Verizon's 3G network is definitely better than ATT's, especially in coverage. But if you're in a metro area that ATT's 3G covers, you still want it, 'cuz EDGE is slow.
Yes and no. You want 3G when you are on the net in an interactive mode. But for push email, messages and other low bandwidth or background download it isn't as critical.
Quote:
And it's a worse situation in Europe, where no 3G often means using GPRS, which is even slower than EDGE. Like dialup slow. As in painful.
Yes, 2G launch in Europe and Asia was not as good as a 3G launch would have been. On the other hand Apple, for better or worse, is a US centric company. Like other companies are Europe and Asia centric. Like the lack of the Nokia N97 phone in the US at the initial launch.
IMHO...GREAT. It's nice to have something first in the US and not wondering is some cool new tech will ever hit our shores at all.
Quote:
The 2G iPhone wasn't a bad decision for the US, but it was a bad one for Europe, which as a market has different (and higher) expectations- as lackluster 2G iPhone sales underscored. And it would've been a disaster in places like Japan and Korea. Fortunately, Apple didn't release the 2G iPhone there.
Well yah. No need to launch the iPhone in countries where it would have completely sucked.
Quote:
Far as higher power draw goes, well, you acknowledge it and design around it, in part by going with a bigger battery and slightly thicker iPhone. The 3G iPhone is actually a hair thicker than the 2G (by .03"), but the battery doesn't appear to be higher in capacity, or higher enough at any rate. I understand from past experience that you'll argue 'til your blue in the face that somehow putting a higher-cap battery in would be a bad idea or wouldn't make much of a difference, but I'm satisfied from our previous discussion on the matter that you're incorrect there.
Which part of double the power draw requires double the battery do you disagree with?
Have you seen the incase power case?
That's what it would have looked like to match the talk time of the 2G iPhone. Then folks would have been bitching about how fat Apple made the 3G iPhone.
Also, I don't believe that you ever addressed the comments by Nokia engineers about the subject. It wasn't just Apple that reduced battery capaciity on their phones for size considerations and that they added power saving techniques to the phones to compensate.
Even then, there's not much you can do when the new technology is a freaking power hog in comparison to the old one for the 1st few revs. Plus it probably takes more internal volume until the chip makers can reduce footprint. Like the 3G + GPS + WiFi chips in development.
Yes and no. You want 3G when you are on the 'net in an interactive mode. But for push email, messages and other low bandwidth or background download it isn't as critical.
Which means you want it.
Quote:
Yes, 2G launch in Europe and Asia was not as good as a 3G launch would have been. On the other hand Apple, for better or worse, is a US-centric company. Like other companies are Europe and Asia centric. Like the lack of the Nokia N97 phone in the US at the initial launch.
Apple's brand is strongest in the US, but they are a global company, and they want good sales worldwide. I highly doubt Steve-o would've been satisfied with the iPhone doing well in the US and permanently doing poorly everywhere else. Fortunately, with the 3G iPhone, that no longer seems to be the case.
Btw, wasn't the launch in Asia for the 3G iPhone, not the 2G? I know for Japan it was.
Quote:
Which part of double the power draw requires double the battery do you disagree with?
Have you seen the incase power case?
That's what it would have looked like to match the talk time of the 2G iPhone.
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the (hilarious) exaggeration. What you're not getting is that cellphone batteries are pretty small in relation to the phones themselves:
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon. \
"Ooh, you are just SO BIG,
arentcha Mr. iPhone battery?"
Quote:
Also, I don't believe that you ever addressed the comments by Nokia engineers about the subject.
It's called a lack of time. I actually never clicked on the link you provided. I can understand how Nokia might be worried about their phones being too thick, but their competing phones have been quite a bit thicker than the iPhone to start out with. When you're at 0.83" thick like the N95, then you can certainly worry about thickness. When you're at 0.46" like the original iPhone, not so much.
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the exaggeration. What you're not getting is that cellphone batteries are pretty small in relation to the phones themselves:
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon. \
Now that we have an iPhone back that is easily removed by removing a couple screws with the battery right behind it, I'd like to see a company sell an extra large battery with an extended back casing. My hopes aren't high, but I would surely by such an item.
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the (hilarious) exaggeration. What you're not getting is that cellphone batteries are pretty small in relation to the phones themselves:
That's the actual picture of the product you can buy at any Apple store. Part of that thickness is the case itself so you have to deduct some.
Quote:
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon. \
The battery doubles in size, which is what I said. So it would be 1.4 cubic inches and 0.42" inches thick. Leading to the same kind of bulge as in the incase case except on the bottom rather than centered on the back. The iPhone would then be 0.7 inches thick at it's thickest point.
Now that we have an iPhone back that is easily removed by removing a couple screws with the battery right behind it, I'd like to see a company sell an extra large battery with an extended back casing. My hopes aren't high, but I would surely by such an item.
The battery doubles in size, which is what I said. So it would be 1.4 cubic inches and 0.42" inches thick. Leading to the same kind of bulge as in the incase case except on the bottom rather than centered on the back. The iPhone would then be 0.7 inches thick at it's thickest point.
Which still wouldn't be all that thick, honestly. It also makes some odd assumptions, such as the iPhone not being at all designed around a bigger battery.
Realize that batteries can and do come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and thicknesses, including 'broader' as opposed to fatter. Let's say the iPhone was, or in the future is, well-designed around a bigger, 1.4 cubic inch battery. That would increase the iPhone from its current 5.3 cubic inches to a new 6.0 cubic inches, which is a 13% increase in volume.
Assuming the same footprint (which I would, since you likely want to keep the screen the same size), the iPhone increases from the current 0.49" thick on up to 0.55" thick. In other words, scarcely noticeable.
Gasp. Shock. Horror. We have RUINED the iPhone!!! And for WHAT? Greatly increasing battery life!?! NOOOOOOO!!!!
/end sarcasm
Let's face it, Vin... the iPhone being as thin as it is isn't about anything other than Steve wanting bragging rights over the competition, aka "We're THINNER than you!", as opposed to being merely AS thin as you.
Marketing over battery life, form over function. And most ppl just could not care less about a few hundredths of an inch, particularly if they were getting something important in exchange for it.
Assuming the same footprint (which I would, since you likely want to keep the screen the same size), the iPhone increases from the current 0.49" thick on up to 0.55" thick. In other words, scarcely noticeable.
Gasp. Shock. Horror. We have RUINED the iPhone!!! And for WHAT? Greatly increasing battery life!?! NOOOOOOO!!!!
/end sarcasm
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
Let's face it, Vin... the iPhone being as thin as it is isn't about anything other than Steve wanting bragging rights over the competition, aka "We're THINNER than you!", as opposed to being merely AS thin as you.
Marketing over battery life, form over function. And most ppl just could not care less about a few hundredths of an inch, particularly if they were getting something important in exchange for it.
There is obviously some form over function since a smaller battery doesn't last as long, but being smaller and lighter does offer a function, not just aesthetics. If the iPhone's EDGE, 3G, music and video times were unreasonably short compared to similar smartphones and PMPs I'd understand the "form over function" argument, but their is plenty of data to show the iPhone does last longer than other, larger devices. The only smartphones I've seen best it is a couple BB's on CDMA2000 (3G) but it still uses CDMA for voice, while the the iPhone has to use W-CDMA for voice as GSM can't do a soft handoff. But even with that technical aspect in CDMA's favour, the BB's didn't last much longer than the iPhone.
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
I use the crap out of the browser and email with Push enabled. Usually while playing music. The only time I'm not using the browser is when I'm watching videos from the iPod app. So I get about a half of a day to a full day (not night) of use depending on if I have EDGE or 3G turned on. I bought an external 3200mAh battery to get me a full 12 hours on 3G with heavy use, but that crappy battery died after one use. I'm looking for a replacement but choosing more wisely this time.
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
That's pretty decent, but sadly, many ppl do not appear to share your enthusiasm for the batt life on the iPhone.
To use a different AI board member testimony, Solip says he gets a half day to one day per charge.
There is obviously some form over function since a smaller battery doesn't last as long
Yep. That is pretty much unarguable.
Quote:
If the iPhone's EDGE, 3G, music and video times were unreasonably short compared to similar smartphones and PMPs I'd understand the "form over function" argument, but their is plenty of data to show the iPhone does last longer than other, larger devices. The only smartphones I've seen best it is a couple BB's on CDMA2000 (3G) but it still uses CDMA for voice, while the the iPhone has to use W-CDMA for voice as GSM can't do a soft handoff. But even with that technical aspect in CDMA's favour, the BB's didn't last much longer than the iPhone.
Well, first off, CDMA isn't the lowest-power common voice technology out there... GSM actually uses quite a bit less power than CDMA.
Secondly, while it's hard to tell absolutely from published specs (since they vary in terms of testing methodology), there seems to be a fair number of smartphones that beat the 3G iPhone in battery life, not just CDMA Blackberries. As this PhoneScoop specs search points out:
Third, even if the 3G iPhone were to be best-in-class in battery life as is (and it doesn't seem to be), what really matters is if it meets the needs of the user.
You yourself say you only get a half day or a day out of the iPhone per charge, and have gone as far as to get aftermarket battery packs that promised greater capacity. Obviously, for you, the iPhone isn't quite cutting it, battery-wise. So, what comfort would you gain from some other smartphones being even worse? Doesn't really help you in your situation. What you'd like is for the 3G iPhone to last longer. \
Hey, y'know what all this hand-waving over form factor makes me think?
There should be an iPhone Pro.
Lil' bit thicker, better battery life, and the greater amount of internal room/thickness would allow for better optics in a better camera. With video recording, of course.
Which still wouldn't be all that thick, honestly. It also makes some odd assumptions, such as the iPhone not being at all designed around a bigger battery.
And you make the assumption that you can simply add to the back of the phone without blocking something. Camera lens, antenna, etc. Whatever. The iPhone lasts long enough for most folks given that it's one of the better 3G smart phones talk time on the market. Sure, if you talk constantly or browse constantly it goes dead in 5 hours. No shit.
So what? Get a different phone if it matter that much to you. Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
So what? Get a different phone if it matter that much to you. Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
That's pretty decent, but sadly, many ppl do not appear to share your enthusiasm for the batt life on the iPhone.
Enthusiasm? That's a bizarre way to put it, I don't understand how that fits what I posted.
I have three other family members with iPhones and they haven't complained about battery life either.
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
Enthusiasm? That's a bizarre way to put it, I don't understand how that fits what I posted.
Wow. I don't understand how 'enthusiasm' is such a charged word for you.
But I do forget, this is AI. Ppl here are willing to engage in 200-post grammar wars, so I guess it's bad on me for not seeing that coming.
Quote:
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
Guess you'd have to talk to Solip. But he's certainly far from the only person I've heard with batt life complaints.
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Guess you'd have to talk to Solip. But he's certainly far from the only person I've heard with batt life complaints.
I know plenty of iPhone users and I'm the only one I know that needs to have an additional battery to get through the day. TBaggins, I'm not complaining about the battery being too short for the device, I'm just pointing out that it's too short for me. While I would like a larger internal option for convenience, as I've stated, I think the battery life is more than adequate for the average user. I don't work in an office and when I travel?which I do often?I'm without an power outlet for extended periods. I'm also glued to the device constantly. Email, web pages, music, videos, and now audio and text based books as I'm tired of lugging even a paperback book with me.
I understand that my usage is far from being the norm. I also carry 2 extra batteries with me for my MB. Not because the battery doesn't last a long time for a small, powerful notebook, but because my needs and circumstances are unusual. JeffDm is right, my needs are unusually heavy.
PS: Their is apparently some new battery tech coming out of Korea that looks interesting. i hope it makes it's way to CE soon.
And you make the assumption that you can simply add to the back of the phone without blocking something. Camera lens, antenna, etc. Whatever.
Oh, you're just being argumentative here. Even you can see that battery volume, in relation to phone volume, isn't that much, though I guess some part of you can't bring yourself to admit it. Phone makers design around higher-capacity batteries all the time. I'm sure Apple can do the same, successfully.
Quote:
The iPhone lasts long enough for most folks given that it's one of the better 3G smart phones talk time on the market.
Don't know if the "Well, it's one of the better ones, so everything's great" assumption is a good one. Perhaps 3G smartphones, as a class, do not have great battery life, and/or batt life that many users find great? And there does seem to be several 3G smartphones that beat the iPhone in batt life. Perhaps Apple can do a bit better here.
Or perhaps Apple's challenge is a bit different than that of other smartphone makers, in that, as a multifunction device that you'll want to use lots, battery life becomes even more important.
Quote:
Get a different phone if it matter that much to you.
The prob is, it's not just me. There seems to be a significant number of ppl who don't find the batt life to be great. Are you suggesting that they all walk away from Apple? That wouldn't be so great for sales.
Quote:
Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
The 'go get a Nokia' argument? From a hardcore Apple guy? Wow. You really have given up.
I dunno Vin. I personally don't see what's so hard about thinking a little bit outside the box here, but some folks will always think that Apple's got it perfect and be unwilling to consider otherwise.
Me? I still dig the iPhone Pro idea.
I guess the good news is, as the smartphone market becomes more competitive, the iPhone competitors will improve, especially in the area of software (if they don't, the iPhone'll likely eat their lunch), and customers will have more good choices.
Perhaps the N97 will be good enough that folks buying it will not miss the iPhone, or at least will see its' advantages over the iPhone as outweighing its minuses compared to the iPhone (I sort of doubt it, but let's see the final product). Or perhaps the phone that finally does that is two years out. Or perhaps Apple will see the competition intensifying, and slay a few of their design sacred cows in order to better pre-empt them. Who knows?
Comments
Verizon's 3G network is definitely better than ATT's, especially in coverage. But if you're in a metro area that ATT's 3G covers, you still want it, 'cuz EDGE is slow.
Yes and no. You want 3G when you are on the net in an interactive mode. But for push email, messages and other low bandwidth or background download it isn't as critical.
And it's a worse situation in Europe, where no 3G often means using GPRS, which is even slower than EDGE. Like dialup slow. As in painful.
Yes, 2G launch in Europe and Asia was not as good as a 3G launch would have been. On the other hand Apple, for better or worse, is a US centric company. Like other companies are Europe and Asia centric. Like the lack of the Nokia N97 phone in the US at the initial launch.
IMHO...GREAT. It's nice to have something first in the US and not wondering is some cool new tech will ever hit our shores at all.
The 2G iPhone wasn't a bad decision for the US, but it was a bad one for Europe, which as a market has different (and higher) expectations- as lackluster 2G iPhone sales underscored. And it would've been a disaster in places like Japan and Korea. Fortunately, Apple didn't release the 2G iPhone there.
Well yah. No need to launch the iPhone in countries where it would have completely sucked.
Far as higher power draw goes, well, you acknowledge it and design around it, in part by going with a bigger battery and slightly thicker iPhone. The 3G iPhone is actually a hair thicker than the 2G (by .03"), but the battery doesn't appear to be higher in capacity, or higher enough at any rate. I understand from past experience that you'll argue 'til your blue in the face that somehow putting a higher-cap battery in would be a bad idea or wouldn't make much of a difference, but I'm satisfied from our previous discussion on the matter that you're incorrect there.
Which part of double the power draw requires double the battery do you disagree with?
Have you seen the incase power case?
That's what it would have looked like to match the talk time of the 2G iPhone. Then folks would have been bitching about how fat Apple made the 3G iPhone.
Also, I don't believe that you ever addressed the comments by Nokia engineers about the subject. It wasn't just Apple that reduced battery capaciity on their phones for size considerations and that they added power saving techniques to the phones to compensate.
Even then, there's not much you can do when the new technology is a freaking power hog in comparison to the old one for the 1st few revs. Plus it probably takes more internal volume until the chip makers can reduce footprint. Like the 3G + GPS + WiFi chips in development.
In any case, feel free to disagree...
Gee, thanks for the permission.
Yes and no. You want 3G when you are on the 'net in an interactive mode. But for push email, messages and other low bandwidth or background download it isn't as critical.
Which means you want it.
Yes, 2G launch in Europe and Asia was not as good as a 3G launch would have been. On the other hand Apple, for better or worse, is a US-centric company. Like other companies are Europe and Asia centric. Like the lack of the Nokia N97 phone in the US at the initial launch.
Apple's brand is strongest in the US, but they are a global company, and they want good sales worldwide. I highly doubt Steve-o would've been satisfied with the iPhone doing well in the US and permanently doing poorly everywhere else. Fortunately, with the 3G iPhone, that no longer seems to be the case.
Btw, wasn't the launch in Asia for the 3G iPhone, not the 2G? I know for Japan it was.
Which part of double the power draw requires double the battery do you disagree with?
Have you seen the incase power case?
That's what it would have looked like to match the talk time of the 2G iPhone.
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the (hilarious) exaggeration.
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon.
"Ooh, you are just SO BIG,
arentcha Mr. iPhone battery?"
Also, I don't believe that you ever addressed the comments by Nokia engineers about the subject.
It's called a lack of time. I actually never clicked on the link you provided. I can understand how Nokia might be worried about their phones being too thick, but their competing phones have been quite a bit thicker than the iPhone to start out with. When you're at 0.83" thick like the N95, then you can certainly worry about thickness. When you're at 0.46" like the original iPhone, not so much.
Gee, thanks for the permission.
Anytime.
...
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the exaggeration. What you're not getting is that cellphone batteries are pretty small in relation to the phones themselves:
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon.
Now that we have an iPhone back that is easily removed by removing a couple screws with the battery right behind it, I'd like to see a company sell an extra large battery with an extended back casing. My hopes aren't high, but I would surely by such an item.
LOL, no. That pic seems to be quite the (hilarious) exaggeration.
That's the actual picture of the product you can buy at any Apple store. Part of that thickness is the case itself so you have to deduct some.
3G iPhone size: 4.5" x 2.4" x 0.49", or 5.3 cubic inches
iPhone battery size: 1.7" x 2.0" x 0.21", or 0.7 cubic inches
Still think the iPhone has to DOUBLE in size or anywhere close to double the battery capacity? C'mon.
The battery doubles in size, which is what I said. So it would be 1.4 cubic inches and 0.42" inches thick. Leading to the same kind of bulge as in the incase case except on the bottom rather than centered on the back. The iPhone would then be 0.7 inches thick at it's thickest point.
Now that we have an iPhone back that is easily removed by removing a couple screws with the battery right behind it, I'd like to see a company sell an extra large battery with an extended back casing. My hopes aren't high, but I would surely by such an item.
Probably breaks Applecare...
Probably breaks Applecare...
I'm sure it would, but if you need a repair it would only take a minute to switch the battery and back casing.
The battery doubles in size, which is what I said. So it would be 1.4 cubic inches and 0.42" inches thick. Leading to the same kind of bulge as in the incase case except on the bottom rather than centered on the back. The iPhone would then be 0.7 inches thick at it's thickest point.
Which still wouldn't be all that thick, honestly. It also makes some odd assumptions, such as the iPhone not being at all designed around a bigger battery.
Realize that batteries can and do come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and thicknesses, including 'broader' as opposed to fatter. Let's say the iPhone was, or in the future is, well-designed around a bigger, 1.4 cubic inch battery. That would increase the iPhone from its current 5.3 cubic inches to a new 6.0 cubic inches, which is a 13% increase in volume.
Assuming the same footprint (which I would, since you likely want to keep the screen the same size), the iPhone increases from the current 0.49" thick on up to 0.55" thick. In other words, scarcely noticeable.
Gasp. Shock. Horror. We have RUINED the iPhone!!! And for WHAT? Greatly increasing battery life!?! NOOOOOOO!!!!
/end sarcasm
Let's face it, Vin... the iPhone being as thin as it is isn't about anything other than Steve wanting bragging rights over the competition, aka "We're THINNER than you!", as opposed to being merely AS thin as you.
Marketing over battery life, form over function. And most ppl just could not care less about a few hundredths of an inch, particularly if they were getting something important in exchange for it.
...
Assuming the same footprint (which I would, since you likely want to keep the screen the same size), the iPhone increases from the current 0.49" thick on up to 0.55" thick. In other words, scarcely noticeable.
Gasp. Shock. Horror. We have RUINED the iPhone!!! And for WHAT? Greatly increasing battery life!?! NOOOOOOO!!!!
/end sarcasm
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
Let's face it, Vin... the iPhone being as thin as it is isn't about anything other than Steve wanting bragging rights over the competition, aka "We're THINNER than you!", as opposed to being merely AS thin as you.
Marketing over battery life, form over function. And most ppl just could not care less about a few hundredths of an inch, particularly if they were getting something important in exchange for it.
There is obviously some form over function since a smaller battery doesn't last as long, but being smaller and lighter does offer a function, not just aesthetics. If the iPhone's EDGE, 3G, music and video times were unreasonably short compared to similar smartphones and PMPs I'd understand the "form over function" argument, but their is plenty of data to show the iPhone does last longer than other, larger devices. The only smartphones I've seen best it is a couple BB's on CDMA2000 (3G) but it still uses CDMA for voice, while the the iPhone has to use W-CDMA for voice as GSM can't do a soft handoff. But even with that technical aspect in CDMA's favour, the BB's didn't last much longer than the iPhone.
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
I use the crap out of the browser and email with Push enabled. Usually while playing music. The only time I'm not using the browser is when I'm watching videos from the iPod app. So I get about a half of a day to a full day (not night) of use depending on if I have EDGE or 3G turned on. I bought an external 3200mAh battery to get me a full 12 hours on 3G with heavy use, but that crappy battery died after one use. I'm looking for a replacement but choosing more wisely this time.
Normally, I'm not liking Steve's thin fetish, but I do appreciate that it's not any thicker than it really has to be. I do pretty well on a battery charge, about two days despite playing a lot of music and being in a weak signal part of the building.
That's pretty decent, but sadly, many ppl do not appear to share your enthusiasm for the batt life on the iPhone.
To use a different AI board member testimony, Solip says he gets a half day to one day per charge.
...
There is obviously some form over function since a smaller battery doesn't last as long
Yep. That is pretty much unarguable.
If the iPhone's EDGE, 3G, music and video times were unreasonably short compared to similar smartphones and PMPs I'd understand the "form over function" argument, but their is plenty of data to show the iPhone does last longer than other, larger devices. The only smartphones I've seen best it is a couple BB's on CDMA2000 (3G) but it still uses CDMA for voice, while the the iPhone has to use W-CDMA for voice as GSM can't do a soft handoff. But even with that technical aspect in CDMA's favour, the BB's didn't last much longer than the iPhone.
Well, first off, CDMA isn't the lowest-power common voice technology out there... GSM actually uses quite a bit less power than CDMA.
Secondly, while it's hard to tell absolutely from published specs (since they vary in terms of testing methodology), there seems to be a fair number of smartphones that beat the 3G iPhone in battery life, not just CDMA Blackberries. As this PhoneScoop specs search points out:
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/fin...&str=r&stv=300
Third, even if the 3G iPhone were to be best-in-class in battery life as is (and it doesn't seem to be), what really matters is if it meets the needs of the user.
You yourself say you only get a half day or a day out of the iPhone per charge, and have gone as far as to get aftermarket battery packs that promised greater capacity. Obviously, for you, the iPhone isn't quite cutting it, battery-wise. So, what comfort would you gain from some other smartphones being even worse? Doesn't really help you in your situation. What you'd like is for the 3G iPhone to last longer.
...
There should be an iPhone Pro.
Lil' bit thicker, better battery life, and the greater amount of internal room/thickness would allow for better optics in a better camera. With video recording, of course.
...
Which still wouldn't be all that thick, honestly. It also makes some odd assumptions, such as the iPhone not being at all designed around a bigger battery.
And you make the assumption that you can simply add to the back of the phone without blocking something. Camera lens, antenna, etc. Whatever. The iPhone lasts long enough for most folks given that it's one of the better 3G smart phones talk time on the market. Sure, if you talk constantly or browse constantly it goes dead in 5 hours. No shit.
So what? Get a different phone if it matter that much to you. Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
So what? Get a different phone if it matter that much to you. Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
That's pretty decent, but sadly, many ppl do not appear to share your enthusiasm for the batt life on the iPhone.
Enthusiasm? That's a bizarre way to put it, I don't understand how that fits what I posted.
I have three other family members with iPhones and they haven't complained about battery life either.
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
I guess its more fun to come here an complain.
Or complain about those who complain, eh?
...
Enthusiasm? That's a bizarre way to put it, I don't understand how that fits what I posted.
Wow. I don't understand how 'enthusiasm' is such a charged word for you.
But I do forget, this is AI. Ppl here are willing to engage in 200-post grammar wars, so I guess it's bad on me for not seeing that coming.
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
Guess you'd have to talk to Solip. But he's certainly far from the only person I've heard with batt life complaints.
...
Solipsism's case seems to be unusually heavy to me, it sounds a lot of using the device and not doing much else, which makes me curious about the circumstances of use.
Guess you'd have to talk to Solip. But he's certainly far from the only person I've heard with batt life complaints.
I know plenty of iPhone users and I'm the only one I know that needs to have an additional battery to get through the day. TBaggins, I'm not complaining about the battery being too short for the device, I'm just pointing out that it's too short for me. While I would like a larger internal option for convenience, as I've stated, I think the battery life is more than adequate for the average user. I don't work in an office and when I travel?which I do often?I'm without an power outlet for extended periods. I'm also glued to the device constantly. Email, web pages, music, videos, and now audio and text based books as I'm tired of lugging even a paperback book with me.
I understand that my usage is far from being the norm. I also carry 2 extra batteries with me for my MB. Not because the battery doesn't last a long time for a small, powerful notebook, but because my needs and circumstances are unusual. JeffDm is right, my needs are unusually heavy.
PS: Their is apparently some new battery tech coming out of Korea that looks interesting. i hope it makes it's way to CE soon.
And you make the assumption that you can simply add to the back of the phone without blocking something. Camera lens, antenna, etc. Whatever.
Oh, you're just being argumentative here. Even you can see that battery volume, in relation to phone volume, isn't that much, though I guess some part of you can't bring yourself to admit it. Phone makers design around higher-capacity batteries all the time. I'm sure Apple can do the same, successfully.
The iPhone lasts long enough for most folks given that it's one of the better 3G smart phones talk time on the market.
Don't know if the "Well, it's one of the better ones, so everything's great" assumption is a good one. Perhaps 3G smartphones, as a class, do not have great battery life, and/or batt life that many users find great? And there does seem to be several 3G smartphones that beat the iPhone in batt life. Perhaps Apple can do a bit better here.
Or perhaps Apple's challenge is a bit different than that of other smartphone makers, in that, as a multifunction device that you'll want to use lots, battery life becomes even more important.
Get a different phone if it matter that much to you.
The prob is, it's not just me. There seems to be a significant number of ppl who don't find the batt life to be great. Are you suggesting that they all walk away from Apple? That wouldn't be so great for sales.
Get a N97...it has a 6.6 hour talk time and a 1500mAh battery. Problem solved for you. That extra 1.6 hours, I'm sure, makes a huge difference if you want it to last 10 hours.
The 'go get a Nokia' argument? From a hardcore Apple guy? Wow. You really have given up.
I dunno Vin. I personally don't see what's so hard about thinking a little bit outside the box here, but some folks will always think that Apple's got it perfect and be unwilling to consider otherwise.
Me? I still dig the iPhone Pro idea.
I guess the good news is, as the smartphone market becomes more competitive, the iPhone competitors will improve, especially in the area of software (if they don't, the iPhone'll likely eat their lunch), and customers will have more good choices.
Perhaps the N97 will be good enough that folks buying it will not miss the iPhone, or at least will see its' advantages over the iPhone as outweighing its minuses compared to the iPhone (I sort of doubt it, but let's see the final product). Or perhaps the phone that finally does that is two years out. Or perhaps Apple will see the competition intensifying, and slay a few of their design sacred cows in order to better pre-empt them. Who knows?
Should be an interesting ride.
...