most advanced in the world they're influential, so its good to hear stuff like this. Though in the US, we have 3G phones as slim as 9mm, already (Samsung Upstage).
As for battery life, and using Softbank for reference as they have GSM/UMTS mobiles, here's some numbers:
707SCII
Talk Time: 165min. (Japan/W-CDMA) / 310min. (GSM) (when stationary)
Standby Time
705NK
Talk Time
Standby Time
910T
Talk Time
Standby Time
813SH
Talk Time
Standby Time
810P
Talk Time
Standby Time
It seems standby time is worse to better, and talk time is worse or (at best) equal. Some concerns, but keep in mind UMTS is only turned on when you need it and battery life looks quite a bit better.
Bear in mind that in the US, talk time is what matters. Our phone plans are much more generous with minutes than, say, Europe, so people here talk lots, as opposed to talking a little and texting lots (to handle short conversations).
Judging from your stats, the average battery life hit in talk time with 3G is around 30%, which is significant.
Anyway Apple has to release a 3G phone by 2008 for Japan irregardless of American network coverage (and having a 3G phone for Europe would probably be a good idea) so even if Revision A lacks it, Revision B will have it.
Absolutely. No 3G in Europe or Japan would seriously hurt the iPhone in those markets, likely to the point of failure. Consumer expectations are higher for phones there than in the US, and the competition is better. For example, there is no Nokia N95 or Prada phone in the US as of yet.
Perhaps they're waiting for cheaper/smaller tri-band UMTS chips so they don't have to release different iPhones for different markets[3]. Instead of having separate iPhones for North America and the rest of the world, they can just stick with one model. The downside to this is having to wait until tri-band UMTS chips approach single or dual band UMTS chips in size and cost (power use doesn't change, as you only power on what you need).
It makes a lot of sense that iPhone 2.0 (US) will be very similar to the European/Asian iPhone. I just feel bad for iPhone 1.0 US customers, who are stuck with EDGE.
All of the above technical stuff aside? The lack of UMTS isn't going to hurt them much if at all until Europe, at least.
Its going to hurt some in the US, but you're right, not as much as it would in Europe (or Asia)... at least not until a worthy competitor comes out in the US, something like a touchscreen 'iPhone wannabe' that's cheaper and has 3G.
Even so, even US customers will be wondering why a $500-600 phone that trumpets having 'the real Internet' surfs at around dialup speeds when not at an accessible Wifi hotspot, i.e. most of the time.
.
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
And you are right, from what I read. I never realised that CDMA was newer technology. Though in many markets it is not available. From my point of view it is great that Apple went with GSM (living in the UK).
An interesting note is that CDMA signals do interfere with GSM... With AT&T beefing up their GSM network I hope the opposite doesn't hold true
You have more of a point here than I initially gave you credit for.
One thing I forgot was that there are phones out there that do both HSDPA(3G) and EDGE. It's a fairly recent development (phones with it started appearing late last year), but it was there as an option for Apple.
The main downsides of such an arrangement are battery life (3G sucks significantly more juice), cost, and potentially, space used inside the phone.
I seems they figured Wifi was a good alternative, and that going 3G/EDGE/WIFI was overkill. I'd say they were wrong about that, especially considering that firm iPhone battery life specs have just now appeared, and are a lot better than anticipated, i.e. it could've handled the 3G battery drain.
Oh well. Perhaps Apple figures it can sell everyone a second iPhone when they finally get around to releasing an HSDPA/EDGE version.
.
We keep talking battery life without actually looking at the phones that do include 3G, to see what their actual battery life is.
You'll find that it's about the same. I get the same thing with my Treo 700p as anyone with a comparable phone gets that doesn't have it.
GSM phones get a bit more battery life than CDMA phones do as well.
I really think that battery life is a bugaboo, just as WiFi life is. I don't agree with Monk's figures, because the published ones are never correct. Some are better than others.
I don't see anyone now complaining about the iPhone life with WiFi, as they did for the Zune, or other NON APPLE products.
And that's the key here, really.
If it's a non Apple product, and it has a feature, people here will disparage that feature, UNTIL Apple implements it as well. Then, suddenly, the problems are forgotten, and the advantages are extolled.
Look at how people are pretending that WiFi is better than 3G.
If Apple included 3G instead of WiFi, those same people would be saying how much better 3G is than WiFi.
We can't win here.
My bet is that when Apple does come out with 3G, as Jobs said they would, all of the arguments against it will disappear.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small?like a WiFi chip?but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Oh I think including 3G would have been the right move to make. No question about it.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small?like a WiFi chip?but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Basically, I agree with that. But, I don't agree about the differences being the same relatively. Some come closer to their published ratings, while others don't. A few actually have better life than their ratings suggest. It depends on how conservative the manufacturer is.
Look at Apple's battery ratings for their iPods. All the reviews I've seen over the years peg them as having longer battery life then Apple's specs. But, Creatives sometime meet their specs, sometimes are less, and sometimes are more. I don't remember what I read avout the Zune.
Anyway, I don't think the battery issue is important. People aren't going to look at battery life when buying phones, unless it is either very short, or very long.
We keep talking battery life without actually looking at the phones that do include 3G, to see what their actual battery life is.
You'll find that it's about the same. I get the same thing with my Treo 700p as anyone with a comparable phone gets that doesn't have it.
GSM phones get a bit more battery life than CDMA phones do as well.
I really think that battery life is a bugaboo, just as WiFi life is.
It really isn't a bugaboo, Mel. In fact, one of the major things that slowed 3G adoption in the early days in Europe and Asia was the tragic battery life of many early 3G handsets.
Its under better control now, but all things being equal, 3G equals less battery life. It may not be a good idea to compare your Treo to others, as things like power management may differ between models.
That said, I'm not trying to give Apple too many excuses here. They knew they'd need 3G to have a chance in Europe and Asia, and they knew they'd have to conquer said battery life issues (especially considering the iPhone's battery is non-replaceable). Apple is shafting the US with ver 1.0 because it can get away with it, sorta kinda.
I don't agree with Monk's figures, because the published ones are never correct. Some are better than others.
Yeah, but he provided figures for 5 phones. Any errors should balance out, more or less.
I don't see anyone now complaining about the iPhone life with WiFi, as they did for the Zune, or other NON APPLE products.
And that's the key here, really.
If it's a non-Apple product, and it has a feature, people here will disparage that feature, UNTIL Apple implements it as well. Then, suddenly, the problems are forgotten, and the advantages are extolled.
Look at how people are pretending that WiFi is better than 3G.
If Apple included 3G instead of WiFi, those same people would be saying how much better 3G is than WiFi.
We can't win here.
The Apple Apologista Squad in action! Check my sig.
My bet is that when Apple does come out with 3G, as Jobs said they would, all of the arguments against it will disappear.
Yup. Though, stepping away from the Apologista aspects of that, it does appear from the latest batt life specs that Apple has really gotten a handle on the iPhone's power management (and/or has one helluva battery), so now its fine to include 3G.
Fairer to say that all the fanboi arguments against it ("WiFi is good enough!", "No one cares about 3G!") will disappear.
.
Oh I think including 3G would have been the right move to make. No question about it.
The arguments against it are purely technical in my mind. I know a single or dual band UMTS radio is cheap and small—like a WiFi chip—but I don't know about tri-band chips. Given that I assume Apple wants to keep having a single model of iPhone for the world they need a tri-band UMTS chip[1].
I've only seen a few mobiles with three UMTS bands, and none of them are thin and small.
As for battery life? In Japan UMTS means only UMTS so the battery drain will be higher then in North America or Europe where you sometimes use GSM instead (instead of 30% we're probably talking 10-20% which I think is reasonable). Secondly while published figures may be wrong in absolute terms the relative difference between them is not, though Japanese companies are probably not the best at integrating GSM chipsets
[1] Otherwise you get a North American model and a rest-of-the-world-except-for-Australia model. Which could be done now without any real impact on the iPhone, but I question whether Jobs would be into it.
Nice analysis, EM. You know your stuff.
.