No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
UMTS uses 10Mhz total bandwidth, 5 up, 5 down. The entire bandwidth allocated for a frequency is usually between 50 and 100 Mhz in each direction, so it all depends on how many phone companies are sharing the bandwidth.
So there aren't lots of channels, maybe between one and four. CDMA has nothing to do with switching channels in this sense, its a function of UMTS. Either way, you're not going to get a whole lot of bandwidth.
I was wondering whether Steve Jobs' comments on the extra power used with 3G are still valid if the next iPhone uses the Infineon S-GOLD3H chipset. See Engadget's article at:
I found this interesting, how we tout how 3g is wonderful, like anything else the telecom can cripple anything including "3g" speeds If that's the case why upgrade if you are a o2 customer, i wonder what apple says about this, since they want the service to grow and offer more market to iphone upgrades. ATT better not do this, but they do, what recourse would you have
I was wondering whether Steve Jobs' comments on the extra power used with 3G are still valid if the next iPhone uses the Infineon S-GOLD3H chipset. See Engadget's article at:
NeonSeven has a quad band data module that uses the S-GOLD3H (akaPMB8878), and they describe the power consumption as follows:
Deliverables
Power consumption (average)
o Idle: 2 mA
o 2G Talk - 33dBm: 300 mA
o 3G Talk - 24 dBm: 600 mA
o 3G HSDPA - 24dBm: 650mA
The design uses the Infineon SM-Power3 for power management.
DO you have any power usage info of the PMB8876? Since it's an older chip the 2G mA are higher than that of the PMB8878 making the difference less severe.
Either way, I'm hoping for an OLED display with the 3G iPhone. Price is no concern so long as I have the same or better battery life as the current model.
5 seconds is lousy but kudos to them doing it. Still the ones ive seen hacked recording on youtube only go up to 6 or 7 fps and nowhere near the claimd 45fps they mention on that link.
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
According to your query, if Apple should have already implemented something because hackers can do it then there would be no hackers because Apple would have already implemented it.
If Apple hasn't gotten video recording working adequately (i.e.: 29.97fps, not 7fps) then we won't see it implemented. Outside of software, the current HW may have been too taxing for Apple to implement.
We also won't see if Apple, in all their marketing wisdom , deems it an inappropriate time to release it; they could be holding off as a way of pushing it with a future update to keep the iPhone momentum going.
I believe that the SDK doesn't not prevent coders from accessing the camera. This could mean that they wish to leave it up to a 3rd party to create.
Regardless, I see no reason why this won't eventually be a feature
5 seconds is lousy but kudos to them doing it. Still the ones ive seen hacked recording on youtube only go up to 6 or 7 fps and nowhere near the claimd 45fps they mention on that link.
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
doesn't seem likely... Battery life would not be impacted much if used sparingly... other cellphones don't seem to have any problem recording a few minutes of video at a time without draining the battery..
When you get up to recording at say VGA 30fps then contiuous recording for like an hour will maybe drain it a tad but generally for odd clips it should be fine. I know a lot of people on the states dont seem to have any use for video capture but you have to remember in Europe this is a whole different deal. Over the years we have had phones whos main features are video capture orientated. I suppose when you have a phone like iphone which is top notch for video playback then naturaly you expect to be able to have the capture side of things aswell. I did find it a bit amusing that Apple would go to so much trouble to get youtube to stat encoding in H264 so they could have a nice youtube app but wait a minute you cant actually upload anything yourself to youtube becasue iphone doesnt do video?
I just hope its a case of Apple not yet perfecting that feature. With all that technology in iphone I would have to seriously question the logic of Steve Jobs if he continues to ignore video capture.
I just hope its a case of Apple not yet perfecting that feature. With all that technology in iphone I would have to seriously question the logic of Steve Jobs if he continues to ignore video capture.
I'm pretty sure video recording is at the bottom of their priority list.
The iPhone is primarily intended to be a mobile communication and media playback device. The number one use of the phone is email, number two is internet. These are before voice.
I would imagine Apple's priority is on adding and improving communications features. Video will likely come along sooner or later.
For the average American iphone user video capture may be bottom of the list but to a European it may be closer to the top. You cant make that statement as you have no idea what Apples strategy is in that regard.
Comments
No, that's the aggregate data throughput of a single channel. I seem to remember that channel bandwidth for WCDMA is 5MHz. cells tend to operate on multiple channels. As more users enter a cell, the channels get overloaded. This is where the CDMA comes in. So actual data throughput depends on how many users are sharing a channel, and how much of it they are using. A lot of technology goes into load-balancing cell channels.
UMTS uses 10Mhz total bandwidth, 5 up, 5 down. The entire bandwidth allocated for a frequency is usually between 50 and 100 Mhz in each direction, so it all depends on how many phone companies are sharing the bandwidth.
So there aren't lots of channels, maybe between one and four. CDMA has nothing to do with switching channels in this sense, its a function of UMTS. Either way, you're not going to get a whole lot of bandwidth.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/08/i...chip-revealed/
NeonSeven has a quad band data module that uses the S-GOLD3H (akaPMB8878), and they describe the power consumption as follows:
Deliverables
Power consumption (average)
o Idle: 2 mA
o 2G Talk - 33dBm: 300 mA
o 3G Talk - 24 dBm: 600 mA
o 3G HSDPA - 24dBm: 650mA
The design uses the Infineon SM-Power3 for power management.
Power doubles in going from 2G to 3G. It's too bad they don't list 2.5G as well. For more details, see http://www.neonseven.com/pdf/N721.pdf.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...28kbps.3g.cap/
I was wondering whether Steve Jobs' comments on the extra power used with 3G are still valid if the next iPhone uses the Infineon S-GOLD3H chipset. See Engadget's article at:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/08/i...chip-revealed/
NeonSeven has a quad band data module that uses the S-GOLD3H (akaPMB8878), and they describe the power consumption as follows:
Deliverables
Power consumption (average)
o Idle: 2 mA
o 2G Talk - 33dBm: 300 mA
o 3G Talk - 24 dBm: 600 mA
o 3G HSDPA - 24dBm: 650mA
The design uses the Infineon SM-Power3 for power management.
DO you have any power usage info of the PMB8876? Since it's an older chip the 2G mA are higher than that of the PMB8878 making the difference less severe.
Either way, I'm hoping for an OLED display with the 3G iPhone. Price is no concern so long as I have the same or better battery life as the current model.
From a greek iPhone unlocking site. (Translated)
Infineon's processor also enables new options for video that aren't present in the SGOLD2, such as live recording
Does this part basically mean that video recording is definatley impossible on the current device?
Does this part basically mean that video recording is definatley impossible on the current device?
The processor and graphics can support video recording in the current iPhone.
Here is a hacked iPhone recording video.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/13/i...-capabilities/
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
According to your query, if Apple should have already implemented something because hackers can do it then there would be no hackers because Apple would have already implemented it.
If Apple hasn't gotten video recording working adequately (i.e.: 29.97fps, not 7fps) then we won't see it implemented. Outside of software, the current HW may have been too taxing for Apple to implement.
We also won't see if Apple, in all their marketing wisdom
I believe that the SDK doesn't not prevent coders from accessing the camera. This could mean that they wish to leave it up to a 3rd party to create.
Regardless, I see no reason why this won't eventually be a feature
5 seconds is lousy but kudos to them doing it. Still the ones ive seen hacked recording on youtube only go up to 6 or 7 fps and nowhere near the claimd 45fps they mention on that link.
Also if the hackers can do it why the hell havent Apple implemented it as an update yet? Does the fact that the hackers can do this mean that Apple should eventually implement this feature in iphone in a future update?
would it be due to battery life???
would it be due to battery life???
doesn't seem likely... Battery life would not be impacted much if used sparingly... other cellphones don't seem to have any problem recording a few minutes of video at a time without draining the battery..
I just hope its a case of Apple not yet perfecting that feature. With all that technology in iphone I would have to seriously question the logic of Steve Jobs if he continues to ignore video capture.
I just hope its a case of Apple not yet perfecting that feature. With all that technology in iphone I would have to seriously question the logic of Steve Jobs if he continues to ignore video capture.
I'm pretty sure video recording is at the bottom of their priority list.
The iPhone is primarily intended to be a mobile communication and media playback device. The number one use of the phone is email, number two is internet. These are before voice.
I would imagine Apple's priority is on adding and improving communications features. Video will likely come along sooner or later.
Why does a European need video capture on a phone more than an American?
They don't NEED it more, but they EXPECT it more.
They don't NEED it more, but they EXPECT it more.
I don't buy that argument.
The US has higher 3G handset penetration rate than UK, France and Germany.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/3/a...re_spain_italy
People like to paint the US as years behind Europe in "cool" phones --- yet Americans have more 3G phones than the big 3 European countries.