This was misinformation from Apple and you believed it. The SE W880i proves otherwise. In fact most European and Asian 3G phones today prove it.
I suppose it depends on one's standards. When I said that one of the major things holding back my purchase of the iPhone was the lack of 3G, I received quite a shellacking from those who thought that ATT's EDGE was just fine.
Unless it was simply BS from them, which I can't assume, some people don't find the speed to be too slow.
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Yeah, I know... in fact, I was making that particular argument before almost anybody here. The argument was to take EDGE over 3G because EDGE, while damn slow, was nearly everywhere. ATT's 3G coverage was poor. So let's benefit the majority.
I thought that something like all the top 20 markets had AT&T 3G. Doesn't this already qualify as a majority in terms of population served? Can't the system "fall back" to a slower mode? I don't know how far down the list of cities AT&T is in terms of 3G roll-out, but Sprint has high speed in a local #50 market. My house is outside that coverage, but if it's available, I'd sure like it to be supported.
We have had this argument before and you just dont get the point!!
Okay, I see your point on data cost and diminutive size and resolution of the phone displays. May I suggest everyone in the EU buying an iPhone; it would surely help my stock. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
You can bet the iPhone has stuck a fire under SE and Nokia's belly.
I'm glad to see other manufacturers and carriers seeing the iPhone as a threat now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
All the negatives though are fairy tales.
Size - There are phones much smaller eg. SE W880i than the iPhone with 3G already. The very bad comparison used as a negative was the comparison between a Qualcomm chipset CDMA phone and the iPhone.
Battery - It's only a significant negative if the 3G aspect is being used. If it drops back the 2G then it powers down. If you've switched 3G off, as you can in many other phones, the battery lasts as long as 2G.
Price - the iPhone was already hugely expensive as it turned out.
Availability of 3G - temporary. It would be a negative that gets less and less over time to the point that not having 3G would become a bigger negative.
Have younot checked out Ananadtech's brekdown of the difference in chip sies and power consumption issues associated with using 3G? It adds quite a lot of space. The WiFi was unbelievably small and used much less power than EDGE, just as a reference.
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption. Hopefully these issues have alreasy been addressed of they come out with a sightly thicker phone and uses an international 3G chipset.
PS: .Mac and Gmail need to offer Push-IMAP which will greatly reduce power consumption, according to to AnandTech's report on the Blackberry's Push-IMAP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER
I think that for Apple's best long-term prospects announcing a 3G iPhone in October for a European (where Europe = France/Germany/UK) launch in October/November is the best move.
What they'd do is also talk about the other improved aspects (better camera, 16GB of storage I imagine) and then say oh and it's also coming to the States say December (with the different UMTS bands, of course). I don't know how long the FCC takes, though it's not 6 months, so I don't know when Apple has to submit it to the FCC to get it back for an early December launch.
It's starting to appear to me that Job's plan is to keep releasing new phones to incrase the marketshare well beyond what was initially expected by cinsumers. How long did we wait for a "true" video IPod?
The more updates that are released in concession, even at cutting costs since the carrier dues make upa consider amount of Apple;s profit so the "hawrdware company" misnomer no longer applies with the iPhon, The more saturated the market will be and the more iPhone uses Apple will have the more chance for Apple to repeat its iPod monopoly.
How many more Mac will be sold due to satisfied iPhone owners? It seems likely that the iPhone will be the best selling high-end phone for many months to come.
Once the user-base is established Apple can implement it's own Xserve version of RIM's server based solution without the costly $100/per user licensing fee. What is stopping Apple from competing with RIM on this level? Now that iWork '08 has been released there seems to be nothing keeping Apple from syncing with Exchange while convincing it's new business partners that Xserve can do the same thing at a fraction of licensing and IT cost.
The "experts" said Apple can't possibly compete in the cell market. Job's seems to be very focused on proving them wrong.
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption.
It would be handy if the phone could drop back to 2G when just making a call! And thereby save power. ie. it would be good if the phone only went up to 3G when a 3G-based function was used.
I had a 3G phone in the UK before my current one and went back to 2G with my latest as the battery life was so much lower with 3G than 2G. To the point of being quite irritating, having to remember to charge it so frequently. I can see the heavy data usage of the iPhone though makes 3G highly desirable!
It would be handy if the phone could drop back to 2G when just making a call! And thereby save power. ie. it would be good if the phone only went up to 3G when a 3G-based function was used.
I had a 3G phone in the UK before my current one and went back to 2G with my latest as the battery life was so much lower with 3G than 2G. To the point of being quite irritating, having to remember to charge it so frequently. I can see the heavy data usage of the iPhone though makes 3G highly desirable!
I was under the impression that this happens automatically. When the iPhone is in range of an open WiFi network is auto-switches to the higher bandwidth option.
The iPhone development seems to be happening very fast. The price reduction will probably clear all the current inventory by the end of the year. I would not be surprise to see a 3G version at MWSF and also a 16gig version as well.
Have younot checked out Ananadtech's brekdown of the difference in chip sies and power consumption issues associated with using 3G? It adds quite a lot of space. The WiFi was unbelievably small and used much less power than EDGE, just as a reference.
I have. That's the example I'm talking about. It was a very bad example because they used the Qualcomm CDMA 3G chipset as a comparison. It's massive and power hungry and wouldn't ever be used in an iPhone. UMTS chips aren't as big and hungry and they're usually a combined 2G/3G chip. UMTS also doesn't require a huge aerial. Anandtech's whole premise in that article was just totally off base.
It was the equivalent of saying Smart Cars couldn't offer a diesel version in the US because a 3.5l Chevy block wouldn't fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption. Hopefully these issues have alreasy been addressed of they come out with a sightly thicker phone and uses an international 3G chipset.
It's not. If 99% of the time you're only using voice and text, switching off 3G is useful. It's the same as switching off Wifi, bluetooth or infrared on a phone. If you're not using it, switch it off and you'll save power from functions you don't need.
Where I live there's pockets which are borderline 2G/3G and my phone constantly switches introducing latency. It's often faster switching 3G off entirely and only using the slower non-EDGE 2G signal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: .Mac and Gmail need to offer Push-IMAP which will greatly reduce power consumption, according to to AnandTech's report on the Blackberry's Push-IMAP.
More importantly, Apple needs to open up it's iPhone mail client to use IMAP-IDLE for services other than Yahoo. My mail server does IMAP-IDLE as do most web hosting companies that use cPanel but that's academic because Apple's phone doesn't except to Yahoo.
All the Symbian 9.x phones btw do IMAP-IDLE.
Also, it's not important that you've 3G speeds for IMAP-IDLE since you're just getting very small data packets, it's irrelevant how fast they are, so again, using 2G when doing IMAP-IDLE nets you better battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Once the user-base is established Apple can implement it's own Xserve version of RIM's server based solution without the costly $100/per user licensing fee. What is stopping Apple from competing with RIM on this level?
They've already got IMAP-IDLE, CalDAV and Open Directory. There's a couple of other things like remote wiping of phones but that could actually be possible with something like remote desktop I reckon. I'd be surprised if the next version of Remote Desktop doesn't include iPhone management. Of course it needs to be packaged up for the Microsoft nerds so it bridges in with Exchange. I'd be surprised if Kerio doesn't have something out that does this at some point if Apple doesn't within a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I was under the impression that this happens automatically. When the iPhone is in range of an open WiFi network is auto-switches to the higher bandwidth option.
It does, for data but not voice.
Similarly, a 2G / 3G switch happens invisibly on a phone with both standards in them. If all you're doing is voice though there's little point in anything but 2G.
If you're one of the lucky ones with a provider that is ok with UMA, then there's also phones which will switch 2G/3G/Wifi depending on what is available too so that if you've got free Wifi, you get free voice.
I thought that something like all the top 20 markets had AT&T 3G. Doesn't this already qualify as a majority in terms of population served? Can't the system "fall back" to a slower mode? I don't know how far down the list of cities AT&T is in terms of 3G roll-out, but Sprint has high speed in a local #50 market. My house is outside that coverage, but if it's available, I'd sure like it to be supported.
Well, first off, do understand that it was only my initial argument back then to support EDGE over 3G. Shortly thereafter I realized that it was NOT an 'either-or' thing (as the chipsets in question supported both 3G AND EDGE), and I immediately started arguing that the iPhone should, in fact, be 3G from the get-go. That's when I got jumped on by all the RDFers.
Far as where ATT's 3G coverage is at now, well being in the 'Top 20' markets doesn't mean much as an indicator. Because 1) you'd assume that they build there first anyway, and 2) it doesn't tell you how well they cover said Top 20 markets. There's plenty of large metropolitan markets ATT says it covers with 3G, but the coverage is often not complete... some parts of the city are covered, but not others, and/or the suburbs lack coverage. But as long as there's at least a few 3G towers in the city, ATT can claim to have it 'covered'. \
Far as how many people they cover nationally, its hard to get good figures, I guess because if ATT gets too specific, Sprint and Verizon will use said figures against them, as they are 12 to 18 months ahead of ATT in their own 3G(EVDO) roll-outs.
Best recent guesses I've heard put ATT at around 130 million people in their 3G coverage areas (don't know if that's now, or a 'goal' that they're trying to meet by end-of-year). Meanwhile, Sprint and Verizon both have around 210 million people in their 3G/EVDO coverage areas already, prolly around 230 million by year end.
Even that's not 'awesome' coverage, though... drive out of town and be anywhere but on a major interestate, and you likely won't have 3G, even on EVDO.
To answer another question of yours, yes, if a 3G signal is not present (or is so weak as to be unusable) the phone's chipset usually supports use of 2.5G signal to still do data, albeit much more slowly. It's not 'the system' doing it so much, it's the phone (at least that's my understanding), and it's good that it can, as 2.5G coverage is still quite a bit more pervasive than 3G.
The iPhone development seems to be happening very fast. The price reduction will probably clear all the current inventory by the end of the year. I would not be surprise to see a 3G version at MWSF and also a 16gig version as well.
Bring it on.
A 3G, 16 gig 'iPhone 2.0' will make a great many people, well... cream.
Forgive me, but there's just no other way to say it, really.
I suppose it depends on one's standards. When I said that one of the major things holding back my purchase of the iPhone was the lack of 3G, I received quite a shellacking from those who thought that ATT's EDGE was just fine.
Unless it was simply BS from them, which I can't assume, some people don't find the speed to be too slow.
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Yes Mel, but you have to understand, even in the US, there are plenty of people who don't find EDGE adequate at all (remember David Pogue's 'slow and horrible' quip?), and that's even with our American 'lowered expectations' of 3G, since we've only had it for a very short time.
Now, go over to Europe. The pushback against having EDGE-only on the iPhone increases significantly, because they've had 3G for awhile, and are coming to expect it on their phones, particularly expensive, higher-end phones.
Now, go over to Asia, specifically, Japan and Korea. Try selling a 2.5G iPhone over there. You'll be laughed out of the country.
Trust me, the only real question concerning 3G on the iPhone is, will it happen in a couple of months (for the Euro launch), or in 8-10 months (Asian launch).
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Sigh. I think we've heard that one before. These single data-point observations mean little.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, after having used the iPhone in Boston, Paris, New Hampshire, Vermont, Manhattan, San Francisco, Detroit for over two months now: with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari.
However, I have no idea how that would compare with 3G.
... with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari...
I'll have to agree. Compared to my 1G method of driving home, turning on the computer and searching for a movie.
I suppose I could call Moviefone, but I think it'd take just as long. The iPhone proved to be a real time saver when the topic of going and seeing a movie came up during dinner last night. Fast enough for me and I think I'd rather see extended battery life than a fast-loading, ever important, Facebook page. 3G supposedly sucks down the battery more, correct?
Yes Mel, but you have to understand, even in the US, there are plenty of people who don't find EDGE adequate at all (remember David Pogue's 'slow and horrible' quip?), and that's even with our American 'lowered expectations' of 3G, since we've only had it for a very short time.
Now, go over to Europe. The pushback against having EDGE-only on the iPhone increases significantly, because they've had 3G for awhile, and are coming to expect it on their phones, particularly expensive, higher-end phones.
Now, go over to Asia, specifically, Japan and Korea. Try selling a 2.5G iPhone over there. You'll be laughed out of the country.
Trust me, the only real question concerning 3G on the iPhone is, will it happen in a couple of months (for the Euro launch), or in 8-10 months (Asian launch).
.
I didn't argue any of that. Remember that I'm one of those people you are talking about. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people HERE, who think that EDGE is, if not great, then "fine".As I said earlier, if that weren't true, a lot of people would be taking their phones back pretty quick. That isn't happening.
I'm also sure that not as many people are using the fastest services in Europe as some may think. just because the service is available, doesn't mean that everyone is crowding to get on it. In fact, I remember reading that there was a LOT of resistance to getting those services in Europe because of the expense.
While I'm pretty sure that some of that resistance is less today, there's still a pretty big market for non-3G phones. Look at what we're reading about Orange, for example, they're just now UPGRADING to EDGE! And while we may get someone saying that Orange is just terrible, it doesn't matter. They have lots of customers, as do the other non 3G networks.
I have a feeling that aegisdesign is gonna swoop in and lay the Euro 3G smackdown on ya, Mel.
Anyways, sure, I get what you're sayin'... SOME people are just 'fine' with EDGE. But by the same token, SOME people are not. Would not Apple prefer to sell to BOTH groups of people, rather than just one? A 3G product does that. A 2.5G product does not. Hence, the 3G product is inevitable, and likely sooner rather than later.
Hopefully I'm not preaching to the converted here.
Sigh. I think we've heard that one before. These single data-point observations mean little.
Wrong! They mean a lot. Why? Because as I've said several times before, Apple has now sold close to 1 million iPhones. Not one of them has 3G. How many have come howling back to the stores about how slow the phones are, and they want their money back?
Very few, or we would have heard about a problem there. We haven't.
It's safe to assume, therefore, that the vast majority are at least satisfied enough to live with it, or, like my friend, to not care much about the speed, at least for now.
Every review has said that the weakest part of the phone is EDGE. But, most have also said that is seems to get the job done. That's faint praise, but it's not damnation either.
Quote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, after having used the iPhone in Boston, Paris, New Hampshire, Vermont, Manhattan, San Francisco, Detroit for over two months now: with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari.
However, I have no idea how that would compare with 3G.
I really don't understand why you would disagree with what I've said, because it does agree with you. People don't have to be enthusiastic about the performance, just satisfied, which is what my friend is, and how you seem to be as well.
I have a feeling that aegisdesign is gonna swoop in and lay the Euro 3G smackdown on ya, Mel.
Anyways, sure, I get what you're sayin'... SOME people are just 'fine' with EDGE. But by the same token, SOME people are not. Would not Apple prefer to sell to BOTH groups of people, rather than just one? A 3G product does that. A 2.5G product does not.
Hopefully I'm not preaching to the converted here.
.
I didn't want to point him out, but yes, its likely he will find some numbers somewhere that will seem to show something or other, but not be definitive.
The point I'm making is pretty simple. If 50% are on 3G, that leaves 50% for Apple to prune. Since Apple only expects 1% or so, that gives them plenty of room.
And if people are pretty much the same all over, even some people on 3G will get the phone, switch, and put up with the slower speed, but then will get the faster model when it comes out.
That's all much more likely now that the phone is so much cheaper, even if the 3G model goes up in cost somewhat.
Wrong! They mean a lot. Why? Because as I've said several times before, Apple has now sold close to 1 million iPhones. Not one of them has 3G. How many have come howling back to the stores about how slow the phones are, and they want their money back?
Very few, or we would have heard about a problem there. We haven't.
It's safe to assume, therefore, that the vast majority are at least satisfied enough to live with it, or, like my friend, to not care much about the speed, at least for now.
Every review has said that the weakest part of the phone is EDGE. But, most have also said that is seems to get the job done. That's faint praise, but it's not damnation either.
The problem with any "they're doing well, so everything must be peachy" statement is that it never takes into account that the party in question could be doing EVEN BETTER.
So Apple has sold nearly 1 million iPhones. That's great. But how many would they have sold had they been 3G? 1.2 million? 1.5? It's hard to gauge, but it's not a stretch to say that a significant number of people took a pass on 'iPhone 1.0', largely due to the lack of 3G. \
You yourself are such a person, as you've admitted. So am I (though for me it's also the 'ATT-exclusive' thing).
And there's going to be significantly more such people once the iPhone launches in Europe. Asia? Suicide without 3G, plain and simple.
And Apple obviously cares about things like doing 'even better' with iPhone sales, as the big price cut shows. As Steve himself said, "We really wanted to 'go for it' for the holiday season."
3G, sooner rather than later, would be another way to 'go for it', as well.
The problem with any "they're doing well, so everything must be peachy" statement is that it never takes into account that the party in question could be doing EVEN BETTER.
So Apple has sold nearly 1 million iPhones. That's great. But how many would they have sold had they been 3G? 1.2 million? 1.5? It's hard to gauge, but it's not a stretch to say that a significant number of people took a pass on 'iPhone 1.0', largely due to the lack of 3G. \
You yourself are such a person, as you've admitted. So am I (though for me it's also the 'ATT-exclusive' thing).
And there's going to be significantly more such people once the iPhone launches in Europe. Asia? Suicide without 3G, plain and simple.
And Apple obviously cares about things like doing 'even better' with iPhone sales, as the big price cut shows. As Steve himself said, "We really wanted to 'go for it' for the holiday season."
3G, sooner rather than later, would be another way to 'go for it', as well.
.
My point isn't that they wouldn't be doing better, as long as the price was the same, of course, I assume that they would be doing better.
The discussion we've been having, or at least I thought it was, was that there are people perfectly happy with the slower service, not that there aren't others, such as myself, who wouldn't be.
I've said, in every discussion we've had about the iPhone that I and OTHERS, are waiting for a 3G version.
And substantive, and hopefully official, support for third party apps.
Comments
This was misinformation from Apple and you believed it. The SE W880i proves otherwise. In fact most European and Asian 3G phones today prove it.
I suppose it depends on one's standards. When I said that one of the major things holding back my purchase of the iPhone was the lack of 3G, I received quite a shellacking from those who thought that ATT's EDGE was just fine.
Unless it was simply BS from them, which I can't assume, some people don't find the speed to be too slow.
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Yeah, I know... in fact, I was making that particular argument before almost anybody here. The argument was to take EDGE over 3G because EDGE, while damn slow, was nearly everywhere. ATT's 3G coverage was poor. So let's benefit the majority.
I thought that something like all the top 20 markets had AT&T 3G. Doesn't this already qualify as a majority in terms of population served? Can't the system "fall back" to a slower mode? I don't know how far down the list of cities AT&T is in terms of 3G roll-out, but Sprint has high speed in a local #50 market. My house is outside that coverage, but if it's available, I'd sure like it to be supported.
We have had this argument before and you just dont get the point!!
Okay, I see your point on data cost and diminutive size and resolution of the phone displays. May I suggest everyone in the EU buying an iPhone; it would surely help my stock. :-)
You can bet the iPhone has stuck a fire under SE and Nokia's belly.
I'm glad to see other manufacturers and carriers seeing the iPhone as a threat now.
All the negatives though are fairy tales.
Size - There are phones much smaller eg. SE W880i than the iPhone with 3G already. The very bad comparison used as a negative was the comparison between a Qualcomm chipset CDMA phone and the iPhone.
Battery - It's only a significant negative if the 3G aspect is being used. If it drops back the 2G then it powers down. If you've switched 3G off, as you can in many other phones, the battery lasts as long as 2G.
Price - the iPhone was already hugely expensive as it turned out.
Availability of 3G - temporary. It would be a negative that gets less and less over time to the point that not having 3G would become a bigger negative.
Have younot checked out Ananadtech's brekdown of the difference in chip sies and power consumption issues associated with using 3G? It adds quite a lot of space. The WiFi was unbelievably small and used much less power than EDGE, just as a reference.
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption. Hopefully these issues have alreasy been addressed of they come out with a sightly thicker phone and uses an international 3G chipset.
PS: .Mac and Gmail need to offer Push-IMAP which will greatly reduce power consumption, according to to AnandTech's report on the Blackberry's Push-IMAP.
I think that for Apple's best long-term prospects announcing a 3G iPhone in October for a European (where Europe = France/Germany/UK) launch in October/November is the best move.
What they'd do is also talk about the other improved aspects (better camera, 16GB of storage I imagine) and then say oh and it's also coming to the States say December (with the different UMTS bands, of course). I don't know how long the FCC takes, though it's not 6 months, so I don't know when Apple has to submit it to the FCC to get it back for an early December launch.
It's starting to appear to me that Job's plan is to keep releasing new phones to incrase the marketshare well beyond what was initially expected by cinsumers. How long did we wait for a "true" video IPod?
The more updates that are released in concession, even at cutting costs since the carrier dues make upa consider amount of Apple;s profit so the "hawrdware company" misnomer no longer applies with the iPhon, The more saturated the market will be and the more iPhone uses Apple will have the more chance for Apple to repeat its iPod monopoly.
How many more Mac will be sold due to satisfied iPhone owners? It seems likely that the iPhone will be the best selling high-end phone for many months to come.
Once the user-base is established Apple can implement it's own Xserve version of RIM's server based solution without the costly $100/per user licensing fee. What is stopping Apple from competing with RIM on this level? Now that iWork '08 has been released there seems to be nothing keeping Apple from syncing with Exchange while convincing it's new business partners that Xserve can do the same thing at a fraction of licensing and IT cost.
The "experts" said Apple can't possibly compete in the cell market. Job's seems to be very focused on proving them wrong.
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption.
It would be handy if the phone could drop back to 2G when just making a call! And thereby save power. ie. it would be good if the phone only went up to 3G when a 3G-based function was used.
I had a 3G phone in the UK before my current one and went back to 2G with my latest as the battery life was so much lower with 3G than 2G. To the point of being quite irritating, having to remember to charge it so frequently. I can see the heavy data usage of the iPhone though makes 3G highly desirable!
It would be handy if the phone could drop back to 2G when just making a call! And thereby save power. ie. it would be good if the phone only went up to 3G when a 3G-based function was used.
I had a 3G phone in the UK before my current one and went back to 2G with my latest as the battery life was so much lower with 3G than 2G. To the point of being quite irritating, having to remember to charge it so frequently. I can see the heavy data usage of the iPhone though makes 3G highly desirable!
I was under the impression that this happens automatically. When the iPhone is in range of an open WiFi network is auto-switches to the higher bandwidth option.
3G iPhone coming soon!, MSWF 2008?
It could happen.
The iPhone development seems to be happening very fast. The price reduction will probably clear all the current inventory by the end of the year. I would not be surprise to see a 3G version at MWSF and also a 16gig version as well.
Bring it on.
Have younot checked out Ananadtech's brekdown of the difference in chip sies and power consumption issues associated with using 3G? It adds quite a lot of space. The WiFi was unbelievably small and used much less power than EDGE, just as a reference.
I have. That's the example I'm talking about. It was a very bad example because they used the Qualcomm CDMA 3G chipset as a comparison. It's massive and power hungry and wouldn't ever be used in an iPhone. UMTS chips aren't as big and hungry and they're usually a combined 2G/3G chip. UMTS also doesn't require a huge aerial. Anandtech's whole premise in that article was just totally off base.
It was the equivalent of saying Smart Cars couldn't offer a diesel version in the US because a 3.5l Chevy block wouldn't fit.
The argument that you can turn off 3G to save power is a poor argument. Why have the tech if you really can't use it do to power consumption. Hopefully these issues have alreasy been addressed of they come out with a sightly thicker phone and uses an international 3G chipset.
It's not. If 99% of the time you're only using voice and text, switching off 3G is useful. It's the same as switching off Wifi, bluetooth or infrared on a phone. If you're not using it, switch it off and you'll save power from functions you don't need.
Where I live there's pockets which are borderline 2G/3G and my phone constantly switches introducing latency. It's often faster switching 3G off entirely and only using the slower non-EDGE 2G signal.
PS: .Mac and Gmail need to offer Push-IMAP which will greatly reduce power consumption, according to to AnandTech's report on the Blackberry's Push-IMAP.
More importantly, Apple needs to open up it's iPhone mail client to use IMAP-IDLE for services other than Yahoo. My mail server does IMAP-IDLE as do most web hosting companies that use cPanel but that's academic because Apple's phone doesn't except to Yahoo.
All the Symbian 9.x phones btw do IMAP-IDLE.
Also, it's not important that you've 3G speeds for IMAP-IDLE since you're just getting very small data packets, it's irrelevant how fast they are, so again, using 2G when doing IMAP-IDLE nets you better battery life.
Once the user-base is established Apple can implement it's own Xserve version of RIM's server based solution without the costly $100/per user licensing fee. What is stopping Apple from competing with RIM on this level?
They've already got IMAP-IDLE, CalDAV and Open Directory. There's a couple of other things like remote wiping of phones but that could actually be possible with something like remote desktop I reckon. I'd be surprised if the next version of Remote Desktop doesn't include iPhone management. Of course it needs to be packaged up for the Microsoft nerds so it bridges in with Exchange. I'd be surprised if Kerio doesn't have something out that does this at some point if Apple doesn't within a year.
I was under the impression that this happens automatically. When the iPhone is in range of an open WiFi network is auto-switches to the higher bandwidth option.
It does, for data but not voice.
Similarly, a 2G / 3G switch happens invisibly on a phone with both standards in them. If all you're doing is voice though there's little point in anything but 2G.
If you're one of the lucky ones with a provider that is ok with UMA, then there's also phones which will switch 2G/3G/Wifi depending on what is available too so that if you've got free Wifi, you get free voice.
I thought that something like all the top 20 markets had AT&T 3G. Doesn't this already qualify as a majority in terms of population served? Can't the system "fall back" to a slower mode? I don't know how far down the list of cities AT&T is in terms of 3G roll-out, but Sprint has high speed in a local #50 market. My house is outside that coverage, but if it's available, I'd sure like it to be supported.
Well, first off, do understand that it was only my initial argument back then to support EDGE over 3G. Shortly thereafter I realized that it was NOT an 'either-or' thing (as the chipsets in question supported both 3G AND EDGE), and I immediately started arguing that the iPhone should, in fact, be 3G from the get-go. That's when I got jumped on by all the RDFers.
Far as where ATT's 3G coverage is at now, well being in the 'Top 20' markets doesn't mean much as an indicator. Because 1) you'd assume that they build there first anyway, and 2) it doesn't tell you how well they cover said Top 20 markets. There's plenty of large metropolitan markets ATT says it covers with 3G, but the coverage is often not complete... some parts of the city are covered, but not others, and/or the suburbs lack coverage. But as long as there's at least a few 3G towers in the city, ATT can claim to have it 'covered'.
Far as how many people they cover nationally, its hard to get good figures, I guess because if ATT gets too specific, Sprint and Verizon will use said figures against them, as they are 12 to 18 months ahead of ATT in their own 3G(EVDO) roll-outs.
Best recent guesses I've heard put ATT at around 130 million people in their 3G coverage areas (don't know if that's now, or a 'goal' that they're trying to meet by end-of-year). Meanwhile, Sprint and Verizon both have around 210 million people in their 3G/EVDO coverage areas already, prolly around 230 million by year end.
Even that's not 'awesome' coverage, though... drive out of town and be anywhere but on a major interestate, and you likely won't have 3G, even on EVDO.
To answer another question of yours, yes, if a 3G signal is not present (or is so weak as to be unusable) the phone's chipset usually supports use of 2.5G signal to still do data, albeit much more slowly. It's not 'the system' doing it so much, it's the phone (at least that's my understanding), and it's good that it can, as 2.5G coverage is still quite a bit more pervasive than 3G.
.
It could happen.
The iPhone development seems to be happening very fast. The price reduction will probably clear all the current inventory by the end of the year. I would not be surprise to see a 3G version at MWSF and also a 16gig version as well.
Bring it on.
A 3G, 16 gig 'iPhone 2.0' will make a great many people, well... cream.
Forgive me, but there's just no other way to say it, really.
(This forum mentally scars me, at times.)
.
I suppose it depends on one's standards. When I said that one of the major things holding back my purchase of the iPhone was the lack of 3G, I received quite a shellacking from those who thought that ATT's EDGE was just fine.
Unless it was simply BS from them, which I can't assume, some people don't find the speed to be too slow.
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Yes Mel, but you have to understand, even in the US, there are plenty of people who don't find EDGE adequate at all (remember David Pogue's 'slow and horrible' quip?), and that's even with our American 'lowered expectations' of 3G, since we've only had it for a very short time.
Now, go over to Europe. The pushback against having EDGE-only on the iPhone increases significantly, because they've had 3G for awhile, and are coming to expect it on their phones, particularly expensive, higher-end phones.
Now, go over to Asia, specifically, Japan and Korea. Try selling a 2.5G iPhone over there. You'll be laughed out of the country.
Trust me, the only real question concerning 3G on the iPhone is, will it happen in a couple of months (for the Euro launch), or in 8-10 months (Asian launch).
.
One friend who has the iPhone, and with whom I've made some download speed tests, thinks it's "ok". When we did the tests, and my Treo brought up the pages two to three times faster, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "whatever".
Sigh. I think we've heard that one before. These single data-point observations mean little.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, after having used the iPhone in Boston, Paris, New Hampshire, Vermont, Manhattan, San Francisco, Detroit for over two months now: with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari.
However, I have no idea how that would compare with 3G.
... with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari...
I'll have to agree. Compared to my 1G method of driving home, turning on the computer and searching for a movie.
I suppose I could call Moviefone, but I think it'd take just as long. The iPhone proved to be a real time saver when the topic of going and seeing a movie came up during dinner last night. Fast enough for me and I think I'd rather see extended battery life than a fast-loading, ever important, Facebook page. 3G supposedly sucks down the battery more, correct?
Yes Mel, but you have to understand, even in the US, there are plenty of people who don't find EDGE adequate at all (remember David Pogue's 'slow and horrible' quip?), and that's even with our American 'lowered expectations' of 3G, since we've only had it for a very short time.
Now, go over to Europe. The pushback against having EDGE-only on the iPhone increases significantly, because they've had 3G for awhile, and are coming to expect it on their phones, particularly expensive, higher-end phones.
Now, go over to Asia, specifically, Japan and Korea. Try selling a 2.5G iPhone over there. You'll be laughed out of the country.
Trust me, the only real question concerning 3G on the iPhone is, will it happen in a couple of months (for the Euro launch), or in 8-10 months (Asian launch).
.
I didn't argue any of that. Remember that I'm one of those people you are talking about. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people HERE, who think that EDGE is, if not great, then "fine".As I said earlier, if that weren't true, a lot of people would be taking their phones back pretty quick. That isn't happening.
I'm also sure that not as many people are using the fastest services in Europe as some may think. just because the service is available, doesn't mean that everyone is crowding to get on it. In fact, I remember reading that there was a LOT of resistance to getting those services in Europe because of the expense.
While I'm pretty sure that some of that resistance is less today, there's still a pretty big market for non-3G phones. Look at what we're reading about Orange, for example, they're just now UPGRADING to EDGE! And while we may get someone saying that Orange is just terrible, it doesn't matter. They have lots of customers, as do the other non 3G networks.
Anyways, sure, I get what you're sayin'... SOME people are just 'fine' with EDGE. But by the same token, SOME people are not. Would not Apple prefer to sell to BOTH groups of people, rather than just one? A 3G product does that. A 2.5G product does not. Hence, the 3G product is inevitable, and likely sooner rather than later.
Hopefully I'm not preaching to the converted here.
.
Sigh. I think we've heard that one before. These single data-point observations mean little.
Wrong! They mean a lot. Why? Because as I've said several times before, Apple has now sold close to 1 million iPhones. Not one of them has 3G. How many have come howling back to the stores about how slow the phones are, and they want their money back?
Very few, or we would have heard about a problem there. We haven't.
It's safe to assume, therefore, that the vast majority are at least satisfied enough to live with it, or, like my friend, to not care much about the speed, at least for now.
Every review has said that the weakest part of the phone is EDGE. But, most have also said that is seems to get the job done. That's faint praise, but it's not damnation either.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, after having used the iPhone in Boston, Paris, New Hampshire, Vermont, Manhattan, San Francisco, Detroit for over two months now: with 3 bars or more, EDGE/GPRS is absolutely fine for email, stocks, maps (slightly slower on satellite view), and weather. With 5 bars, it is absolutely fine for Youtube and Safari.
However, I have no idea how that would compare with 3G.
I really don't understand why you would disagree with what I've said, because it does agree with you. People don't have to be enthusiastic about the performance, just satisfied, which is what my friend is, and how you seem to be as well.
What is your problem with that?
I have a feeling that aegisdesign is gonna swoop in and lay the Euro 3G smackdown on ya, Mel.
Anyways, sure, I get what you're sayin'... SOME people are just 'fine' with EDGE. But by the same token, SOME people are not. Would not Apple prefer to sell to BOTH groups of people, rather than just one? A 3G product does that. A 2.5G product does not.
Hopefully I'm not preaching to the converted here.
.
I didn't want to point him out, but yes, its likely he will find some numbers somewhere that will seem to show something or other, but not be definitive.
The point I'm making is pretty simple. If 50% are on 3G, that leaves 50% for Apple to prune. Since Apple only expects 1% or so, that gives them plenty of room.
And if people are pretty much the same all over, even some people on 3G will get the phone, switch, and put up with the slower speed, but then will get the faster model when it comes out.
That's all much more likely now that the phone is so much cheaper, even if the 3G model goes up in cost somewhat.
Well, I'm waiting for 3G.
A 3G, 16 gig 'iPhone 2.0' will make a great many people, well... cream.
.
Wrong! They mean a lot. Why? Because as I've said several times before, Apple has now sold close to 1 million iPhones. Not one of them has 3G. How many have come howling back to the stores about how slow the phones are, and they want their money back?
Very few, or we would have heard about a problem there. We haven't.
It's safe to assume, therefore, that the vast majority are at least satisfied enough to live with it, or, like my friend, to not care much about the speed, at least for now.
Every review has said that the weakest part of the phone is EDGE. But, most have also said that is seems to get the job done. That's faint praise, but it's not damnation either.
The problem with any "they're doing well, so everything must be peachy" statement is that it never takes into account that the party in question could be doing EVEN BETTER.
So Apple has sold nearly 1 million iPhones. That's great. But how many would they have sold had they been 3G? 1.2 million? 1.5? It's hard to gauge, but it's not a stretch to say that a significant number of people took a pass on 'iPhone 1.0', largely due to the lack of 3G.
You yourself are such a person, as you've admitted. So am I (though for me it's also the 'ATT-exclusive' thing).
And there's going to be significantly more such people once the iPhone launches in Europe. Asia? Suicide without 3G, plain and simple.
And Apple obviously cares about things like doing 'even better' with iPhone sales, as the big price cut shows. As Steve himself said, "We really wanted to 'go for it' for the holiday season."
3G, sooner rather than later, would be another way to 'go for it', as well.
.
The problem with any "they're doing well, so everything must be peachy" statement is that it never takes into account that the party in question could be doing EVEN BETTER.
So Apple has sold nearly 1 million iPhones. That's great. But how many would they have sold had they been 3G? 1.2 million? 1.5? It's hard to gauge, but it's not a stretch to say that a significant number of people took a pass on 'iPhone 1.0', largely due to the lack of 3G.
You yourself are such a person, as you've admitted. So am I (though for me it's also the 'ATT-exclusive' thing).
And there's going to be significantly more such people once the iPhone launches in Europe. Asia? Suicide without 3G, plain and simple.
And Apple obviously cares about things like doing 'even better' with iPhone sales, as the big price cut shows. As Steve himself said, "We really wanted to 'go for it' for the holiday season."
3G, sooner rather than later, would be another way to 'go for it', as well.
.
My point isn't that they wouldn't be doing better, as long as the price was the same, of course, I assume that they would be doing better.
The discussion we've been having, or at least I thought it was, was that there are people perfectly happy with the slower service, not that there aren't others, such as myself, who wouldn't be.
I've said, in every discussion we've had about the iPhone that I and OTHERS, are waiting for a 3G version.
And substantive, and hopefully official, support for third party apps.
A 3G, 16 gig 'iPhone 2.0' will make a great many people, well... cream.
We who are about to cream, salute you.
Ask not if your country can cream for you, but if you can cream for your country.
One small cream for man, one giant cream for mankind.
Cream me up, Scotty.
We have nothing to fear, but cream itself.
... okay, this is gettin' out of hand! Oh! Another one! Buh-dump-bump!
.