Even if they could come out with 4G next month, developers would respond with applications to make all that bandwidth too slow by end of summer.
U.S. wireless providers make their money by giving customers only subsistence level service -- just enough to get by and stay a nose ahead of the competition. It's a sick situation in which customers' broadband needs will never be met.
We don't need a new iPhone; we need a new wireless industry.
As much as i love to get the latest tech, its gonna be too expensive and i think its gonna use a lot more battery (not too sure about that one, havent seen one..) in either case, it will be expensive
Even if they could come out with 4G next month, developers would respond with applications to make all that bandwidth too slow by end of summer.
U.S. wireless providers make their money by giving customers only subsistence level service -- just enough to get by and stay a nose ahead of the competition. It's a sick situation in which customers' broadband needs will never be met.
We don't need a new iPhone; we need a new wireless industry.
Sounds good to me, so, what speeds are the other carriers currently able to reach right now. I know Sprint and Verizon have speedy networks but don't know what their d-load speeds are at.
I was already predicting that Apple's 3G phone won't happen til' early 2009 and I still stand by that.
No way it will take that long for the 3G iPhone to be introduced. June or July 2008 at the latest. Apple has to be ready for the Asian rollout (Korea, Japan and China). They'll have to be 3G ready. Whether GPS is on-board I can't be sure. Apple might as well roll GPS in because every other top handset maker will have it on their best phones. They'd better throw in at least a 3MP camera too.
Apple created a problem for itself by making the iPhone so thin. Hard to get great battery life when there's not much room for a battery.
I tend to get my info directly from Nokia and SE (do they still make phones) engineers as well as Vodafone, guys in the field building the network. EDGE starts out at full power and steps down as needed. 3G amps up if needed. Also 3 G antennae are lower and the cells a bit more dense to provide better coverage.
Come to Europe, see real mobile telephony in action.
By the way, I know Steve is your hero. No worries dude.
At the end of the day, Apple could release a 3G iPhone tonight and there are very few places it would run. If it had the right radios, it would probably work here in Europe and the rest of the world. AT&T is pulling your leg with the 3G on the way song. It takes YEARS to roll out a network.
Read the article from Anandtech the previous poster gave you, and please try and stop being such a hate-filled blowhard. You may actually learn something. The Blackjack clearly uses more power while actually surfing on 3G vs EDGE. 3G seems to serve it better when it's idle, compared with EDGE. But when using the faster WiFi, the iPhone actually uses less battery than when it's using EDGE. Also, you'll find a picture where they illustrate the superior chip integration of EDGE vs 3G (which, in addition to battery life, was one of the things Steve criticized). The overall assessment was that the Apple design decisions were fairly reasonable. I know, I know, you'll still need to vent your vile spleen about how much you hate Apple and Jobs.
By the way, you misspelled your sig. "Sapporo" is is a city in northern Japan. I believe "sapro" was the prefix you were looking for.
You left out the "new". That's the entire problem, the current one sucks and blows at the same time.
new wireless network is it wifi or is it cellphone wireless? For wifi is really expensive, and cellphone's wireless, well.. its is expensive too, but the demand for it is higher. It takes time though
new wireless network is it wifi or is it cellphone wireless? For wifi is really expensive, and cellphone's wireless, well.. its is expensive too, but the demand for it is higher. It takes time though
I think what was meant was replacing the cell industry, which I would agree if that's what was meant.
I do agree with you on the WiFi part, WiFi isn't any good at coverage, it's good at short range, high speed link, that's it. The current means of extending the range of WiFi ends up being an unreliable and expensive kluge.
1st: regarding GSM, i was talking about data services only, not voice... (and when connected to 3G your phones does everything via that cnnection, also voice. once your back on a GSM channel you will do your voice via GSM again)
2nd: roaming, if you use your home SIM-card everywhere in the world you must be pretty rich, or your company pays the horrendous bill... for people like me that are self employed and always try to save a buck or two it makes sense to have SIM card for each country you regularly travel to. i don't take my SIM-card out if i travel to that country only once... doesn't make sense economically...
1. Fair enough. It was not clear at first. I agree with you a blazillion %
2. I was talking about the iPhone being able to work on any network as long as the radio was inside. The current iPhone works on any network now (hacked ones that is), so unless Apple plans to shoot themselves in the foot, they will continue this tradition.
People complain about 3G, yet Wifi is much faster than 3G anyways. If you can't find a wifi signal somewhere close by, you must live in the desert!
iPhone has wifi, and the iPhone safari browser loads pages much faster on EDGE than Nokia "smart"phones load pages on 3G! What does that tell you? Believing Nokia, or the typical Apple-bashers lies now are we?
Hi mdotdubz,
Safari's browser is pretty darned fast. I give you that. It is also optimized to be so, but I will not use this as an excuse. The Opera browser on most Nokia phones is pretty darned good as well. No Nokia loving here as they do stupid things as well. By the way, I bash Apple (I have 2 MPB's, iPod Touch, iPhone, various iPods, Apple TV) when they need bashing. I feel that if I pay my money, they have to do what I want. They are working for my $, not the other way around.
I don't care what the innards are like & if they are 20 year old designs. The use of the iPhone is what matters to me & it is vastly superior to all the many Nokia's & SE phones that I have had - 3G ones included
The functionality of the iPhone is perfect for me - faster downloads would be nice, bit doesn't affect my enjoyment & looking at internet sites is soo much better than with other phones that I am really pleased with it. This coupled with the integration with my apply computer makes it great.
In fact, I am just sitting next to a colleague who loves her iPhone that much that she has swapped her windows laptop for a 15" MBP (which she is using as I type & loves!)
3G iPhone will be nice, but hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the 2.5G version
Fair enough. In my opinion, the iPhone is more iPod than phone. My parallels to other phones was to show what the iPhone could be. For the most part it is technologically a very old phone.
real liufe tests have shown that most nokia 3G hardware empty their batteries within 2 hours! compare that to an iphone on EDGE/GPRS... my iphone normally has 50% left after 2 hours of internet on my cell providers GPRS network...
and the big testing authorities also confirm that 3G phones are empty after around 2 hours of use on a 3G network....
What real life tests are these?
The E90 will run for 36 hours using 3G/HSDPA, wifi, phoning. The N95 (8gb) 3 hours, N82 (48 hours). Are you talking earth hours here or Blartonian galactic hours. Your "real" world tests are way off.
Actually, you are correct. If you remove the UI and just look at the technology, the iPhone is 3 to 4 years old. Smart marketing and not so bright customers make for rich Apple/AT&T. Go take a look at Nokia's N82 or even the N81. These are "real" smartphone, offering real functionality.
I will never buy any Nokia product anymore. I had 5 Nokia phones in a timeframe of 2 years so don't remind me on the poor quality of these phones. I just want an iPhone with 3G. Nothing else will do!
Read the article from Anandtech the previous poster gave you, and please try and stop being such a hate-filled blowhard. You may actually learn something. The Blackjack clearly uses more power while actually surfing on 3G vs EDGE. 3G seems to serve it better when it's idle, compared with EDGE. But when using the faster WiFi, the iPhone actually uses less battery than when it's using EDGE. Also, you'll find a picture where they illustrate the superior chip integration of EDGE vs 3G (which, in addition to battery life, was one of the things Steve criticized). The overall assessment was that the Apple design decisions were fairly reasonable. I know, I know, you'll still need to vent your vile spleen about how much you hate Apple and Jobs.
By the way, you misspelled your sig. "Sapporo" is is a city in northern Japan. I believe "sapro" was the prefix you were looking for.
Hey Ronda,
I go by actual test from labs. Considering I spend quite a bit of time with engineers from the equipment manufacturers. See, the engineers aren't bound by marketing stats they have to follow and parrot. The facts speak for themselves. Alot of the battery life lies in the implementation and build out of the network as well.
By the way, you assumes I spelled it wrong being as you had no idea. Most lemmings don't.
Safari's browser is pretty darned fast. I give you that. It is also optimized to be so, but I will not use this as an excuse. The Opera browser on most Nokia phones is pretty darned good as well. No Nokia loving here as they do stupid things as well. By the way, I bash Apple (I have 2 MPB's, iPod Touch, iPhone, various iPods, Apple TV) when they need bashing. I feel that if I pay my money, they have to do what I want. They are working for my $, not the other way around.
a browser has to be fast, how can you hold that against safari??? LOL
stupid things as well??? why do you keep on bashing apple, all your arguments so far have been discarded!
Fair enough. In my opinion, the iPhone is more iPod than phone. My parallels to other phones was to show what the iPhone could be. For the most part it is technologically a very old phone.
your talking absolut troll... to call the iphone old... yeah right, LOL...
Comments
Even if they could come out with 4G next month, developers would respond with applications to make all that bandwidth too slow by end of summer.
U.S. wireless providers make their money by giving customers only subsistence level service -- just enough to get by and stay a nose ahead of the competition. It's a sick situation in which customers' broadband needs will never be met.
We don't need a new iPhone; we need a new wireless industry.
As much as i love to get the latest tech, its gonna be too expensive and i think its gonna use a lot more battery (not too sure about that one, havent seen one..) in either case, it will be expensive
Even if they could come out with 4G next month, developers would respond with applications to make all that bandwidth too slow by end of summer.
U.S. wireless providers make their money by giving customers only subsistence level service -- just enough to get by and stay a nose ahead of the competition. It's a sick situation in which customers' broadband needs will never be met.
We don't need a new iPhone; we need a new wireless industry.
Finally, someone here hit it on the head!
what do you mean wireless industry? dont we have one already??
You left out the "new". That's the entire problem, the current one sucks and blows at the same time.
Sounds good to me, so, what speeds are the other carriers currently able to reach right now. I know Sprint and Verizon have speedy networks but don't know what their d-load speeds are at.
I was already predicting that Apple's 3G phone won't happen til' early 2009 and I still stand by that.
No way it will take that long for the 3G iPhone to be introduced. June or July 2008 at the latest.
Apple created a problem for itself by making the iPhone so thin. Hard to get great battery life when there's not much room for a battery.
I tend to get my info directly from Nokia and SE (do they still make phones) engineers as well as Vodafone, guys in the field building the network. EDGE starts out at full power and steps down as needed. 3G amps up if needed. Also 3 G antennae are lower and the cells a bit more dense to provide better coverage.
Come to Europe, see real mobile telephony in action.
By the way, I know Steve is your hero. No worries dude.
At the end of the day, Apple could release a 3G iPhone tonight and there are very few places it would run. If it had the right radios, it would probably work here in Europe and the rest of the world. AT&T is pulling your leg with the 3G on the way song. It takes YEARS to roll out a network.
Read the article from Anandtech the previous poster gave you, and please try and stop being such a hate-filled blowhard. You may actually learn something. The Blackjack clearly uses more power while actually surfing on 3G vs EDGE. 3G seems to serve it better when it's idle, compared with EDGE. But when using the faster WiFi, the iPhone actually uses less battery than when it's using EDGE. Also, you'll find a picture where they illustrate the superior chip integration of EDGE vs 3G (which, in addition to battery life, was one of the things Steve criticized). The overall assessment was that the Apple design decisions were fairly reasonable. I know, I know, you'll still need to vent your vile spleen about how much you hate Apple and Jobs.
By the way, you misspelled your sig. "Sapporo" is is a city in northern Japan. I believe "sapro" was the prefix you were looking for.
You left out the "new". That's the entire problem, the current one sucks and blows at the same time.
new wireless network is it wifi or is it cellphone wireless? For wifi is really expensive, and cellphone's wireless, well.. its is expensive too, but the demand for it is higher. It takes time though
whatever your argument is, 3G takes up more battery than EDGE when used.
i am making the argument for that... did you read my post???
Not liking the idea that the 2.5G iPhone will become useless without any service.
new wireless network is it wifi or is it cellphone wireless? For wifi is really expensive, and cellphone's wireless, well.. its is expensive too, but the demand for it is higher. It takes time though
I think what was meant was replacing the cell industry, which I would agree if that's what was meant.
I do agree with you on the WiFi part, WiFi isn't any good at coverage, it's good at short range, high speed link, that's it. The current means of extending the range of WiFi ends up being an unreliable and expensive kluge.
are talking bit or byte? there is a difference.. Bit is smaller than byte..
as you should see, if you read my post, bit!
1st: regarding GSM, i was talking about data services only, not voice... (and when connected to 3G your phones does everything via that cnnection, also voice. once your back on a GSM channel you will do your voice via GSM again)
2nd: roaming, if you use your home SIM-card everywhere in the world you must be pretty rich, or your company pays the horrendous bill... for people like me that are self employed and always try to save a buck or two it makes sense to have SIM card for each country you regularly travel to. i don't take my SIM-card out if i travel to that country only once... doesn't make sense economically...
1. Fair enough. It was not clear at first. I agree with you a blazillion %
2. I was talking about the iPhone being able to work on any network as long as the radio was inside. The current iPhone works on any network now (hacked ones that is), so unless Apple plans to shoot themselves in the foot, they will continue this tradition.
iPhone has wifi, and the iPhone safari browser loads pages much faster on EDGE than Nokia "smart"phones load pages on 3G! What does that tell you? Believing Nokia, or the typical Apple-bashers lies now are we?
Hi mdotdubz,
Safari's browser is pretty darned fast. I give you that. It is also optimized to be so, but I will not use this as an excuse. The Opera browser on most Nokia phones is pretty darned good as well. No Nokia loving here as they do stupid things as well. By the way, I bash Apple (I have 2 MPB's, iPod Touch, iPhone, various iPods, Apple TV) when they need bashing. I feel that if I pay my money, they have to do what I want. They are working for my $, not the other way around.
I don't care what the innards are like & if they are 20 year old designs. The use of the iPhone is what matters to me & it is vastly superior to all the many Nokia's & SE phones that I have had - 3G ones included
The functionality of the iPhone is perfect for me - faster downloads would be nice, bit doesn't affect my enjoyment & looking at internet sites is soo much better than with other phones that I am really pleased with it. This coupled with the integration with my apply computer makes it great.
In fact, I am just sitting next to a colleague who loves her iPhone that much that she has swapped her windows laptop for a 15" MBP (which she is using as I type & loves!)
3G iPhone will be nice, but hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the 2.5G version
Fair enough. In my opinion, the iPhone is more iPod than phone. My parallels to other phones was to show what the iPhone could be. For the most part it is technologically a very old phone.
He asked for supporting evidence, not 'a friend of a friend told me once' BS.
Your ode to "Nokia and SE" reveal your troll status. Go back under your bridge or supply evidence, not hearsay.
You personal attack (believe me, I don't mind. Bring it on) denote you "Delta-Hotel" status.
thank you for speaking out on my behalf;-)
I do believe that I explained myself in my response to your post. If you did not read it, so be it.
your raging about Apple but believe Nokia???
real liufe tests have shown that most nokia 3G hardware empty their batteries within 2 hours! compare that to an iphone on EDGE/GPRS... my iphone normally has 50% left after 2 hours of internet on my cell providers GPRS network...
and the big testing authorities also confirm that 3G phones are empty after around 2 hours of use on a 3G network....
What real life tests are these?
The E90 will run for 36 hours using 3G/HSDPA, wifi, phoning. The N95 (8gb) 3 hours, N82 (48 hours). Are you talking earth hours here or Blartonian galactic hours. Your "real" world tests are way off.
Actually, you are correct. If you remove the UI and just look at the technology, the iPhone is 3 to 4 years old. Smart marketing and not so bright customers make for rich Apple/AT&T. Go take a look at Nokia's N82 or even the N81. These are "real" smartphone, offering real functionality.
I will never buy any Nokia product anymore. I had 5 Nokia phones in a timeframe of 2 years so don't remind me on the poor quality of these phones. I just want an iPhone with 3G. Nothing else will do!
Read the article from Anandtech the previous poster gave you, and please try and stop being such a hate-filled blowhard. You may actually learn something. The Blackjack clearly uses more power while actually surfing on 3G vs EDGE. 3G seems to serve it better when it's idle, compared with EDGE. But when using the faster WiFi, the iPhone actually uses less battery than when it's using EDGE. Also, you'll find a picture where they illustrate the superior chip integration of EDGE vs 3G (which, in addition to battery life, was one of the things Steve criticized). The overall assessment was that the Apple design decisions were fairly reasonable. I know, I know, you'll still need to vent your vile spleen about how much you hate Apple and Jobs.
By the way, you misspelled your sig. "Sapporo" is is a city in northern Japan. I believe "sapro" was the prefix you were looking for.
Hey Ronda,
I go by actual test from labs. Considering I spend quite a bit of time with engineers from the equipment manufacturers. See, the engineers aren't bound by marketing stats they have to follow and parrot. The facts speak for themselves. Alot of the battery life lies in the implementation and build out of the network as well.
By the way, you assumes I spelled it wrong being as you had no idea. Most lemmings don't.
Hi mdotdubz,
Safari's browser is pretty darned fast. I give you that. It is also optimized to be so, but I will not use this as an excuse. The Opera browser on most Nokia phones is pretty darned good as well. No Nokia loving here as they do stupid things as well. By the way, I bash Apple (I have 2 MPB's, iPod Touch, iPhone, various iPods, Apple TV) when they need bashing. I feel that if I pay my money, they have to do what I want. They are working for my $, not the other way around.
a browser has to be fast, how can you hold that against safari??? LOL
stupid things as well??? why do you keep on bashing apple, all your arguments so far have been discarded!
Fair enough. In my opinion, the iPhone is more iPod than phone. My parallels to other phones was to show what the iPhone could be. For the most part it is technologically a very old phone.
your talking absolut troll... to call the iphone old... yeah right, LOL...