The software usability impacted web use more than 3G has. There was the comparison showing the LG phone with 3G rendering web pages not much faster than the iPhone. It'll be interesting to see the numbers that come out of Europe.
True. Software usability is important, vital even, but I'm afraid that the difference between EDGE (or GPRS) on my iPhone and 3G on my old phone is noticeable. I find EDGE, if I can get it, tolerable, but I'm usually on GPRS in the UK, so in fact, it's torture. My criticism is that the iPhone needs 3G in Europe to even sell. End of sentence.
I personally find more use out of my iPhone now, then I ever did with the Nokia N80 (with 3G) i used to have. However, I'll find it even more useful when it has 3G.
That's not true for 3G coverage. Go to Sprint's site,or that of Version, for example, and you will see far more 3G coverage than you're stating. I've used it otside of NYC many times.
And if you look at largest cities, you have to look at largest CORE cities. That means the city proper, not much larger metropolitan areas, which may contain additional towns or even cities. There, NYC ranks #11.
yeah I did not think it was the largest anymore, but keep in mind that NYC has claimed for years they have a very large undocumented population which do not fall into the stats. But I think this is also true to many large city, I doubt Mexico City counts every head in ever card board shack.
True. Software usability is important, vital even, but I'm afraid that the difference between EDGE (or GPRS) on my iPhone and 3G on my old phone is noticeable.
No I'm not taking away 3G's speed advantage. I see a huge difference between EDGE and WiFi, so I understand. Also take into account your old N80 was not rendering full web pages.
The software usability impacted web use more than 3G has. There was the comparison showing the LG phone with 3G rendering web pages not much faster than the iPhone. It'll be interesting to see the numbers that come out of Europe.
It was a Nokia E61i if you mean the report I think you mean.
It's obviously not just 3G that makes the experience pleasurable. The E61i only has a 220Mhz ARM9 CPU and no graphics acceleration as it's essentially the same hardware the E61 used when it was released in 2005. It uses an earlier version of Webkit and supports Flash. On the one page it was slower than an iPhone, the page had flash adverts which the iPhone neither downloads or needs to render on it's 412Mhz ARM11 CPU and graphics accelerator.
It only supports standard 3G too - no HSDPA. So the test was E61i at 384kbps v iPhone at EDGE speeds (237kbps)
I wonder what it'd do if it was up against a modern 3G phone.
No I'm not taking away 3G's speed advantage. I see a huge difference between EDGE and WiFi, so I understand. Also take into account your old N80 was not rendering full web pages.
The N80 uses the same S60 Webkit based browser as the E61i, and supports Flash-lite. So it was quite probably rendering more web page content than an iPhone does.
Like I've said time and time again, in NY state, the only region that has 3G technology is NYC. Ok, let that soak in for a second before I continue..... those New Yorkers that are complaining about lack of 3G support live in the largest city on the face of the planet.
The other big cities in NY are also well covered with 3G. I'm in DC and yeah, I have an iPhone. And yeah, I'll be buying a 3G iPhone as soon as it costs less than $500.
I don't want this to be YAPAIT (yet another pro/anti-iPhone thread), I only want to point out what I feel are some innaccuracies implied by the original reviewer and some posters re: the pros/cons of 3G. So a discalaimer to any rabid iPhone-istas out there: I know the iPhone is killer, and has the best UI on the market. As soon as the iPhone gets at least 3G and GPS, and the iPhone SDK rolls out so a few crucial PDA apps I use get ported, I'll be the first to get one. Now on with it:
First - re: realworld 3G-vs-GPRS/EDGE speeds:
It depends on the processing/rendering speed of your mobile device, yes, but after heavy use of the GPRS/Edge on my Treo 680 (6 mo) and an iPhone (a few days), then switching to a 3/3.5G-capable AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser), I can tell you unequivacally that 3G is immediately and noticeably snappier than GPRS/EDGE and makes a real difference, at least in my coverage area (around the S.F. Bay Area.) If the speed comparisons between 2G/2.5G<>3G don't take into account hardware limitations that impact the rendering speed of the device, then its maybe not the best test. The Tilt has a dedicated graphics chip, and the 3G speeds are noticably faster (at least than the iPhone or Treo 680.)
Second - re: Wifi capability rendering 3G redundant/pointless:
Those who claim wifi is some kind of pragmatic alternative to 3G/3.5G are seriously overlooking the well-known fact that wifi requires the user to be locationally static and not in transit (not to mention near an open AP), which means wifi is a NOT a pragmatic option while you are riding on PT or in a car, walking across town, etc. Obviously wifi AP's do not hand off your connection as cel towers do with 3G (plus the wifi battery drain is massive.) Come on iPhoneistas, you already know that wifi is not a real-world option when you are in transit! Travel time is idle time when many people, like myself, make high use the data connection to catch up on mail, read the nyt, or whatnot.
Third - re: 3G=too much battery drain:
Yes - It is undeniable that 3G takes more battery than GPRS/EDGE. But remember that 3G can be manually downgraded on the phone to EDGE/GPRS on the fly when needed (at least it can on my Tilt), and more importantly, that 3G battery drain is NOWHERE near Wifi's battery drain -- whether on the iPhone or any other wifi-capable phone (though this can depend somewhat on your default wifi radio power settings.)
For my Tilt -- with 3/3.5G on all day with frequent calls, music-listening, and moderate data usage, as long as push email is not active -- my stock battery lasts about 9 hours. That may not be good enough for some people, but its good enough for me. Besides which the Tilt batteries are quite slim -- I can just swap out a depleted with extra one in my charger at work. (Guess thats not an option on the iPhone.)
Fourth - re: 3G coverage vs EDGE/GPRS coverage:
Of course 3G coverage (not to mention 3.5G coverage!) is spotty compared to EDGE/GPRS. But the real-world significance of this 'spotty'-ness depends on the travel patterns of the mobile user. As long as there is 3G within the radius of my daily travels, the fact that 3G falls off outside core urban areas has no practical impact on my mobile experience.
In the S.F. Bay Area, I easily get at leats 2 bars of 3G about 90% of the time, traveling frequently between San Francisco, Berkeley/Oakland, and the south bay. 3G coverage along the main freeway corridors is very good, and even along the BART line it is not bad (except when bart is underground, of course!) Therefore, a 3G-capable phone is useful to me, and the problem of spotty 3G coverage doesn't impact me much at all. If a 3G connection does drop down to EDGE for a few minutes, its seamless and not a big deal. Conversely, if one lives in an area with little to no 3G coverage, then they probably should not shell out for a 3G-capable phone.
Most people would think that a $399 phone is a high end product these days. Mainstream would be lower, maybe much lower. It would be close to the average phone selling price.
$399 is very much high-end. My cell provider is giving away HTCs and Blackberries for free on a three year contract. Around here at least, you'd have to try very hard to find a phone of any kind that is more than $150.
I don't want this to be YAPAIT (yet another pro/anti-iPhone thread), I only want to point out what I feel are some innaccuracies implied by the original reviewer and some posters re: the pros/cons of 3G. So a discalaimer to any rabid iPhone-istas out there: I know the iPhone is killer, and has the best UI on the market. As soon as the iPhone gets at least 3G and GPS, and the iPhone SDK rolls out so a few crucial PDA apps I use get ported, I'll be the first to get one. Now on with it:
First - re: realworld 3G-vs-GPRS/EDGE speeds:
It depends on the processing/rendering speed of your mobile device, yes, but after heavy use of the GPRS/Edge on my Treo 680 (6 mo) and an iPhone (a few days), then switching to a 3/3.5G-capable AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser), I can tell you unequivacally that 3G is immediately and noticeably snappier than GPRS/EDGE and makes a real difference, at least in my coverage area (around the S.F. Bay Area.) If the speed comparisons between 2G/2.5G<>3G don't take into account hardware limitations that impact the rendering speed of the device, then its maybe not the best test. The Tilt has a dedicated graphics chip, and the 3G speeds are noticably faster (at least than the iPhone or Treo 680.)
Second - re: Wifi capability rendering 3G redundant/pointless:
Those who claim wifi is some kind of pragmatic alternative to 3G/3.5G are seriously overlooking the well-known fact that wifi requires the user to be locationally static and not in transit (not to mention near an open AP), which means wifi is a NOT a pragmatic option while you are riding on PT or in a car, walking across town, etc. Obviously wifi AP's do not hand off your connection as cel towers do with 3G (plus the wifi battery drain is massive.) Come on iPhoneistas, you already know that wifi is not a real-world option when you are in transit! Travel time is idle time when many people, like myself, make high use the data connection to catch up on mail, read the nyt, or whatnot.
Third - re: 3G=too much battery drain:
Yes - It is undeniable that 3G takes more battery than GPRS/EDGE. But remember that 3G can be manually downgraded on the phone to EDGE/GPRS on the fly when needed (at least it can on my Tilt), and more importantly, that 3G battery drain is NOWHERE near Wifi's battery drain -- whether on the iPhone or any other wifi-capable phone (though this can depend somewhat on your default wifi radio power settings.)
For my Tilt -- with 3/3.5G on all day with frequent calls, music-listening, and moderate data usage, as long as push email is not active -- my stock battery lasts about 9 hours. That may not be good enough for some people, but its good enough for me. Besides which the Tilt batteries are quite slim -- I can just swap out a depleted with extra one in my charger at work. (Guess thats not an option on the iPhone.)
Fourth - re: 3G coverage vs EDGE/GPRS coverage:
Of course 3G coverage (not to mention 3.5G coverage!) is spotty compared to EDGE/GPRS. But the real-world significance of this 'spotty'-ness depends on the travel patterns of the mobile user. As long as there is 3G within the radius of my daily travels, the fact that 3G falls off outside core urban areas has no practical impact on my mobile experience.
In the S.F. Bay Area, I easily get at leats 2 bars of 3G about 90% of the time, traveling frequently between San Francisco, Berkeley/Oakland, and the south bay. 3G coverage along the main freeway corridors is very good, and even along the BART line it is not bad (except when bart is underground, of course!) Therefore, a 3G-capable phone is useful to me, and the problem of spotty 3G coverage doesn't impact me much at all. If a 3G connection does drop down to EDGE for a few minutes, its seamless and not a big deal. Conversely, if one lives in an area with little to no 3G coverage, then they probably should not shell out for a 3G-capable phone.
cheers!
Well said. Thanks for sharing your real-world 3G experiences with us. It's nice to see that ATT is finally starting to get some decent 3G coverage up, even if it is metro-only/mainly.
Anandtech did a wireless comparison between the iPhone and Samsung Blackjack. And did find that 3G in the Blackjack drained the battery faster than EDGE and WiFi in the iPhone, but actually found that EDGE drained the battery faster than WiFi on the iPhone.
Anandtech did a wireless comparison between the iPhone and Samsung Blackjack. And did find that 3G in the Blackjack drained the battery faster than EDGE and WiFi in the iPhone, but actually found that EDGE drained the battery faster than WiFi on the iPhone.
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
Anandtech did a wireless comparison between the iPhone and Samsung Blackjack. And did find that 3G in the Blackjack drained the battery faster than EDGE and WiFi in the iPhone, but actually found that EDGE drained the battery faster than WiFi on the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
Yup, bingo. Choice is good.
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II came out in November, it's 3G (HSDPA) with 7 hours talk time (plus 336 hours standby time, which is actually better than the EDGE iPhone's 250 hours).
Seems like if Samsung can release a 3G smartphone with good battery life, Apple should be able to do the same, and on a reasonably close timetable. But somehow, we're gonna be twiddling our thumbs waiting for one until the Asian launch in 'mid-to-late '08', I'll bet. \
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II is out now, its 3G (HSDPA) with 7 hours talk time (plus 336 hours standby time, which is actually better than the iPhone's 250 hours).
Seems like if Samsung can do a 3G smartphone with good battery life, Apple should be able to do same.
.
How is that rated though? Rarely do they say whether the3G is on at the time. Do they give that info. I'm curious?
Also, the iPhones large backlight drains much more power than do the smaller backlights from most other phones.. If iPhone users are using the screen more than other phone users, then the battery won't last as long.
How is that rated though? Rarely do they say whether the 3G is on at the time. Do they give that info. I'm curious?
You'd have to ask the manufacturer. It's hardly in their best interest to quote battery life stats that are nowhere near reality, though, as they'd just get hammered for it in the reviews. \ I'm fairly sure that it's measured with GPS off, though, since that's often a true battery sucker (though super-useful to have when using real-time location-based services).
Even assuming the very worst (which I wouldn't), as aegis mentioned, 3G is something you can turn off if you need to.
Edit- I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
Quote:
Also, the iPhones large backlight drains much more power than do the smaller backlights from most other phones.. If iPhone users are using the screen more than other phone users, then the battery won't last as long.
Sure, but the iPhone's screen doesn't really affect talk time battery life significantly, since there's that nifty sensor on the iPhone that registers when the phone is up against your head and turns the screen off. I highly doubt Apple measured talk time with the screen on the entire time.
Screen size also wouldn't be an issue for stand-by battery life, obviously. Your concern is more regarding straight web-surfing. In which case, you could simply turn 3G off if you were worried. *shrug*
Sure, but that wouldn't really affect talk time battery life much, since there's that nifty sensor on the iPhone that registers when the phone is up against your head and turns the screen off. I highly doubt Apple measured talk time with the screen on the entire time.
Also wouldn't be an issue for stand-by time, obviously. Your concern is more regarding straight web-surfing, I'd think.
.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours. With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
Yep. And Apple are a bit cleverer there than any other phone I've used which all leave the screen on when talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours. With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
I said it wouldn't affect it much or significantly, and I stand by that. The screen is on for a few seconds, the average phone call is a few minutes. Go into your call logs and check it out. My avg is around 4 minutes, and I'm not that gabby.
Quote:
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours.
I'd respectfully disagree. I did the sums once, and found that stand-by battery usage accounts for about 40% of my battery usage. If you leave your phone on all the time, it definitely adds up.
Of course, I do not currently own a smartphone, and I think what you're talking about would be more specific to a heavy user on a smartphone. Even then, though, using your worry about the screen being on for a few seconds before and after calls as a benchmark, standby time still matters a bit.
Quote:
With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
See above. I think what you're saying is true, but only for people who have time to surf all day.
Oh, and I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
Given that, their 7 hours talk time rating on their 3G HSDPA Blackjack II seems quite good.
And, yet again, if you're overly worried about 3G battery drain, you can ALWAYS... TURN... IT... OFF.
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
One thing that I've been told about that is that even phones that use 3G, and have it turned on, may not be using it for such things as checking for mail, talking, MMS, etc. Each phone maker (and cell operator, I assume), decides how the phone is going to use its technology. It's all very possible that on an Edge network, the iPhone would use Edge all the time, except when 3G is REQUIRED (that is, later next year, when Apple has 3G).
To be fair then, we would have to know this. Turning off 3G may only have a real function when the user is explicitly using a service that would call for it, but not otherwise.
That's also possibly why some phones seem to have such a big battery draw with 3G, and others not.
I said it wouldn't affect it much or significantly, and I stand by that. The screen is on for a few seconds, most phone calls last several minutes.
Maybe ten or fifteen seconds each end of the call. But how many calls are being made, and received a day, or week? The more calls, the more draw from the screen. It's likely that ten seconds screen draw is equal to one minute of talk.
Quote:
I'd respectfully disagree. I did the sums once, and found that stand-by battery usage accounts for about 40% of my battery usage. If you leave your phone on all the time, it definitely adds up.
I won't argue that number. In fact, it equals what I'm saying. The large majority of your battery use is not from standby, meaning that you've cut your standby time by 60%. Depending on the phone, that would mean that you only have about a day to just a few hours of standby time left.
Quote:
Of course, I do not currently own a smartphone, and I think what you're talking about would be more specific to a heavy user on a smartphone. Even then, though, using your worry about the screen being on for a few seconds before and after calls as a benchmark, standby time still matters a bit.
Yes. Smartphones use battery life like a vampire uses people. What is true for your phone about battery life is going to be much more so for a smartphone, particularly one with a really large screen. If you used a smartphone the way you use yours now, there would be little need for one. Therefore, your usage patterns would be different, and your standby time might drop to 20% of the battery life.
We are really just talking about smartphones. Their much more powerful processors use up more power as well.
Quote:
See above.
Oh, and I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
.
Sure. Samsung it a pretty good phone maker. I had both the i300 and i330 Palmphones. Both were pretty good as far as usage went, but 3G wasn't prevalent then and neither phone had it.
Comments
The software usability impacted web use more than 3G has. There was the comparison showing the LG phone with 3G rendering web pages not much faster than the iPhone. It'll be interesting to see the numbers that come out of Europe.
True. Software usability is important, vital even, but I'm afraid that the difference between EDGE (or GPRS) on my iPhone and 3G on my old phone is noticeable. I find EDGE, if I can get it, tolerable, but I'm usually on GPRS in the UK, so in fact, it's torture. My criticism is that the iPhone needs 3G in Europe to even sell. End of sentence.
I personally find more use out of my iPhone now, then I ever did with the Nokia N80 (with 3G) i used to have. However, I'll find it even more useful when it has 3G.
That's not true for 3G coverage. Go to Sprint's site,or that of Version, for example, and you will see far more 3G coverage than you're stating. I've used it otside of NYC many times.
And if you look at largest cities, you have to look at largest CORE cities. That means the city proper, not much larger metropolitan areas, which may contain additional towns or even cities. There, NYC ranks #11.
http://www.citymayors.com/features/largest_cities1.html
yeah I did not think it was the largest anymore, but keep in mind that NYC has claimed for years they have a very large undocumented population which do not fall into the stats. But I think this is also true to many large city, I doubt Mexico City counts every head in ever card board shack.
True. Software usability is important, vital even, but I'm afraid that the difference between EDGE (or GPRS) on my iPhone and 3G on my old phone is noticeable.
No I'm not taking away 3G's speed advantage. I see a huge difference between EDGE and WiFi, so I understand. Also take into account your old N80 was not rendering full web pages.
The software usability impacted web use more than 3G has. There was the comparison showing the LG phone with 3G rendering web pages not much faster than the iPhone. It'll be interesting to see the numbers that come out of Europe.
It was a Nokia E61i if you mean the report I think you mean.
It's obviously not just 3G that makes the experience pleasurable. The E61i only has a 220Mhz ARM9 CPU and no graphics acceleration as it's essentially the same hardware the E61 used when it was released in 2005. It uses an earlier version of Webkit and supports Flash. On the one page it was slower than an iPhone, the page had flash adverts which the iPhone neither downloads or needs to render on it's 412Mhz ARM11 CPU and graphics accelerator.
It only supports standard 3G too - no HSDPA. So the test was E61i at 384kbps v iPhone at EDGE speeds (237kbps)
I wonder what it'd do if it was up against a modern 3G phone.
No I'm not taking away 3G's speed advantage. I see a huge difference between EDGE and WiFi, so I understand. Also take into account your old N80 was not rendering full web pages.
The N80 uses the same S60 Webkit based browser as the E61i, and supports Flash-lite. So it was quite probably rendering more web page content than an iPhone does.
Like I've said time and time again, in NY state, the only region that has 3G technology is NYC. Ok, let that soak in for a second before I continue..... those New Yorkers that are complaining about lack of 3G support live in the largest city on the face of the planet.
FYI, that's far from the truth.
http://www.wireless.att.com/media/do...NG_U_NY_v1.pdf
The other big cities in NY are also well covered with 3G. I'm in DC and yeah, I have an iPhone. And yeah, I'll be buying a 3G iPhone as soon as it costs less than $500.
First - re: realworld 3G-vs-GPRS/EDGE speeds:
It depends on the processing/rendering speed of your mobile device, yes, but after heavy use of the GPRS/Edge on my Treo 680 (6 mo) and an iPhone (a few days), then switching to a 3/3.5G-capable AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser), I can tell you unequivacally that 3G is immediately and noticeably snappier than GPRS/EDGE and makes a real difference, at least in my coverage area (around the S.F. Bay Area.) If the speed comparisons between 2G/2.5G<>3G don't take into account hardware limitations that impact the rendering speed of the device, then its maybe not the best test. The Tilt has a dedicated graphics chip, and the 3G speeds are noticably faster (at least than the iPhone or Treo 680.)
Second - re: Wifi capability rendering 3G redundant/pointless:
Those who claim wifi is some kind of pragmatic alternative to 3G/3.5G are seriously overlooking the well-known fact that wifi requires the user to be locationally static and not in transit (not to mention near an open AP), which means wifi is a NOT a pragmatic option while you are riding on PT or in a car, walking across town, etc. Obviously wifi AP's do not hand off your connection as cel towers do with 3G (plus the wifi battery drain is massive.) Come on iPhoneistas, you already know that wifi is not a real-world option when you are in transit! Travel time is idle time when many people, like myself, make high use the data connection to catch up on mail, read the nyt, or whatnot.
Third - re: 3G=too much battery drain:
Yes - It is undeniable that 3G takes more battery than GPRS/EDGE. But remember that 3G can be manually downgraded on the phone to EDGE/GPRS on the fly when needed (at least it can on my Tilt), and more importantly, that 3G battery drain is NOWHERE near Wifi's battery drain -- whether on the iPhone or any other wifi-capable phone (though this can depend somewhat on your default wifi radio power settings.)
For my Tilt -- with 3/3.5G on all day with frequent calls, music-listening, and moderate data usage, as long as push email is not active -- my stock battery lasts about 9 hours. That may not be good enough for some people, but its good enough for me. Besides which the Tilt batteries are quite slim -- I can just swap out a depleted with extra one in my charger at work. (Guess thats not an option on the iPhone.)
Fourth - re: 3G coverage vs EDGE/GPRS coverage:
Of course 3G coverage (not to mention 3.5G coverage!) is spotty compared to EDGE/GPRS. But the real-world significance of this 'spotty'-ness depends on the travel patterns of the mobile user. As long as there is 3G within the radius of my daily travels, the fact that 3G falls off outside core urban areas has no practical impact on my mobile experience.
In the S.F. Bay Area, I easily get at leats 2 bars of 3G about 90% of the time, traveling frequently between San Francisco, Berkeley/Oakland, and the south bay. 3G coverage along the main freeway corridors is very good, and even along the BART line it is not bad (except when bart is underground, of course!) Therefore, a 3G-capable phone is useful to me, and the problem of spotty 3G coverage doesn't impact me much at all. If a 3G connection does drop down to EDGE for a few minutes, its seamless and not a big deal. Conversely, if one lives in an area with little to no 3G coverage, then they probably should not shell out for a 3G-capable phone.
cheers!
Most people would think that a $399 phone is a high end product these days. Mainstream would be lower, maybe much lower. It would be close to the average phone selling price.
$399 is very much high-end. My cell provider is giving away HTCs and Blackberries for free on a three year contract. Around here at least, you'd have to try very hard to find a phone of any kind that is more than $150.
I don't want this to be YAPAIT (yet another pro/anti-iPhone thread), I only want to point out what I feel are some innaccuracies implied by the original reviewer and some posters re: the pros/cons of 3G. So a discalaimer to any rabid iPhone-istas out there: I know the iPhone is killer, and has the best UI on the market. As soon as the iPhone gets at least 3G and GPS, and the iPhone SDK rolls out so a few crucial PDA apps I use get ported, I'll be the first to get one. Now on with it:
First - re: realworld 3G-vs-GPRS/EDGE speeds:
It depends on the processing/rendering speed of your mobile device, yes, but after heavy use of the GPRS/Edge on my Treo 680 (6 mo) and an iPhone (a few days), then switching to a 3/3.5G-capable AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser), I can tell you unequivacally that 3G is immediately and noticeably snappier than GPRS/EDGE and makes a real difference, at least in my coverage area (around the S.F. Bay Area.) If the speed comparisons between 2G/2.5G<>3G don't take into account hardware limitations that impact the rendering speed of the device, then its maybe not the best test. The Tilt has a dedicated graphics chip, and the 3G speeds are noticably faster (at least than the iPhone or Treo 680.)
Second - re: Wifi capability rendering 3G redundant/pointless:
Those who claim wifi is some kind of pragmatic alternative to 3G/3.5G are seriously overlooking the well-known fact that wifi requires the user to be locationally static and not in transit (not to mention near an open AP), which means wifi is a NOT a pragmatic option while you are riding on PT or in a car, walking across town, etc. Obviously wifi AP's do not hand off your connection as cel towers do with 3G (plus the wifi battery drain is massive.) Come on iPhoneistas, you already know that wifi is not a real-world option when you are in transit! Travel time is idle time when many people, like myself, make high use the data connection to catch up on mail, read the nyt, or whatnot.
Third - re: 3G=too much battery drain:
Yes - It is undeniable that 3G takes more battery than GPRS/EDGE. But remember that 3G can be manually downgraded on the phone to EDGE/GPRS on the fly when needed (at least it can on my Tilt), and more importantly, that 3G battery drain is NOWHERE near Wifi's battery drain -- whether on the iPhone or any other wifi-capable phone (though this can depend somewhat on your default wifi radio power settings.)
For my Tilt -- with 3/3.5G on all day with frequent calls, music-listening, and moderate data usage, as long as push email is not active -- my stock battery lasts about 9 hours. That may not be good enough for some people, but its good enough for me. Besides which the Tilt batteries are quite slim -- I can just swap out a depleted with extra one in my charger at work. (Guess thats not an option on the iPhone.)
Fourth - re: 3G coverage vs EDGE/GPRS coverage:
Of course 3G coverage (not to mention 3.5G coverage!) is spotty compared to EDGE/GPRS. But the real-world significance of this 'spotty'-ness depends on the travel patterns of the mobile user. As long as there is 3G within the radius of my daily travels, the fact that 3G falls off outside core urban areas has no practical impact on my mobile experience.
In the S.F. Bay Area, I easily get at leats 2 bars of 3G about 90% of the time, traveling frequently between San Francisco, Berkeley/Oakland, and the south bay. 3G coverage along the main freeway corridors is very good, and even along the BART line it is not bad (except when bart is underground, of course!) Therefore, a 3G-capable phone is useful to me, and the problem of spotty 3G coverage doesn't impact me much at all. If a 3G connection does drop down to EDGE for a few minutes, its seamless and not a big deal. Conversely, if one lives in an area with little to no 3G coverage, then they probably should not shell out for a 3G-capable phone.
cheers!
Well said. Thanks for sharing your real-world 3G experiences with us. It's nice to see that ATT is finally starting to get some decent 3G coverage up, even if it is metro-only/mainly.
.
Anandtech did a wireless comparison between the iPhone and Samsung Blackjack. And did find that 3G in the Blackjack drained the battery faster than EDGE and WiFi in the iPhone, but actually found that EDGE drained the battery faster than WiFi on the iPhone.
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
Anandtech did a wireless comparison between the iPhone and Samsung Blackjack. And did find that 3G in the Blackjack drained the battery faster than EDGE and WiFi in the iPhone, but actually found that EDGE drained the battery faster than WiFi on the iPhone.
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
Yup, bingo. Choice is good.
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II came out in November, it's 3G (HSDPA) with 7 hours talk time (plus 336 hours standby time, which is actually better than the EDGE iPhone's 250 hours).
Seems like if Samsung can release a 3G smartphone with good battery life, Apple should be able to do the same, and on a reasonably close timetable. But somehow, we're gonna be twiddling our thumbs waiting for one until the Asian launch in 'mid-to-late '08', I'll bet.
.
Yup, bingo, choice is good.
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II is out now, its 3G (HSDPA) with 7 hours talk time (plus 336 hours standby time, which is actually better than the iPhone's 250 hours).
Seems like if Samsung can do a 3G smartphone with good battery life, Apple should be able to do same.
.
How is that rated though? Rarely do they say whether the3G is on at the time. Do they give that info. I'm curious?
Also, the iPhones large backlight drains much more power than do the smaller backlights from most other phones.. If iPhone users are using the screen more than other phone users, then the battery won't last as long.
How is that rated though? Rarely do they say whether the 3G is on at the time. Do they give that info. I'm curious?
You'd have to ask the manufacturer. It's hardly in their best interest to quote battery life stats that are nowhere near reality, though, as they'd just get hammered for it in the reviews.
Even assuming the very worst (which I wouldn't), as aegis mentioned, 3G is something you can turn off if you need to.
Edit- I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
Also, the iPhones large backlight drains much more power than do the smaller backlights from most other phones.. If iPhone users are using the screen more than other phone users, then the battery won't last as long.
Sure, but the iPhone's screen doesn't really affect talk time battery life significantly, since there's that nifty sensor on the iPhone that registers when the phone is up against your head and turns the screen off. I highly doubt Apple measured talk time with the screen on the entire time.
Screen size also wouldn't be an issue for stand-by battery life, obviously. Your concern is more regarding straight web-surfing. In which case, you could simply turn 3G off if you were worried. *shrug*
.
Sure, but that wouldn't really affect talk time battery life much, since there's that nifty sensor on the iPhone that registers when the phone is up against your head and turns the screen off. I highly doubt Apple measured talk time with the screen on the entire time.
Also wouldn't be an issue for stand-by time, obviously. Your concern is more regarding straight web-surfing, I'd think.
.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours. With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
Yep. And Apple are a bit cleverer there than any other phone I've used which all leave the screen on when talking.
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours. With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
Sure it would. Talk time is just a function of using the phone. Before you talk, you have to dial. That means using the screen. After you talk, the screen pops on again. While Apple has done a good job of understanding that their large screen is a battery nightmare, they can't prevent its use altogether.
I said it wouldn't affect it much or significantly, and I stand by that. The screen is on for a few seconds, the average phone call is a few minutes. Go into your call logs and check it out. My avg is around 4 minutes, and I'm not that gabby.
Standby time is different. even if you never turn the phone's screen on, there will be battery draw. But, I have always found that standby time is pretty meaningless. No one has their phone on standby without actually using it for a fair amount of time, which cuts the actual standby time to very little, perhaps a few hours.
I'd respectfully disagree. I did the sums once, and found that stand-by battery usage accounts for about 40% of my battery usage. If you leave your phone on all the time, it definitely adds up.
Of course, I do not currently own a smartphone, and I think what you're talking about would be more specific to a heavy user on a smartphone. Even then, though, using your worry about the screen being on for a few seconds before and after calls as a benchmark, standby time still matters a bit.
With iPhone users supposedly on the internet, having so much fun browsing, there is almost no standby time, and it cuts severely into the talk time as well.
See above. I think what you're saying is true, but only for people who have time to surf all day.
Oh, and I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
Given that, their 7 hours talk time rating on their 3G HSDPA Blackjack II seems quite good.
And, yet again, if you're overly worried about 3G battery drain, you can ALWAYS... TURN... IT... OFF.
.
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
One thing that I've been told about that is that even phones that use 3G, and have it turned on, may not be using it for such things as checking for mail, talking, MMS, etc. Each phone maker (and cell operator, I assume), decides how the phone is going to use its technology. It's all very possible that on an Edge network, the iPhone would use Edge all the time, except when 3G is REQUIRED (that is, later next year, when Apple has 3G).
To be fair then, we would have to know this. Turning off 3G may only have a real function when the user is explicitly using a service that would call for it, but not otherwise.
That's also possibly why some phones seem to have such a big battery draw with 3G, and others not.
I said it wouldn't affect it much or significantly, and I stand by that. The screen is on for a few seconds, most phone calls last several minutes.
Maybe ten or fifteen seconds each end of the call. But how many calls are being made, and received a day, or week? The more calls, the more draw from the screen. It's likely that ten seconds screen draw is equal to one minute of talk.
I'd respectfully disagree. I did the sums once, and found that stand-by battery usage accounts for about 40% of my battery usage. If you leave your phone on all the time, it definitely adds up.
I won't argue that number. In fact, it equals what I'm saying. The large majority of your battery use is not from standby, meaning that you've cut your standby time by 60%. Depending on the phone, that would mean that you only have about a day to just a few hours of standby time left.
Of course, I do not currently own a smartphone, and I think what you're talking about would be more specific to a heavy user on a smartphone. Even then, though, using your worry about the screen being on for a few seconds before and after calls as a benchmark, standby time still matters a bit.
Yes. Smartphones use battery life like a vampire uses people. What is true for your phone about battery life is going to be much more so for a smartphone, particularly one with a really large screen. If you used a smartphone the way you use yours now, there would be little need for one. Therefore, your usage patterns would be different, and your standby time might drop to 20% of the battery life.
We are really just talking about smartphones. Their much more powerful processors use up more power as well.
See above.
Oh, and I looked up the Anandtech article that Teno cited, where the old, obsolete Blackjack had a lot less talk time with the 3G on. Given that Anandtech measured the talk time at 4 hours 11 minutes with 3G on for the old Blackjack, and Samsung claimed 3 hours, I'm going to say that Samsung measures talk times with 3G on, and more than that, are very conservative in their rated talk times on top of that.
.
Sure. Samsung it a pretty good phone maker. I had both the i300 and i330 Palmphones. Both were pretty good as far as usage went, but 3G wasn't prevalent then and neither phone had it.
But we don't know how others are rated.