I decided in Jan that I would buy the next gen iPhone as soon as it became available. So count me in that group who has their $600 put aside and waiting.
I am not a real tech geek, so maybe this is off-base. Aside from no-3G, one of the biggest complaints for the iPhone was lack of Flash support. Might Apple in their wisdom not included Flash because people accessing Flash content via the edge network would have really complained about poor speed? And with the addition of 3G, could Flash support follow? In other words, when the virtual pipe is large enough (3G), will Flash be added? I'll take that over streaming HD
It's a good observation, and certainly possible. It could also be waiting for a slightly faster processor, which should also arrive.
It's a total misconception that Flash *needs* a fatter pipe ie. 3G before it's usable. Flash often results in website graphics smaller than GIF.
IMHO the lack of Flash is more to do with political motivations within Apple and them wanting to not licence Flash from Adobe and/or promote it's use over Safari's web standards.
If you're paying attention, the Webkit programmers have been implementing a whole raft of stuff from HTML5 and CSS3 that most desktop web developers have no real use for yet because of Microsoft's dominance there. It's mostly pointless writing HTML5/CSS3/Canvas based code if 70% or so of your market can't use it. Apple want the mobile web browser market and they want it based on web standards. Adding Flash would be detrimental to that. They need to get it done before Adobe and Microsoft spoil it for everyone.
It's slimmer and considerably smaller than the iPhone and packs 7.2Mbit 3G HSDPA and a 5 megapixel autofocus camera. (Along with a large touch screen, etc)
No Wifi and 320x240 resolution, and naming it the same as a popular Fuji camera. Pathetic - a complete waste of time and effort on behalf Samsung.
Instead of the Blackjack, compare the size of the new Samsung F480:
It's slimmer and considerably smaller than the iPhone and packs 7.2Mbit 3G HSDPA and a 5 megapixel autofocus camera. (Along with a large touch screen, etc)
What's with this megapixel obsession? If it's the same camera that's in their other phones released at the same time, it's still not that impressive, there's not even the extra detail, it's large megapixels to give people a large number, i.e. marketing. You're not going to get a good quality, thin camera phone in the near future.
It's a total misconception that Flash *needs* a fatter pipe ie. 3G before it's usable. Flash often results in website graphics smaller than GIF.
IMHO the lack of Flash is more to do with political motivations within Apple and them wanting to not licence Flash from Adobe and/or promote it's use over Safari's web standards.
If you're paying attention, the Webkit programmers have been implementing a whole raft of stuff from HTML5 and CSS3 that most desktop web developers have no real use for yet because of Microsoft's dominance there. It's mostly pointless writing HTML5/CSS3/Canvas based code if 70% or so of your market can't use it. Apple want the mobile web browser market and they want it based on web standards. Adding Flash would be detrimental to that. They need to get it done before Adobe and Microsoft spoil it for everyone.
I agree on the political part, but I also think it has to do with performance. Not with the the bandwidth, but with the load on the iPhones ARM processor. Flash isn't great for OS X on Intel and I don't think there is a decent version of Flash for ARM. Does Flash for OS X on ARM even exist yet? If it does, how much will it slow down the rendering of pages as it taxes the system? Except for Scrabulous, I have not missed or needed Flash at all since getting the iPhone.
As you stated, the new WebKit implementations won't be common for awhile but they are impressive. The fact that FF mobile won't be ready until later this year and probably not a final product at that, I see the compliant, lightweight, and highly versatile WebKit being the de facto standard for the mobile platform in years to come. FF's only play is to have plugins.
PS; Dd you see that MS has given in; IE8 will default to "standards compliant" after all and not require the switch embedded in the website after all? Score one for open source.
and when you're oversea's you can still get on the internet without paying roaming charges..
Good list by the poster above, saved me from writing the same thing. WiFi is ESSENTIAL in a smart phone, as is 3G. You can add me to the list of people that will purchase the phone immediately when it comes with 3G.
I think it's pathetic that other manufactures have had such a long time now to come up with an iPhone competitor and the best they can do is the F480. I'll say it again, pathetic (spit).
I agree on the political part, but I also think it has to do with performance. Not with the the bandwidth, but with the load on the iPhones ARM processor. Flash isn't great for OS X on Intel and I don't think there is a decent version of Flash for ARM.
The CPU in the iPhone is a 624Mhz ARM11 along with support chips for the radio stack and a custom GPU. It's apparently only clocked at 412Mhz, raised up from 400Mhz when they first shipped the iPhone. IMHO it's considerably more powerful than the iBook G3 500 I occasionally use (because Apple's current laptop lineup are all larger and I'm cheap). Flash runs ok on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Does Flash for OS X on ARM even exist yet? If it does, how much will it slow down the rendering of pages as it taxes the system? Except for Scrabulous, I have not missed or needed Flash at all since getting the iPhone.
I can't imagine it'd be too tricky a port from Flash on OSX to Flash on OSX on ARM. Flash on ARM on other OSs and much less capable devices than the iPhone is widespread. You can download it here...
FlashLite 3.0 is due in this quarter's phones from Nokia. It supports most of Flash9. They run WebKit too so it's not as if the two don't marry up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As you stated, the new WebKit implementations won't be common for awhile but they are impressive. The fact that FF mobile won't be ready until later this year and probably not a final product at that, I see the compliant, lightweight, and highly versatile WebKit being the de facto standard for the mobile platform in years to come. FF's only play is to have plugins.
I think Apple have a good shot at becoming the defacto standard with WebKit as most of the world's smartphones are using it now (ie. Nokia's phones). The competition isn't Firefox, it's Opera who will pick up standards quickly, and Microsoft who won't. Gecko is too big and slow and they've missed the boat. People also overestimate the advantage plugins have in Firefox and on a mobile browser I can't really see the need at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS; Dd you see that MS has given in; IE8 will default to "standards compliant" after all and not require the switch embedded in the website after all? Score one for open source.
Score one for common sense. I don't pay much if any attention to what Microsoft do so generally only pick these things up when there's a large disturbance in the blogosphere. Happily I can usually avoid Microsoft.
Do you need wifi if you've got 7.2mbps data anyway? No.
If you want to connect to a WiFi network, you do. With so many people buying, or thinking about buying WiFi at home, it would come in handy. It also depends on the data plan. If WiFi is off network, and you can get it free, as you will be able to at, say, Starbucks, if you have an Apple product, then you will also want it. Sailing Clicker uses wireless technology to work, and others will as well.
As for 3G, yeah, it is a lot faster. I have friends with the iPhone. My Treo 700p has 3G, and when we try getting to the same pages, my phone loads much faster. Now, it's true that the iPhone has a bit more to load per page, but, even so, the difference is pronounced.
Are there any sites that both browsers will load the same data? I ask because the few reports I've read show that the iPhone is about equal to rendering pages with other smartphones using slower processors using less efficient browsers. which make up the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andro101010
1) All phones have to get FCC approval for use in the US. That's one reason why Nokia etc tend to release phones in Europe first. They can sell them on day one there while applying for the FCC approval. Jobs will announce in July and deliver in October.
2) 3G is vastly faster but most phone's processors mean that web pages are rendered as slowly as EDGE. Using a laptop over 3G is great. To have an idea of what 3G will be like on 3G: get a s60 phone in a 3G area, turn it into a wifi hotspot and then use an iPhone over the S60's 3G network. It's not bad.
That is interesting. Apple could announce and release a 3G iPhone in Asia and Europe on the same day it submits it to the FCC. Even if they also lowered the 2.75G model substantially that same day the sales would probably still slow to a crawl in the US and some early US adopters would still find a way of getting one. That is the most profitable way Apple can pull this off taht I've read.
So EU testing is completely private? Anyone know about Asian countries?
Some reasons off the top of my head why the iPhone will and should have WiFi:
? 802.11g is still 7.5x faster
But pointless if you're connecting to a broadband line past the router which only gives you normal ADSL. Here in the UK the average is not much more than 4Mbits. Compare that to 3.6Mbit HSDPA and newer 7.2Mbits if you can get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
? The carrier may not offer 7.2Mb/s speeds
? The carrier may not even have 3G in that area
Much more likely they do than WiFi though because of the larger range cell comms have over wifi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
? WiFi uses a lot less power than any cell radio, much less a 3G chip
? WiFi is a very small chip and inexpensive to include
Agreed. My point was more whether you NEED wifi though if you've the other. Wifi is on my list of must haves, particularly as I've no 3G at home, but it's getting less and less of a must have for many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
? For corporate use it's easier to connect to the LAn with WiFi instead of tunneling in via the WAN
True. But then if I'm at work, I've no need to tunnel in as I'm there already using a computer instead of a phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
? Not all iPhones authorized carriers offer unlimited data packages
? If you can have redundancy on the cheap, do it
Agreed. Wifi is a nice addon for when you're in range of a hotspot which may be often if they're your hotspots whereas 3G is almost ubiquitous now here (rural Pennine hillside retreats not withstanding) and quite possibly faster and cheaper than land lines. It's a strange fallout of British Telecom being crap at upgrading infrastructure that mobile phone data is starting to compete so well.
and when you're oversea's you can still get on the internet without paying roaming charges..
Yes, that's a good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho
I think it's pathetic that other manufactures have had such a long time now to come up with an iPhone competitor and the best they can do is the F480. I'll say it again, pathetic (spit).
I've not used one but it's a Samsung so I'm sure it's by far from being the 'best' a manufacturer can do. I was playing with a Nokia 6500 last week. Free on Orange business plans at the mo and they give you a free iPod Touch too. Tempted.
Are there any sites that both browsers will load the same data? I ask because the few reports I've read show that the iPhone is about equal to rendering pages with other smartphones using slower processors using less efficient browsers. which make up the majority.
Well, the rendering on the iPhone is much better, because it's using the actual web page, in most cases (but not all!). But, it's much slower overall. Possibly the rendering speed is the same if you're doing it through WiFi. In fact, it should be a bit quicker, as WiFi is faster than the 400 Kps to 800 Kps that Sprint offers.
But, it's been noted in several reviews that the iPhone doesn't take full advantage of WiFi either, because of processor speed, or possibly limitations in the WiFi chip (the last is my thought). Both can be possible. The power limitations imposed on the WiFi circuit can limit the speed it can operate at.
But pointless if you're connecting to a broadband line past the router which only gives you normal ADSL. Here in the UK the average is not much more than 4Mbits. Compare that to 3.6Mbit HSDPA and newer 7.2Mbits if you can get it.
Much more likely they do than WiFi though because of the larger range cell comms have over wifi.
Agreed. My point was more whether you NEED wifi though if you've the other. Wifi is on my list of must haves, particularly as I've no 3G at home, but it's getting less and less of a must have for many people.
True. But then if I'm at work, I've no need to tunnel in as I'm there already using a computer instead of a phone.
Agreed. Wifi is a nice addon for when you're in range of a hotspot which may be often if they're your hotspots whereas 3G is almost ubiquitous now here (rural Pennine hillside retreats not withstanding) and quite possibly faster and cheaper than land lines. It's a strange fallout of British Telecom being crap at upgrading infrastructure that mobile phone data is starting to compete so well.
I didn't think my list was debatable.
I don't exactly hear dueling banjos outside my window, but I don't have 3G in my area at all, much less the maximum theoretical throughput. If the iPhone didn't have WiFi, i wouldn't buy one, I'd buy an iPod Touch instead for the WiFi. I rely on it heavily and more each month as hotspots crop up.
Speed aside, isn't there a higher latency with Cellular vs Cable and DSL?
I don't exactly her dueling banjos outside my window, but I don't have 3G in my area at all, much less the maximum theoretical throughput. If the iPhone didn't have WiFi, i wouldn't buy one, I'd buy an iPod Touch instead for the WiFi. I rely on it heavily and more each month as hotspots crop up.
I've got duelling whippets outside mine as it's Yorkshire outside. Most of the UK has 3G though. So for us it's the opposite proposition and I'm not considering an iPhone until they add 3G even though I don't actually have 3G here - it's pretty much available anywhere else without having to hunt for a wifi hotspot. I've wifi at home but then I've a computer anyway so why use an iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Speed aside, isn't there a higher latency with Cellular vs Cable and DSL?
From what I gather, yes, but that doesn't stop some people ditching their expensive land lines and broadband contracts entirely for a £10-20 a month 3G modem contract. If I was a gamer that actually cared about latency it would be an issue but otherwise, for normal people, it's not a concern.
I've got duelling whippets outside mine as it's Yorkshire outside. Most of the UK has 3G though. So for us it's the opposite proposition and I'm not considering an iPhone until they add 3G even though I don't actually have 3G here - it's pretty much available anywhere else without having to hunt for a wifi hotspot. I've wifi at home but then I've a computer anyway so why use an iPhone?
Location, location, location!UK
Total Land: 60,776,238 241,590 km/sq
Population: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
Density: 252 people per km/sq
US
Total Land:9,161,923 sq/km
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Density: 33 people per km/sq
(Courtesy of CIA - World Factbook)Wifi is much more common, plus you already know that we have a disjointed and lagging cellular infrastructure.
Comments
I decided in Jan that I would buy the next gen iPhone as soon as it became available. So count me in that group who has their $600 put aside and waiting.
I am not a real tech geek, so maybe this is off-base. Aside from no-3G, one of the biggest complaints for the iPhone was lack of Flash support. Might Apple in their wisdom not included Flash because people accessing Flash content via the edge network would have really complained about poor speed? And with the addition of 3G, could Flash support follow? In other words, when the virtual pipe is large enough (3G), will Flash be added? I'll take that over streaming HD
It's a good observation, and certainly possible. It could also be waiting for a slightly faster processor, which should also arrive.
IMHO the lack of Flash is more to do with political motivations within Apple and them wanting to not licence Flash from Adobe and/or promote it's use over Safari's web standards.
If you're paying attention, the Webkit programmers have been implementing a whole raft of stuff from HTML5 and CSS3 that most desktop web developers have no real use for yet because of Microsoft's dominance there. It's mostly pointless writing HTML5/CSS3/Canvas based code if 70% or so of your market can't use it. Apple want the mobile web browser market and they want it based on web standards. Adding Flash would be detrimental to that. They need to get it done before Adobe and Microsoft spoil it for everyone.
It's slimmer and considerably smaller than the iPhone and packs 7.2Mbit 3G HSDPA and a 5 megapixel autofocus camera. (Along with a large touch screen, etc)
No Wifi and 320x240 resolution, and naming it the same as a popular Fuji camera. Pathetic - a complete waste of time and effort on behalf Samsung.
Instead of the Blackjack, compare the size of the new Samsung F480:
It's slimmer and considerably smaller than the iPhone and packs 7.2Mbit 3G HSDPA and a 5 megapixel autofocus camera. (Along with a large touch screen, etc)
What's with this megapixel obsession? If it's the same camera that's in their other phones released at the same time, it's still not that impressive, there's not even the extra detail, it's large megapixels to give people a large number, i.e. marketing. You're not going to get a good quality, thin camera phone in the near future.
No Wifi and 320x240 resolution, and naming it the same as a popular Fuji camera. Pathetic - a complete waste of time and effort on behalf Samsung.
Do you need wifi if you've got 7.2mbps data anyway? No.
It's a total misconception that Flash *needs* a fatter pipe ie. 3G before it's usable. Flash often results in website graphics smaller than GIF.
IMHO the lack of Flash is more to do with political motivations within Apple and them wanting to not licence Flash from Adobe and/or promote it's use over Safari's web standards.
If you're paying attention, the Webkit programmers have been implementing a whole raft of stuff from HTML5 and CSS3 that most desktop web developers have no real use for yet because of Microsoft's dominance there. It's mostly pointless writing HTML5/CSS3/Canvas based code if 70% or so of your market can't use it. Apple want the mobile web browser market and they want it based on web standards. Adding Flash would be detrimental to that. They need to get it done before Adobe and Microsoft spoil it for everyone.
I agree on the political part, but I also think it has to do with performance. Not with the the bandwidth, but with the load on the iPhones ARM processor. Flash isn't great for OS X on Intel and I don't think there is a decent version of Flash for ARM. Does Flash for OS X on ARM even exist yet? If it does, how much will it slow down the rendering of pages as it taxes the system? Except for Scrabulous, I have not missed or needed Flash at all since getting the iPhone.
As you stated, the new WebKit implementations won't be common for awhile but they are impressive. The fact that FF mobile won't be ready until later this year and probably not a final product at that, I see the compliant, lightweight, and highly versatile WebKit being the de facto standard for the mobile platform in years to come. FF's only play is to have plugins.
PS; Dd you see that MS has given in; IE8 will default to "standards compliant" after all and not require the switch embedded in the website after all? Score one for open source.
Do you need wifi if you've got 7.2mbps data anyway? No.
Some reasons off the top of my head why the iPhone will and should have WiFi:
Good list by the poster above, saved me from writing the same thing. WiFi is ESSENTIAL in a smart phone, as is 3G. You can add me to the list of people that will purchase the phone immediately when it comes with 3G.
I think it's pathetic that other manufactures have had such a long time now to come up with an iPhone competitor and the best they can do is the F480. I'll say it again, pathetic (spit).
C.
I agree on the political part, but I also think it has to do with performance. Not with the the bandwidth, but with the load on the iPhones ARM processor. Flash isn't great for OS X on Intel and I don't think there is a decent version of Flash for ARM.
The CPU in the iPhone is a 624Mhz ARM11 along with support chips for the radio stack and a custom GPU. It's apparently only clocked at 412Mhz, raised up from 400Mhz when they first shipped the iPhone. IMHO it's considerably more powerful than the iBook G3 500 I occasionally use (because Apple's current laptop lineup are all larger and I'm cheap). Flash runs ok on that.
Does Flash for OS X on ARM even exist yet? If it does, how much will it slow down the rendering of pages as it taxes the system? Except for Scrabulous, I have not missed or needed Flash at all since getting the iPhone.
I can't imagine it'd be too tricky a port from Flash on OSX to Flash on OSX on ARM. Flash on ARM on other OSs and much less capable devices than the iPhone is widespread. You can download it here...
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/devices/nokia.html
FlashLite 3.0 is due in this quarter's phones from Nokia. It supports most of Flash9. They run WebKit too so it's not as if the two don't marry up.
As you stated, the new WebKit implementations won't be common for awhile but they are impressive. The fact that FF mobile won't be ready until later this year and probably not a final product at that, I see the compliant, lightweight, and highly versatile WebKit being the de facto standard for the mobile platform in years to come. FF's only play is to have plugins.
I think Apple have a good shot at becoming the defacto standard with WebKit as most of the world's smartphones are using it now (ie. Nokia's phones). The competition isn't Firefox, it's Opera who will pick up standards quickly, and Microsoft who won't. Gecko is too big and slow and they've missed the boat. People also overestimate the advantage plugins have in Firefox and on a mobile browser I can't really see the need at all.
PS; Dd you see that MS has given in; IE8 will default to "standards compliant" after all and not require the switch embedded in the website after all? Score one for open source.
Score one for common sense. I don't pay much if any attention to what Microsoft do so generally only pick these things up when there's a large disturbance in the blogosphere. Happily I can usually avoid Microsoft.
Do you need wifi if you've got 7.2mbps data anyway? No.
If you want to connect to a WiFi network, you do. With so many people buying, or thinking about buying WiFi at home, it would come in handy. It also depends on the data plan. If WiFi is off network, and you can get it free, as you will be able to at, say, Starbucks, if you have an Apple product, then you will also want it. Sailing Clicker uses wireless technology to work, and others will as well.
As for 3G, yeah, it is a lot faster. I have friends with the iPhone. My Treo 700p has 3G, and when we try getting to the same pages, my phone loads much faster. Now, it's true that the iPhone has a bit more to load per page, but, even so, the difference is pronounced.
Are there any sites that both browsers will load the same data? I ask because the few reports I've read show that the iPhone is about equal to rendering pages with other smartphones using slower processors using less efficient browsers. which make up the majority.
1) All phones have to get FCC approval for use in the US. That's one reason why Nokia etc tend to release phones in Europe first. They can sell them on day one there while applying for the FCC approval. Jobs will announce in July and deliver in October.
2) 3G is vastly faster but most phone's processors mean that web pages are rendered as slowly as EDGE. Using a laptop over 3G is great. To have an idea of what 3G will be like on 3G: get a s60 phone in a 3G area, turn it into a wifi hotspot and then use an iPhone over the S60's 3G network. It's not bad.
That is interesting. Apple could announce and release a 3G iPhone in Asia and Europe on the same day it submits it to the FCC. Even if they also lowered the 2.75G model substantially that same day the sales would probably still slow to a crawl in the US and some early US adopters would still find a way of getting one. That is the most profitable way Apple can pull this off taht I've read.
So EU testing is completely private? Anyone know about Asian countries?
Some reasons off the top of my head why the iPhone will and should have WiFi:
and when you're oversea's you can still get on the internet without paying roaming charges..
Yes, that's a good one.
I think it's pathetic that other manufactures have had such a long time now to come up with an iPhone competitor and the best they can do is the F480. I'll say it again, pathetic (spit).
I've not used one but it's a Samsung so I'm sure it's by far from being the 'best' a manufacturer can do. I was playing with a Nokia 6500 last week. Free on Orange business plans at the mo and they give you a free iPod Touch too. Tempted.
Are there any sites that both browsers will load the same data? I ask because the few reports I've read show that the iPhone is about equal to rendering pages with other smartphones using slower processors using less efficient browsers. which make up the majority.
Well, the rendering on the iPhone is much better, because it's using the actual web page, in most cases (but not all!). But, it's much slower overall. Possibly the rendering speed is the same if you're doing it through WiFi. In fact, it should be a bit quicker, as WiFi is faster than the 400 Kps to 800 Kps that Sprint offers.
But, it's been noted in several reviews that the iPhone doesn't take full advantage of WiFi either, because of processor speed, or possibly limitations in the WiFi chip (the last is my thought). Both can be possible. The power limitations imposed on the WiFi circuit can limit the speed it can operate at.
But pointless if you're connecting to a broadband line past the router which only gives you normal ADSL. Here in the UK the average is not much more than 4Mbits. Compare that to 3.6Mbit HSDPA and newer 7.2Mbits if you can get it.
Much more likely they do than WiFi though because of the larger range cell comms have over wifi.
Agreed. My point was more whether you NEED wifi though if you've the other. Wifi is on my list of must haves, particularly as I've no 3G at home, but it's getting less and less of a must have for many people.
True. But then if I'm at work, I've no need to tunnel in as I'm there already using a computer instead of a phone.
Agreed. Wifi is a nice addon for when you're in range of a hotspot which may be often if they're your hotspots whereas 3G is almost ubiquitous now here (rural Pennine hillside retreats not withstanding) and quite possibly faster and cheaper than land lines. It's a strange fallout of British Telecom being crap at upgrading infrastructure that mobile phone data is starting to compete so well.
I didn't think my list was debatable.
I don't exactly hear dueling banjos outside my window, but I don't have 3G in my area at all, much less the maximum theoretical throughput. If the iPhone didn't have WiFi, i wouldn't buy one, I'd buy an iPod Touch instead for the WiFi. I rely on it heavily and more each month as hotspots crop up.
Speed aside, isn't there a higher latency with Cellular vs Cable and DSL?
I didn't think my list was debatable.
I don't exactly her dueling banjos outside my window, but I don't have 3G in my area at all, much less the maximum theoretical throughput. If the iPhone didn't have WiFi, i wouldn't buy one, I'd buy an iPod Touch instead for the WiFi. I rely on it heavily and more each month as hotspots crop up.
I've got duelling whippets outside mine as it's Yorkshire outside. Most of the UK has 3G though. So for us it's the opposite proposition and I'm not considering an iPhone until they add 3G even though I don't actually have 3G here - it's pretty much available anywhere else without having to hunt for a wifi hotspot. I've wifi at home but then I've a computer anyway so why use an iPhone?
Speed aside, isn't there a higher latency with Cellular vs Cable and DSL?
From what I gather, yes, but that doesn't stop some people ditching their expensive land lines and broadband contracts entirely for a £10-20 a month 3G modem contract. If I was a gamer that actually cared about latency it would be an issue but otherwise, for normal people, it's not a concern.
I've got duelling whippets outside mine as it's Yorkshire outside. Most of the UK has 3G though. So for us it's the opposite proposition and I'm not considering an iPhone until they add 3G even though I don't actually have 3G here - it's pretty much available anywhere else without having to hunt for a wifi hotspot. I've wifi at home but then I've a computer anyway so why use an iPhone?
Location, location, location!UK
Total Land: 60,776,238 241,590 km/sq
Population: 60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
Density: 252 people per km/sq
US
Total Land:9,161,923 sq/km
Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
Density: 33 people per km/sq
(Courtesy of CIA - World Factbook)Wifi is much more common, plus you already know that we have a disjointed and lagging cellular infrastructure.