As an owner of the iPhone I would say 3G isn't absolutely necessary for satisfactory use of the phone. But this isn't new information, Jobs said the iPhone would eventually get 3G from the beginning. 3G will be a nice addition once it does not make the phone larger or draw too much battery power.
I have to agree as an iPhone owner as well. I think the current iPhone is by far the best phone on he market bar none, and that in turn is why I will be buying a 3G version the day they come out (again), but there is not a darn thing to complain about with the current model. I don't find edge too slow by any means for what the current iPhone has to offer, and it's the finest piece of hardware available in it's class and beyond.
I'm not sure how many 3G cards are available right now, though I know there are a few. It's the phone companies that limit this with the high monthly charges. Until they go down, the interest will be low for anyone except professionals, or business people, who really need it. Just "wanting it isn't often an excuse for paying for it.
The 3G port on my MBP is a USB port. I pay Vodafone UK £25/month for unlimited access at HSPDA speeds, via an external Huawei USB modem (the modem alone is about £100 I think, but it came with the 12 month contract).
Although, I might be one of those professionals or business people that really need it, that you mentioned.
I can't see any case for building it into the laptop though, the 3G tech rollout is way faster than most people's notebook refresh cycle - HSUPA soon, followed by higher download speeds - I can't imagine I'll be using the same 3.6 MBps USB modem by the time I replace my year-old MBP in three or four years.
Random, but my main point is that 3G access for mobiles is here and works fine without being built into the computers.
The 3G port on my MBP is a USB port. I pay Vodafone UK £25/month for unlimited access at HSPDA speeds, via an external Huawei USB modem (the modem alone is about £100 I think, but it came with the 12 month contract).
Although, I might be one of those professionals or business people that really need it, that you mentioned.
I can't see any case for building it into the laptop though, the 3G tech rollout is way faster than most people's notebook refresh cycle - HSUPA soon, followed by higher download speeds - I can't imagine I'll be using the same 3.6 MBps USB modem by the time I replace my year-old MBP in three or four years.
Random, but my main point is that 3G access for mobiles is here and works fine without being built into the computers.
Not being very well versed in this technology, is this 3G technology a software solution that can be pushed to existing iPhones, or is this the driving new feature for the 2nd gen of the iPhone? And maybe part of the price cut, that the new version is on the near-term horizon.
Not being very well versed in this technology, is this 3G technology a software solution that can be pushed to existing iPhones, or is this the driving new feature for the 2nd gen of the iPhone? And maybe part of the price cut, that the new version is on the near-term horizon.
It doesn't look as though, from the breakdowns that we've seen, that there is 3G hardware in the phone now, so it will require a new model.
Thanks. The price break made me start thinking more about an iPhone, but I will more than likely just wait for iPhone v.2. For me, the iPhone really will be more of a luxury, so I don't mind waiting so a significant improvement (3G). If I lived in a major downtown area with lots of WiFi hotspots, maybe things would be different for me.
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.
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
Quote:
Flash looks like a no go.
Looks as though Flash is moving to support the iPhone more than the iPhone moving to support Flash. Flash will support h.264. All I really want is Flash video, I don't care about the rest.
Quote:
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 can agree with that. I wouldn't go so far as to say EDGE is great. It works. But you can clearly see the difference once the phone finds a WiFi signal.
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
Anandtech used a CDMA EV-DO 3G chipset. UMTS chipsets, by dint of higher adoption and more investment (the first UMTS type network went live in 2001, in Japan), are considerably better on size, cost, and power consumption.
I am outraged. As if dropping the price of the iPhone were not enough, now they are adding features! What next? A new model? How can Apple treat us this way? We buy products and then they build better ones! Outrageous.
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
I like Anandtech very much, but their experience with 3G cutting talk times in HALF sure doesn't match mine.
For awhile now, I've been going into the service menus and shutting off 3G(EVDO) on my CDMA phones when I don't need it, in order to wring out a little extra battery life. It helps a small amount, but nowhere near a factor of two.
I kinda almost wish it did... then I'd get almost 8 hours of talk time on my current Verizon phone.
Instead, I'd put the difference I've observed on the cusp of 'hard to notice'... maybe 10%, if that.
It's possible that the difference between what I've experienced and what Anandtech saw is due to being on a different technology. I don't believe that EVDO Rev0 (which is what my phone is) can do voice and data simultaneously, so perhaps the 3G chip isn't 'fired up and ready to go' continually during voice calls as it may be on an HSDPA-type 3G device, which can do voice and data simo. Electric Monk may have some insights there.
Still, I gotta stress that, in my direct experience, 3G has never been a talk time killer. Sometimes I just leave it on, 'cuz it doesn't really make much of a difference. *shrug*
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.
It *was* expensive and the coverage wasn't great either outside the main cities but it's been gradually getting cheaper and better. In the last year it's changed a lot.
The phone companies were betting on recouping money from their 3G spectrum purchase by trying to sell us expensive video clips of football goals and other such shite. Or video calls between 3G users - but most people hate photos of themselves never mind sending a video of their face in close up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
No, Orange in the UK at least have been one of the good guys with EDGE support. They usually push faster data comms ahead of others. Unfortunately they also charge you a lot too.
T-Mobile apparently now have a decent EDGE network. O2 apparently is adding them now so rumours say and I've no idea about Vodafone although from the sounds of it with today's announcement of their own music service, I'd say "who cares".
Most carriers went to 3G since it's easy to implement 99% coverage in a small island like the UK. EDGE was seen as unnecessary so they didn't bother. Typically we have a choice of 3G or old non-EDGE GPRS.
The only market for non-3G phones is for phones that don't see any more use than voice and text and maybe MMS. I can't see that many people buying an iPhone to use just as voice and text (no MMS remember) and with 3G being available almost everywhere and a 2 year contract you'd be pretty mad to buy a non-3G phone.
It's like buying an analogue modem when your town has broadband already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I have a feeling that aegisdesign is gonna swoop in and lay the Euro 3G smackdown on ya, Mel.
Oops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
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.
Exactly. a 3G phone sells to everyone even if half of them don't use it yet. And I say 'yet' because even in the US you can bet you're going to come into 3G in the next 2 years I'd have thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
I'm sure there are people like that, that will put up with slower speeds or even not care or think about data speeds at all but round here 3G coverage is nearer 100% of the population than 50% so we expect it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The Blackjack Anand is using is on AT&T so it must be a UMTS chipset
GSM/EDGE in the case of the iPhone's motherboard (left) and GSM/EDGE/UMTS in the case of the Blackjack's motherboard (right).
That's the motherboard comparison. The problem is, Anand lumped all the red chips in as being the same as the purple ones on the iPhone which is not the case.
Here's the full iPhone motherboard...
Anand seemed to forget the main board. The Blackjack uses a 133Mhz MSM6275 chip and supporting chipset. It's about 4 years old.
No, Orange in the UK at least have been one of the good guys with EDGE support. They usually push faster data comms ahead of others. Unfortunately they also charge you a lot too.
T-Mobile apparently now have a decent EDGE network. O2 apparently is adding them now so rumours say and I've no idea about Vodafone although from the sounds of it with today's announcement of their own music service, I'd say "who cares".
I seem to have done what I usually do, which is to confuse Orange with O2 (They both start with "O", you see.)
The Blackjack Anand is using is on AT&T so it must be a UMTS chipset
GSM/EDGE in the case of the iPhone's motherboard (left) and GSM/EDGE/UMTS in the case of the Blackjack's motherboard (right).
That's a bloody big UMTS chipset then. Perhaps the 2100 MHz chipsets are better than the 850/1900 MHz ones. Or perhaps it's just an old phone, and the chipsets are a lot better these days. My bad, anyway. I was too lazy to read the whole article all over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
For awhile now, I've been going into the service menus and shutting off 3G(EVDO) on my CDMA phones when I don't need it, in order to wring out a little extra battery life. It helps a small amount, but nowhere near a factor of two.
Instead, I'd put the difference I've observed on the cusp of 'hard to notice'... maybe 10%, if that.
I don't believe that EVDO Rev0 (which is what my phone is) can do voice and data simultaneously, so perhaps the 3G chip isn't 'fired up and ready to go' continually during voice calls as it may be on an HSDPA-type 3G device, which can do voice and data simo. Electric Monk may have some insights there.
Yeah Rev 0 can't handle voice/data at the same time. I'm unsure if Rev 0 is used for voice (more bandwidth = better call quality) as CDMA sounds pretty good as it is.
However UMTS is used for voice because it sounds a lot better than GSM. Even so it's no more than a 30% hit on battery, and that's operating purely on a UMTS network with no GSM fall back (i.e. Japan).
So is it likely then that Samsung used some pretty OLD components for the Blackjack?
In the early days of 3G, the chips were indeed very power-hungry, and talk times were indeed bad. But those chips have steadily improved since then, and power consumption/talk time along with them.
Not saying there still isn't a battery life hit with 3G, just that it's nowhere like what it used to be.
So is it likely then that Samsung used some pretty OLD components for the Blackjack?
In the early days of 3G, the chips were indeed very power-hungry, and talk times were indeed bad. But those chips have steadily improved since then, and power consumption/talk time along with them.
Not saying there still isn't a battery life hit with 3G, just that it's nowhere like what it used to be.
.
I think the main difference is that 2100 MHz UMTS chipsets have been in commercial use since 2001 (when NTT DoCoMo's FOMA network went live in Japan).
Conversely although a 1900MHz network went live by the end of 2004 in the States AT&T promptly decided to also deploy 850MHz towers and never released 1900MHz only handsets.
Just as the first 2100MHz chipsets were massive and power hungry, so were the first dual-band UMTS chipsets (for 850/1900MHz) and they're at least 3 years of commercial deployment behind the trend.
Obviously a lot of development work on single band chipsets can be applied to dual and tri band chipsets, but I'd wager they remain anywhere from a year behind (for tri band) to maybe six months behind (dual band) on size/power consumption.
That said the amount of development dollars is probably staggering for dual band chipsets as the American market is a big one and rapidly expanding in (UMTS) 3G coverage so this is a fairly transitory state of affairs.
That's a bloody big UMTS chipset then. Perhaps the 2100 MHz chipsets are better than the 850/1900 MHz ones. Or perhaps it's just an old phone, and the chipsets are a lot better these days. My bad, anyway. I was too lazy to read the whole article all over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
So is it likely then that Samsung used some pretty OLD components for the Blackjack?
From the Anand picture, the Blackjack is using a mix of chips from Qualcomm. The largest of which is an MSM6275 and the equivalent of Apple's custom ARM9 CPU which is used as both multimedia processor and modem. Then there's two 6250 tranceiver/receivers, some amplifiers and I think a 2G chip too top right. Lastly Samsung appear to have a separate CPU - a Ti OMAP.
Apple on the other hand seem to have integrated what would be the MSM6275 and the OMAP into one chip. Samsung's design is basically using off the shelf parts whereas Apple have integrated more.
All of Samsungs chips date back to 2004 / 2005 vintage. The Blackjack is an ancient design. They are however lumbered with that kind of design in order to run Windows Mobile which demands it's own CPU unlike say Symbian which can run the radio stack on the same CPU without issues and therefore runs at half the power consumption. It's difficult to say what Apple are doing but I'd hope they've paid attention to Symbian and realised that they're heading for single chip solutions across the board so that they can take Symbian down to cheap phones as well as smartphones whilst making them less power hungry.
Edit: Of course I think Apple know exactly what Symbian is about, more so than probably Symbian do, since at least two of Psion's engineers work at Apple including David Tupman and Ken McAlpine.
From the Anand picture, the Blackjack is using a mix of chips from Qualcomm. The largest of which is an MSM6275 and the equivalent of Apple's custom ARM9 CPU which is used as both multimedia processor and modem. Then there's two 6250 tranceiver/receivers, some amplifiers and I think a 2G chip too top right. Lastly Samsung appear to have a separate CPU - a Ti OMAP.
Apple on the other hand seem to have integrated what would be the MSM6275 and the OMAP into one chip. Samsung's design is basically using off the shelf parts whereas Apple have integrated more.
All of Samsungs chips date back to 2004 / 2005 vintage. The Blackjack is an ancient design. They are however lumbered with that kind of design in order to run Windows Mobile which demands it's own CPU unlike say Symbian which can run the radio stack on the same CPU without issues and therefore runs at half the power consumption. It's difficult to say what Apple are doing but I'd hope they've paid attention to Symbian and realised that they're heading for single chip solutions across the board so that they can take Symbian down to cheap phones as well as smartphones whilst making them less power hungry.
Edit: Of course I think Apple know exactly what Symbian is about, more so than probably Symbian do, since at least two of Psion's engineers work at Apple including David Tupman and Ken McAlpine.
Comments
As an owner of the iPhone I would say 3G isn't absolutely necessary for satisfactory use of the phone. But this isn't new information, Jobs said the iPhone would eventually get 3G from the beginning. 3G will be a nice addition once it does not make the phone larger or draw too much battery power.
I have to agree as an iPhone owner as well. I think the current iPhone is by far the best phone on he market bar none, and that in turn is why I will be buying a 3G version the day they come out (again), but there is not a darn thing to complain about with the current model. I don't find edge too slow by any means for what the current iPhone has to offer, and it's the finest piece of hardware available in it's class and beyond.
I'm not sure how many 3G cards are available right now, though I know there are a few. It's the phone companies that limit this with the high monthly charges. Until they go down, the interest will be low for anyone except professionals, or business people, who really need it. Just "wanting it isn't often an excuse for paying for it.
The 3G port on my MBP is a USB port. I pay Vodafone UK £25/month for unlimited access at HSPDA speeds, via an external Huawei USB modem (the modem alone is about £100 I think, but it came with the 12 month contract).
Although, I might be one of those professionals or business people that really need it, that you mentioned.
I can't see any case for building it into the laptop though, the 3G tech rollout is way faster than most people's notebook refresh cycle - HSUPA soon, followed by higher download speeds - I can't imagine I'll be using the same 3.6 MBps USB modem by the time I replace my year-old MBP in three or four years.
Random, but my main point is that 3G access for mobiles is here and works fine without being built into the computers.
Cheers,
Martin.
The 3G port on my MBP is a USB port. I pay Vodafone UK £25/month for unlimited access at HSPDA speeds, via an external Huawei USB modem (the modem alone is about £100 I think, but it came with the 12 month contract).
Although, I might be one of those professionals or business people that really need it, that you mentioned.
I can't see any case for building it into the laptop though, the 3G tech rollout is way faster than most people's notebook refresh cycle - HSUPA soon, followed by higher download speeds - I can't imagine I'll be using the same 3.6 MBps USB modem by the time I replace my year-old MBP in three or four years.
Random, but my main point is that 3G access for mobiles is here and works fine without being built into the computers.
Cheers,
Martin.
Agreed!
Not being very well versed in this technology, is this 3G technology a software solution that can be pushed to existing iPhones, or is this the driving new feature for the 2nd gen of the iPhone? And maybe part of the price cut, that the new version is on the near-term horizon.
It doesn't look as though, from the breakdowns that we've seen, that there is 3G hardware in the phone now, so it will require a new model.
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.
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
Flash looks like a no go.
Looks as though Flash is moving to support the iPhone more than the iPhone moving to support Flash. Flash will support h.264. All I really want is Flash video, I don't care about the rest.
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 can agree with that. I wouldn't go so far as to say EDGE is great. It works. But you can clearly see the difference once the phone finds a WiFi signal.
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
Anandtech used a CDMA EV-DO 3G chipset. UMTS chipsets, by dint of higher adoption and more investment (the first UMTS type network went live in 2001, in Japan), are considerably better on size, cost, and power consumption.
GSM/EDGE in the case of the iPhone's motherboard (left) and GSM/EDGE/UMTS in the case of the Blackjack's motherboard (right).
I am outraged. As if dropping the price of the iPhone were not enough, now they are adding features! What next? A new model? How can Apple treat us this way? We buy products and then they build better ones! Outrageous.
lol, had me there for a moment ...
Admittedly I don't know much about 3G chips but I would imagine they are not all the same.
Anandtech whom has been very critical of Apple published a story about 3G chips that he believed Apple's story.
I like Anandtech very much, but their experience with 3G cutting talk times in HALF sure doesn't match mine.
For awhile now, I've been going into the service menus and shutting off 3G(EVDO) on my CDMA phones when I don't need it, in order to wring out a little extra battery life. It helps a small amount, but nowhere near a factor of two.
I kinda almost wish it did... then I'd get almost 8 hours of talk time on my current Verizon phone.
Instead, I'd put the difference I've observed on the cusp of 'hard to notice'... maybe 10%, if that.
It's possible that the difference between what I've experienced and what Anandtech saw is due to being on a different technology. I don't believe that EVDO Rev0 (which is what my phone is) can do voice and data simultaneously, so perhaps the 3G chip isn't 'fired up and ready to go' continually during voice calls as it may be on an HSDPA-type 3G device, which can do voice and data simo. Electric Monk may have some insights there.
Still, I gotta stress that, in my direct experience, 3G has never been a talk time killer. Sometimes I just leave it on, 'cuz it doesn't really make much of a difference. *shrug*
.
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.
It *was* expensive and the coverage wasn't great either outside the main cities but it's been gradually getting cheaper and better. In the last year it's changed a lot.
The phone companies were betting on recouping money from their 3G spectrum purchase by trying to sell us expensive video clips of football goals and other such shite. Or video calls between 3G users - but most people hate photos of themselves never mind sending a video of their face in close up.
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.
No, Orange in the UK at least have been one of the good guys with EDGE support. They usually push faster data comms ahead of others. Unfortunately they also charge you a lot too.
T-Mobile apparently now have a decent EDGE network. O2 apparently is adding them now so rumours say and I've no idea about Vodafone although from the sounds of it with today's announcement of their own music service, I'd say "who cares".
Most carriers went to 3G since it's easy to implement 99% coverage in a small island like the UK. EDGE was seen as unnecessary so they didn't bother. Typically we have a choice of 3G or old non-EDGE GPRS.
The only market for non-3G phones is for phones that don't see any more use than voice and text and maybe MMS. I can't see that many people buying an iPhone to use just as voice and text (no MMS remember) and with 3G being available almost everywhere and a 2 year contract you'd be pretty mad to buy a non-3G phone.
It's like buying an analogue modem when your town has broadband already.
I have a feeling that aegisdesign is gonna swoop in and lay the Euro 3G smackdown on ya, Mel.
Oops.
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.
Exactly. a 3G phone sells to everyone even if half of them don't use it yet. And I say 'yet' because even in the US you can bet you're going to come into 3G in the next 2 years I'd have thought.
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.
I'm sure there are people like that, that will put up with slower speeds or even not care or think about data speeds at all but round here 3G coverage is nearer 100% of the population than 50% so we expect it anyway.
The Blackjack Anand is using is on AT&T so it must be a UMTS chipset
GSM/EDGE in the case of the iPhone's motherboard (left) and GSM/EDGE/UMTS in the case of the Blackjack's motherboard (right).
That's the motherboard comparison. The problem is, Anand lumped all the red chips in as being the same as the purple ones on the iPhone which is not the case.
Here's the full iPhone motherboard...
Anand seemed to forget the main board. The Blackjack uses a 133Mhz MSM6275 chip and supporting chipset. It's about 4 years old.
I
No, Orange in the UK at least have been one of the good guys with EDGE support. They usually push faster data comms ahead of others. Unfortunately they also charge you a lot too.
T-Mobile apparently now have a decent EDGE network. O2 apparently is adding them now so rumours say and I've no idea about Vodafone although from the sounds of it with today's announcement of their own music service, I'd say "who cares".
I seem to have done what I usually do, which is to confuse Orange with O2 (They both start with "O", you see.
The Blackjack Anand is using is on AT&T so it must be a UMTS chipset
GSM/EDGE in the case of the iPhone's motherboard (left) and GSM/EDGE/UMTS in the case of the Blackjack's motherboard (right).
That's a bloody big UMTS chipset then. Perhaps the 2100 MHz chipsets are better than the 850/1900 MHz ones. Or perhaps it's just an old phone, and the chipsets are a lot better these days. My bad, anyway. I was too lazy to read the whole article all over again.
For awhile now, I've been going into the service menus and shutting off 3G(EVDO) on my CDMA phones when I don't need it, in order to wring out a little extra battery life. It helps a small amount, but nowhere near a factor of two.
Instead, I'd put the difference I've observed on the cusp of 'hard to notice'... maybe 10%, if that.
I don't believe that EVDO Rev0 (which is what my phone is) can do voice and data simultaneously, so perhaps the 3G chip isn't 'fired up and ready to go' continually during voice calls as it may be on an HSDPA-type 3G device, which can do voice and data simo. Electric Monk may have some insights there.
Yeah Rev 0 can't handle voice/data at the same time. I'm unsure if Rev 0 is used for voice (more bandwidth = better call quality) as CDMA sounds pretty good as it is.
However UMTS is used for voice because it sounds a lot better than GSM. Even so it's no more than a 30% hit on battery, and that's operating purely on a UMTS network with no GSM fall back (i.e. Japan).
In the early days of 3G, the chips were indeed very power-hungry, and talk times were indeed bad. But those chips have steadily improved since then, and power consumption/talk time along with them.
Not saying there still isn't a battery life hit with 3G, just that it's nowhere like what it used to be.
.
So is it likely then that Samsung used some pretty OLD components for the Blackjack?
In the early days of 3G, the chips were indeed very power-hungry, and talk times were indeed bad. But those chips have steadily improved since then, and power consumption/talk time along with them.
Not saying there still isn't a battery life hit with 3G, just that it's nowhere like what it used to be.
.
I think the main difference is that 2100 MHz UMTS chipsets have been in commercial use since 2001 (when NTT DoCoMo's FOMA network went live in Japan).
Conversely although a 1900MHz network went live by the end of 2004 in the States AT&T promptly decided to also deploy 850MHz towers and never released 1900MHz only handsets.
Just as the first 2100MHz chipsets were massive and power hungry, so were the first dual-band UMTS chipsets (for 850/1900MHz) and they're at least 3 years of commercial deployment behind the trend.
Obviously a lot of development work on single band chipsets can be applied to dual and tri band chipsets, but I'd wager they remain anywhere from a year behind (for tri band) to maybe six months behind (dual band) on size/power consumption.
That said the amount of development dollars is probably staggering for dual band chipsets as the American market is a big one and rapidly expanding in (UMTS) 3G coverage so this is a fairly transitory state of affairs.
That's a bloody big UMTS chipset then. Perhaps the 2100 MHz chipsets are better than the 850/1900 MHz ones. Or perhaps it's just an old phone, and the chipsets are a lot better these days. My bad, anyway. I was too lazy to read the whole article all over again.
So is it likely then that Samsung used some pretty OLD components for the Blackjack?
From the Anand picture, the Blackjack is using a mix of chips from Qualcomm. The largest of which is an MSM6275 and the equivalent of Apple's custom ARM9 CPU which is used as both multimedia processor and modem. Then there's two 6250 tranceiver/receivers, some amplifiers and I think a 2G chip too top right. Lastly Samsung appear to have a separate CPU - a Ti OMAP.
Apple on the other hand seem to have integrated what would be the MSM6275 and the OMAP into one chip. Samsung's design is basically using off the shelf parts whereas Apple have integrated more.
All of Samsungs chips date back to 2004 / 2005 vintage. The Blackjack is an ancient design. They are however lumbered with that kind of design in order to run Windows Mobile which demands it's own CPU unlike say Symbian which can run the radio stack on the same CPU without issues and therefore runs at half the power consumption. It's difficult to say what Apple are doing but I'd hope they've paid attention to Symbian and realised that they're heading for single chip solutions across the board so that they can take Symbian down to cheap phones as well as smartphones whilst making them less power hungry.
Edit: Of course I think Apple know exactly what Symbian is about, more so than probably Symbian do, since at least two of Psion's engineers work at Apple including David Tupman and Ken McAlpine.
From the Anand picture, the Blackjack is using a mix of chips from Qualcomm. The largest of which is an MSM6275 and the equivalent of Apple's custom ARM9 CPU which is used as both multimedia processor and modem. Then there's two 6250 tranceiver/receivers, some amplifiers and I think a 2G chip too top right. Lastly Samsung appear to have a separate CPU - a Ti OMAP.
Apple on the other hand seem to have integrated what would be the MSM6275 and the OMAP into one chip. Samsung's design is basically using off the shelf parts whereas Apple have integrated more.
All of Samsungs chips date back to 2004 / 2005 vintage. The Blackjack is an ancient design. They are however lumbered with that kind of design in order to run Windows Mobile which demands it's own CPU unlike say Symbian which can run the radio stack on the same CPU without issues and therefore runs at half the power consumption. It's difficult to say what Apple are doing but I'd hope they've paid attention to Symbian and realised that they're heading for single chip solutions across the board so that they can take Symbian down to cheap phones as well as smartphones whilst making them less power hungry.
Edit: Of course I think Apple know exactly what Symbian is about, more so than probably Symbian do, since at least two of Psion's engineers work at Apple including David Tupman and Ken McAlpine.
I agree with you.