Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
In the Anandtech article, the Blackjack didn't take a battery life hit for having 3G on while being set to check for email constantly.
Quote:
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
Form over function, as it were.
.
It's funny you said that now, because I walked away from the computer to go downstairs to the kitchen, and while I was there, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I've stated this often. It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times.
Maybe ten or fifteen seconds each end of the call. But how many calls are being made, and received a day, or week? The more calls, the more draw from the screen. It's likely that ten seconds screen draw is equal to one minute of talk.
Even then, the large majority of your battery draw is coming from the call, not the screen, on average. But I'll grant you that its a factor, albeit a small one.
And, of course, if its something that troubles you, nearly all phones allow you to set a shorter 'backlight on after last input' time interval (like 5 seconds). If the iPhone doesn't, that's something they need to fix.
Quote:
I won't argue that number. In fact, it equals what I'm saying. The large majority of your battery use is not from standby
I wouldn't call 60% a large majority, except in a presidential election.
Quote:
,meaning that you've cut your standby time by 60%. Depending on the phone, that would mean that you only have about a day to just a few hours of standby time left.
I don't know that you're really following me here (my bad if I explained it unclearly), but just for grins, here's how I did said sums:
Avg usage per month: around 950 minutes
My current phone's talk time: 207 minutes
My current phone's standby time: 210 hours
So, in a given month, my actual talk time depletes my battery about 4.6 times over.
My phone is always on, which comes to 720 hours standby time usage, which uses up my battery about 3.4 times over.
Doing the math, standby times accounts for 42% of my battery usage, which is a lot.
Quote:
Yes. Smartphones use battery life like a vampire uses people. What is true for your phone about battery life is going to be much more so for a smartphone, particularly one with a really large screen. If you used a smartphone the way you use yours now, there would be little need for one. Therefore, your usage patterns would be different, and your standby time might drop to 20% of the battery life.
I agree, if I talked a lot more, standby would be less of my battery usage. But bear in mind, that I'm far from a light talker. The average American cellphone user uses 720 minutes per month, so actually I'm above-average in my usage.
Hrumph. Maybe I'm a bit gabby after all.
Quote:
Sure. Samsung it a pretty good phone maker. I had both the i300 and i330 Palmphones. Both were pretty good as far as usage went, but 3G wasn't prevalent then and neither phone had it.
But we don't know how others are rated.
But we do know that Samsung very likely measures with 3G on, and is conservative in their battery life rating. Given that, their more than doubling of talk time from the 3G Blackjack I to the 3G Blackjack II is really quite good, as is the 7 hour rating on the latter phone.
I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management. Plus, they used a significantly better battery (though nowhere near double the capacity of the Blackjack I's battery).
It's funny you said that now, because I walked away from the computer to go downstairs to the kitchen, and while I was there, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I've stated this often. It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times.
Yes, I completely agree. If the iPhone were a millimeter or two thicker, would it be loved any less? I sincerely doubt it.
The Blackjack II is actually a millimeter or so thicker than the 'Jack I. I have yet to hear anyone cry about it.
Even then, the large majority of your battery draw is coming from the call, not the screen. But I'll grant you that its a factor, albeit a small one.
While we don't have the numbers to support what we're saying, I simply can't agree here. These large backlight have been shown to use a large amount ofr current, much more than a call of the same length. Most calls have also been shown to be less than a minute in length, and that would just about equal the amount of draw that ten to fifteen seconds of backlight would pull.
Quote:
And, of course, if its something that troubles you, nearly all phones allow you to set a shorter 'backlight on after last input' time interval (like 5 seconds). If the iPhone doesn't, that's something they need to fix.
What I've seen in most phones is that the backlight doesn't always go off, but rather dims, so while it's on, it's using less power, but it is still on.
Quote:
I wouldn't call 60% a large majority, except in a presidential election.
I don't know, that seems like a lot of power, and that's not for a smartphone, as you pointed out.
Quote:
I don't know that you're really following me here (my bad if I explained it unclearly), but just for grins, here's how I did said sums:
Avg usage per month: around 950 minutes
My current phone's talk time: 207 minutes
My current phone's standby time: 210 hours
So, in a given month, my actual talk time depletes my battery about 4.6 times over.
My phone is always on, which comes to 720 hours standby time usage, which uses up my battery about 3.4 times over.
Doing the math, standby times accounts for 42% of my battery usage, which is a lot.
That's actually more confusing than the simple number you gave before.
Quote:
I agree, if I was talked a lot more, standby would be less of my battery usage. But bear in mind, that I'm far from a light talker. The average American cellphone user uses 720 minutes per month, so actually I'm above-average in my usage.
And many phones have less talk time. Besides, it's not monthly times here that matter. It's the time before you have to recharge your battery. try to use your phone to the point where the battery dies. Then you'll know for sure.
But we do know that Samsung very likely measures with 3G on, and is conservative in their battery life rating.[/quote]
Yes, I agreed to that.
Quote:
Given that, their more than doubling of talk time from the 3G Blackjack I to the 3G Blackjack II is really quite good, as is the 7 hour rating on the latter phone. I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management. Plus, they used a significantly better battery (though nowhere near double the capacity of the Blackjack I's battery).
While we don't have the numbers to support what we're saying, I simply can't agree here. These large backlight have been shown to use a large amount ofr current, much more than a call of the same length. Most calls have also been shown to be less than a minute in length, and that would just about equal the amount of draw that ten to fifteen seconds of backlight would pull.
Trust me, the average call length for most people is more than a minute, at least in the US (in Europe, voice rates are much higher, so they don't yak like us Yanks do).
Yeah, you might do a series of terse, quick check-in calls that last only a minute each, but those 20-minute calls to your wife or girlfriend pull the average way up. And if you're telling me that you can get your wife or girlfriend to shut up after only a minute, all the time, I will either laugh at you for lying so bad, or ask you how the hell you do it.
Quote:
What I've seen in most phones is that the backlight doesn't always go off, but rather dims, so while it's on, it's using less power, but it is still on.
It may be that I'm actually a bit spoiled by having a flip phone. I close it, and the screen shuts off, completely, in five seconds, regardless of what I have the backlight duration set to. My backlight settings only matter if the phone's open.
(still, hmm... 'immediate off' with no dimming would certainly be a nice option on bar-style phones too... does no one have it? hmm... )
But you're correct, if the iPhone screen's dim period is significant, and it likely is, then that does indeed increase the power draw. But would you not 'lock' the phone before putting it back in your pocket, so as not to activate the touchscreen inadvertantly? And does locking result in a pretty rapid 'screen off', or a screen dim? I honestly forget which.
Quote:
That's actually more confusing than the simple number you gave before.
LOL, its not that bad.
If I talk 950 minutes a month, and my phone's battery will hold out for 207 minutes, well, just divide 950 by 207, and you see that talk time discharges your battery completely about four-and-a-half times per month. It's just math.
Quote:
And many phones have less talk time. Besides, it's not monthly times here that matter. It's the time before you have to recharge your battery. try to use your phone to the point where the battery dies. Then you'll know for sure.
It honestly doesn't change anything. On a full charge, my phone will typically die after about four days of typical use. That's 96 hours.
With my phone's standby time of 210 hours, its easy to see that standby use eats up over 40% of the battery. But again, to be fair, it ain't a smartphone.
Quote:
I'm sure that all of that is true.
Yep. And special kudos to Samsung for making the 'Jack II a teensy bit thicker, and slapping a buff 1700 mAh battery in it, instead of the teensy 1200 mAh batt in the old 'Jack
(I believe the iPhone has a 1400 mAh batt, but that's a guess from the aftermarket replacement market, Apple doesn't seem to say for sure anywhere).
Samsung chose function over form... not that a millimeter of extra thickness really does sheeite to the form, either. Steve could learn something here.
Many users of 3G (sharing the same phone model) have complained about massive battery drain, whereas a relative minority of other user reports relate that its been no big deal (myself among them, luckily. Though since it seems logical that people with 3G issues are more likely to frequent the forums and post than those who experience no or less significant 3G problems, I'm not certain which is an accurate representation of user experiences as a whole.)
One generally well-received theory about this discrepancy that is often invoked has to do with the specific 3G saturation in the user's geographical region. The notion is that if 3G is constantly dropping in and out, the phone's radio is in a kind of semi-constant 'search mode' where drawing a lot more power looking for a better 3G signal, whereas if the 3G signal is relatively strong, or if you're not hopping from EDGE to 3G every 5 minutes, then it returns to a more passive, normal mode of power consumption.
I know thats not the most technical of explanations, but I can't remember the specific details and I don't feel like looking them up again... you can google the usual phone forums like xda developers or howard for a more coherent discussion of this theory (of which there are several variants..)
As one poster mentioned, a nice feature/compromise would be to automatically tie specific applications to use 3G -- like the browser, google maps, etc -- and other apps like automatic mail retrevial and so on to just use EDGE. My Tilt doesn't have this functionality out of the box (though I don't doubt some hack will likely be forthcoming in the near future from xda to allow this.)
Though remember with EDGE as the default data connection, you would not be able to talk and use data at the same time. One of the really nice things about 3G is that it allows you to talk and surf/check email simultaneously... another thing the original reviewer forgot to mention.
The N80 uses the same S60 Webkit based browser as the E61i, and supports Flash-lite. So it was quite probably rendering more web page content than an iPhone does.
When I looked up the N80 I saw that it used a WAP browser. But I suppose they updated the browser.
Quote:
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
You do have a choice. You can buy another phone with 3G and wait until the iPhone has 3G.
Quote:
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap?
Not really. You can tell the phone how often to check your mail accounts. Push mail only sends mail when there are messages to be sent. Voice and text only come when one is sent.
Quote:
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II came out in November. I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management.
There was no BJ 2 when Anandtech did the test. Of course the chipsets are improving just as Steve said he was waiting for them to.
Quote:
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
The only part you can really argue is old is EDGE. The processor, graphic acceleration, screen, battery, storage are all newer tech.
Quote:
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
I can agree that Steve probably over stated 3G battery drain and obviously did not want the phone to be any thicker than it is.
Quote:
It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times. If Jobs didn't constantly, and publicly, state the thicknesses of its products, not only would most people not care, they wouldn't even know.
Its just a choice. There really is no right or wrong. The advantage is that I can place my iPhone in my pocket and forget its there. The BlackJack has a bump where the camera is that makes the phone feel unbalanced in your hand. Its not good or bad its just a different design choice.
It shouldn't be a surprise that Steve set a goal to make the phone a certain thickness and promote how thin it is. A big part of Apple's marketing is design.
Its just a choice. There really is no right or wrong. The advantage is that I can place my iPhone in my pocket and forget its there. The BlackJack has a bump where the camera is that makes the phone feel unbalanced in your hand. Its not good or bad its just a different design choice.
It shouldn't be a surprise that Steve set a goal to make the phone a certain thickness and promote how thin it is. A big part of Apple's marketing is design.
So you're saying that you would notice a 2mm difference, and would be unhappy about it even if it did mean 20% better battery life, or possibly 3G?
That depends. When Apple designed the iPhone could they have fit a larger battery and 3G into 2mm?
Sure. Almost all batteries that are made for small devices such as phones and music/video players are either completely custom, or semi-custom designs. Apple could spec whatever it wanted, as well as higher dpower density versions.
You've seen the iPod replacement batteries that add up to 50% more life than Apple's own. Apple sells enough of these things so that they could get whatever they needed, if they wanted to.
The battery doesn't take up the full height of the unit. A different radio entirely would have been used. No doubt they could have managed if they wanted to. Everything today is surface mount, which takes little thickness.
You've seen the iPod replacement batteries that add up to 50% more life than Apple's own. Apple sells enough of these things so that they could get whatever they needed, if they wanted to.
There has to be some limiting factor between size, capacity, and price. If there weren't we would certainly see more battery capacity than we see in all electronic devices. I'm sure someone could create more capacity for more cost. But there is a limit on price.
Quote:
No doubt they could have managed if they wanted to. Everything today is surface mount, which takes little thickness.
Jobs says the radio he wanted to use wasn't available, but should be by late 2008. Once again I'm sure someone could have built them one at a higher cost.
There has to be some limiting factor between size, capacity, and price. If there weren't we would certainly see more battery capacity than we see in all electronic devices. I'm sure someone could create more capacity for more cost. But there is a limit on price.
Of course there is. If the battery has 20% more volume, then it has 20% more power. These very thin batteries do what they can. But there are different kinds of Lithium batteries out there, some have greater power densities than others. Cost is also involved. But, the more you need, the lower the cost becomes. Apple orders more batteries for these devices than all other makers put together, by far.
Quote:
Jobs says the radio he wanted to use wasn't available, but should be by late 2008. Once again I'm sure someone could have built them one at a higher cost.
That's what he says. But what does it mean? Someone here recently stated that he wanted Apple to come out with a full size tablet that was no thicker than the iPhone, with MultiTouch, and other features, and he thought that Apple could do it for $400. So, wanting something can mean many things, including those that are unrealistic.
What Jobs said was thet he wanted a 3G radio that would meet HIS specs. Specs that, if we can believe him about this, that no one yet makes. But, if he were to put in that slightly larger battery, he might have been able to do it now.
Then later, when the newer device came out, he could have revamped the unit, which he would be doing by then anyway, and would be able to announce that the new model was even thinner than the first one, with, possibly, even better battery life. Meanwhile, he would have sold considerably more units, and made much more money .
Apple orders more batteries for these devices than all other makers put together, by far.
This is true. But the battery used in the iPhone may be different from the battery used in the iPod. That same logic could be applied to NAND flash. Apple orders more flash than anyone else so should be able to spec whatever they want.
Quote:
Specs that, if we can believe him about this, that no one yet makes. But, if he were to put in that slightly larger battery, he might have been able to do it now.
How are you so sure a thicker battery is all it takes to solve this problem.
Quote:
Meanwhile, he would have sold considerably more units, and made much more money .
I'm pretty sure the current plan is to sell many more units and make much more money.
This is true. But the battery used in the iPhone may be different from the battery used in the iPod. That same logic could be applied to NAND flash. Apple orders more flash than anyone else so should be able to spec whatever they want.
That doesn't mean anything because, as I said, these batteries are custom, so yes, each model will have a different battery. That's the point I'm making.
You can't compare silicon Flash to a battery. If you were talking about a custom chip, then of course, that's what the chip foundries do. Their business is to manufacture the chips designed by others. But, flash is not custom. The price depends on selling, not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of units a year, if possible. Apple, like others, must design around what is available. But because they buy so much, and paid for a good deal in advance, they got very good pricing.
Quote:
How are you so sure a thicker battery is all it takes to solve this problem.
If we can believe Jobs when he said the problem was battery life, then it stands to reason that a battery that offered more battery life would solve the problem. a thicker battery offers more life, ergo, problem solved.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the current plan is to sell many more units and make much more money.
That's the plan, sans sales that are being lost because of the lack of 3G.
You can't compare silicon Flash to a battery. But, flash is not custom. The price depends on selling, not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of units a year, if possible.
I would argue that more batteries are a larger market than flash. Every portable electronic device needs a battery, while only few electronic devices use flash storage.
It should should be easier to lower prices in a commodity market than a customized market.
Quote:
a thicker battery offers more life, ergo, problem solved.
Depends on if the additional battery life really offsets the extra drain from 3G enough to make much difference. We are talking in theory. You really don't know how this will work until its tried.
Quote:
That's the plan, sans sales that are being lost because of the lack of 3G.
In its first full quarter of sales the iPhone has outsold every competitor in the US short of the BlackBerry. The iPhone also seems to have a healthy grey market around the world.
So far the official sales numbers we have are from Apple's partners. We don't have current sales numbers from Apple themselves. When these numbers are released will likely be very impressive.
All that to say there are probably a few hundred thousand consumers who will not buy the iPhone sans 3G, but millions are still being sold.
I would argue that more batteries are a larger market than flash. Every portable electronic device needs a battery, while only few electronic devices use flash storage.
It should should be easier to lower prices in a commodity market than a customized market.
Teno, you're missing the point. Sure, there are hundreds, maybe billions of batteries sold each year, and most are standard batteries. But, the custom ones are what we're concerned about.
As for Flash, please, it just isn't going to happen. Try to find a Flash manufacturer (of chips, not packaging) that will design and manufacture relatively small quantities of Flash. No one does that, I can assure you. These are standard units that each Flash manufacturer designs, at great expense, and then sells.
Apple was going to invest in a Flash manufacturing facility a year ago, with Samsung, but decided not to do so when Samsung got into trouble. Possibly, if they had done that, they could have had some influence over what got produced for them, but not basic designs, it simply costs too much.
Quote:
Depends on if the additional battery life really offsets the extra drain from 3G enough to make much difference. We are talking in theory. You really don't know how this will work until its tried.
Well, again, we don't know the specifics. It seems to be either guarded, or we just have to look very hard, which I'm not interested in doing.
But, I've designed a lot of electronics, and built plenty as well. If the power it there, then the problem is solved. It's not that difficult.
But, jobs went with design. It's what he does with consumer products. Look at the Mini. If it were just a bit bigger, he could have used cheaper, bigger, and faster, 3.5" drives like most people who complain seem to want, but he didn't.
The same thing with the iMac. just a bit thicker, and there would be more room for cooling, and even a card slot for a graphics board, but again, design won out.
Quote:
In its first full quarter of sales the iPhone has outsold every competitor in the US short of the BlackBerry. The iPhone also seems to have a healthy grey market around the world.
Sure, we all know that. But sales could have been significantly higher with 3G. He would have sold at least two to my family. Look how Aegis, and others, complain about the lack of 3G on European sales. And what's going to happen in Japan, where 4G has been running already? They'll sell some, assuming they have a deal, but not nearly as many as they could.
Quote:
So far the official sales numbers we have are from Apple's partners. We don't have current sales numbers from Apple themselves. When these numbers are released will likely be very impressive.
The estimates I'm seeing, as you are, are around 2.1 million units this quarter. But, that's likely conservative. That's including the very anemic sales in Europe, the lack of which, even I have been surprised at.
Quote:
All that to say there are probably a few hundred thousand consumers who will not buy the iPhone sans 3G, but millions are still being sold.
Don't be so sure. It could be that Apple would have seen a million more sales. but, in the coming months, in areas where 3G is much more important, a greater percentage of sales will either be delayed (optimistically), or lost, as consumers buy other phones with it.
Our discussion is interesting and fun, but we will actually know once the 3G model is introduced next year. After three months, the sales numbers will tell us what's what.
Teno, what you also perhaps miss is that outside the US, there really isn't an extensive EDGE network. That's why a non 3G iPhone is plainly stupid despite it's wonderful UI.
For me personally, 3G isn't a big issue as I live in a rural area that has spotty 3G coverage so most of the time I'd switch it off. I've got WiFi too at home/work (same thing for me). The main reason for wanting it is for use on trains when I'm going somewhere as plain old GPRS is painful.
For everyone else though it just seems mad that it doesn't have 3G.
Teno, you're missing the point. Sure, there are hundreds, maybe billions of batteries sold each year, and most are standard batteries. But, the custom ones are what we're concerned about.
It should be a lot cheaper to make hundreds of millions of the standard batteries than to make a couple million custom designed for the iPhone.
Quote:
As for Flash, please, it just isn't going to happen.
I'm not saying it will but you are applying an uneven logic to economy of scale. Apple buys a lot of flash just like it buys a lot of batteries.
Quote:
But sales could have been significantly higher with 3G.
I don't see evidence of that. There are a few people on this board who refuse to buy one without 3G. But there are just as many if not more who say they have an iPhone and love it.
Quote:
That's including the very anemic sales in Europe, the lack of which, even I have been surprised at.
There are a couple of wrinkles in Europe. We are mostly hearing the number of activations. Its close to Christmas so many more activations will likely happen after that. Many phones being bought are likely being hacked onto other mobile carriers or being sold on the grey market. The service price is steep which would give me pause if I were looking to buy an iPhone in the UK.
Quote:
For everyone else though it just seems mad that it doesn't have 3G.
We know 3G is coming so they should just chill out and be patient. Complaining about it for 6 months isn't changing anything.
Comments
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap? That'd eat into it's 'standby time' significantly I'd have thought and maybe more so if it used 3G.
In the Anandtech article, the Blackjack didn't take a battery life hit for having 3G on while being set to check for email constantly.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
Form over function, as it were.
.
I
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
Form over function, as it were.
.
It's funny you said that now, because I walked away from the computer to go downstairs to the kitchen, and while I was there, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I've stated this often. It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times.
Maybe ten or fifteen seconds each end of the call. But how many calls are being made, and received a day, or week? The more calls, the more draw from the screen. It's likely that ten seconds screen draw is equal to one minute of talk.
Even then, the large majority of your battery draw is coming from the call, not the screen, on average. But I'll grant you that its a factor, albeit a small one.
And, of course, if its something that troubles you, nearly all phones allow you to set a shorter 'backlight on after last input' time interval (like 5 seconds). If the iPhone doesn't, that's something they need to fix.
I won't argue that number. In fact, it equals what I'm saying. The large majority of your battery use is not from standby
I wouldn't call 60% a large majority, except in a presidential election.
,meaning that you've cut your standby time by 60%. Depending on the phone, that would mean that you only have about a day to just a few hours of standby time left.
I don't know that you're really following me here (my bad if I explained it unclearly), but just for grins, here's how I did said sums:
Avg usage per month: around 950 minutes
My current phone's talk time: 207 minutes
My current phone's standby time: 210 hours
So, in a given month, my actual talk time depletes my battery about 4.6 times over.
My phone is always on, which comes to 720 hours standby time usage, which uses up my battery about 3.4 times over.
Doing the math, standby times accounts for 42% of my battery usage, which is a lot.
Yes. Smartphones use battery life like a vampire uses people. What is true for your phone about battery life is going to be much more so for a smartphone, particularly one with a really large screen. If you used a smartphone the way you use yours now, there would be little need for one. Therefore, your usage patterns would be different, and your standby time might drop to 20% of the battery life.
I agree, if I talked a lot more, standby would be less of my battery usage. But bear in mind, that I'm far from a light talker. The average American cellphone user uses 720 minutes per month, so actually I'm above-average in my usage.
Hrumph. Maybe I'm a bit gabby after all.
Sure. Samsung it a pretty good phone maker. I had both the i300 and i330 Palmphones. Both were pretty good as far as usage went, but 3G wasn't prevalent then and neither phone had it.
But we don't know how others are rated.
But we do know that Samsung very likely measures with 3G on, and is conservative in their battery life rating. Given that, their more than doubling of talk time from the 3G Blackjack I to the 3G Blackjack II is really quite good, as is the 7 hour rating on the latter phone.
I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management. Plus, they used a significantly better battery (though nowhere near double the capacity of the Blackjack I's battery).
.
It's funny you said that now, because I walked away from the computer to go downstairs to the kitchen, and while I was there, I was thinking exactly the same thing. I've stated this often. It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times.
Yes, I completely agree. If the iPhone were a millimeter or two thicker, would it be loved any less? I sincerely doubt it.
The Blackjack II is actually a millimeter or so thicker than the 'Jack I. I have yet to hear anyone cry about it.
.
Even then, the large majority of your battery draw is coming from the call, not the screen. But I'll grant you that its a factor, albeit a small one.
While we don't have the numbers to support what we're saying, I simply can't agree here. These large backlight have been shown to use a large amount ofr current, much more than a call of the same length. Most calls have also been shown to be less than a minute in length, and that would just about equal the amount of draw that ten to fifteen seconds of backlight would pull.
And, of course, if its something that troubles you, nearly all phones allow you to set a shorter 'backlight on after last input' time interval (like 5 seconds). If the iPhone doesn't, that's something they need to fix.
What I've seen in most phones is that the backlight doesn't always go off, but rather dims, so while it's on, it's using less power, but it is still on.
I wouldn't call 60% a large majority, except in a presidential election.
I don't know, that seems like a lot of power, and that's not for a smartphone, as you pointed out.
I don't know that you're really following me here (my bad if I explained it unclearly), but just for grins, here's how I did said sums:
Avg usage per month: around 950 minutes
My current phone's talk time: 207 minutes
My current phone's standby time: 210 hours
So, in a given month, my actual talk time depletes my battery about 4.6 times over.
My phone is always on, which comes to 720 hours standby time usage, which uses up my battery about 3.4 times over.
Doing the math, standby times accounts for 42% of my battery usage, which is a lot.
That's actually more confusing than the simple number you gave before.
I agree, if I was talked a lot more, standby would be less of my battery usage. But bear in mind, that I'm far from a light talker. The average American cellphone user uses 720 minutes per month, so actually I'm above-average in my usage.
And many phones have less talk time. Besides, it's not monthly times here that matter. It's the time before you have to recharge your battery. try to use your phone to the point where the battery dies. Then you'll know for sure.
But we do know that Samsung very likely measures with 3G on, and is conservative in their battery life rating.[/quote]
Yes, I agreed to that.
Given that, their more than doubling of talk time from the 3G Blackjack I to the 3G Blackjack II is really quite good, as is the 7 hour rating on the latter phone. I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management. Plus, they used a significantly better battery (though nowhere near double the capacity of the Blackjack I's battery).
.
I'm sure that all of that is true.
Yes, I completely agree. If the iPhone were a millimeter or two thicker, would it be loved any less? I sincerely doubt it.
The Blackjack II is actually a millimeter or so thicker than the 'Jack I. I have yet to hear anyone cry about it.
.
If Jobs didn't constantly, and publicly, state the thicknesses of its products, not only would most people not care, they wouldn't even know.
While we don't have the numbers to support what we're saying, I simply can't agree here. These large backlight have been shown to use a large amount ofr current, much more than a call of the same length. Most calls have also been shown to be less than a minute in length, and that would just about equal the amount of draw that ten to fifteen seconds of backlight would pull.
Trust me, the average call length for most people is more than a minute, at least in the US (in Europe, voice rates are much higher, so they don't yak like us Yanks do).
Yeah, you might do a series of terse, quick check-in calls that last only a minute each, but those 20-minute calls to your wife or girlfriend pull the average way up. And if you're telling me that you can get your wife or girlfriend to shut up after only a minute, all the time, I will either laugh at you for lying so bad, or ask you how the hell you do it.
What I've seen in most phones is that the backlight doesn't always go off, but rather dims, so while it's on, it's using less power, but it is still on.
It may be that I'm actually a bit spoiled by having a flip phone. I close it, and the screen shuts off, completely, in five seconds, regardless of what I have the backlight duration set to. My backlight settings only matter if the phone's open.
(still, hmm... 'immediate off' with no dimming would certainly be a nice option on bar-style phones too... does no one have it? hmm... )
But you're correct, if the iPhone screen's dim period is significant, and it likely is, then that does indeed increase the power draw. But would you not 'lock' the phone before putting it back in your pocket, so as not to activate the touchscreen inadvertantly? And does locking result in a pretty rapid 'screen off', or a screen dim? I honestly forget which.
That's actually more confusing than the simple number you gave before.
LOL, its not that bad.
If I talk 950 minutes a month, and my phone's battery will hold out for 207 minutes, well, just divide 950 by 207, and you see that talk time discharges your battery completely about four-and-a-half times per month. It's just math.
And many phones have less talk time. Besides, it's not monthly times here that matter. It's the time before you have to recharge your battery. try to use your phone to the point where the battery dies. Then you'll know for sure.
It honestly doesn't change anything. On a full charge, my phone will typically die after about four days of typical use. That's 96 hours.
With my phone's standby time of 210 hours, its easy to see that standby use eats up over 40% of the battery. But again, to be fair, it ain't a smartphone.
I'm sure that all of that is true.
Yep. And special kudos to Samsung for making the 'Jack II a teensy bit thicker, and slapping a buff 1700 mAh battery in it, instead of the teensy 1200 mAh batt in the old 'Jack
(I believe the iPhone has a 1400 mAh batt, but that's a guess from the aftermarket replacement market, Apple doesn't seem to say for sure anywhere).
Samsung chose function over form... not that a millimeter of extra thickness really does sheeite to the form, either. Steve could learn something here.
.
One generally well-received theory about this discrepancy that is often invoked has to do with the specific 3G saturation in the user's geographical region. The notion is that if 3G is constantly dropping in and out, the phone's radio is in a kind of semi-constant 'search mode' where drawing a lot more power looking for a better 3G signal, whereas if the 3G signal is relatively strong, or if you're not hopping from EDGE to 3G every 5 minutes, then it returns to a more passive, normal mode of power consumption.
I know thats not the most technical of explanations, but I can't remember the specific details and I don't feel like looking them up again... you can google the usual phone forums like xda developers or howard for a more coherent discussion of this theory (of which there are several variants..)
As one poster mentioned, a nice feature/compromise would be to automatically tie specific applications to use 3G -- like the browser, google maps, etc -- and other apps like automatic mail retrevial and so on to just use EDGE. My Tilt doesn't have this functionality out of the box (though I don't doubt some hack will likely be forthcoming in the near future from xda to allow this.)
Though remember with EDGE as the default data connection, you would not be able to talk and use data at the same time. One of the really nice things about 3G is that it allows you to talk and surf/check email simultaneously... another thing the original reviewer forgot to mention.
The N80 uses the same S60 Webkit based browser as the E61i, and supports Flash-lite. So it was quite probably rendering more web page content than an iPhone does.
When I looked up the N80 I saw that it used a WAP browser. But I suppose they updated the browser.
So switch 3G off if you want battery life instead of fast comms. Nice to have a choice though yes?
You do have a choice. You can buy another phone with 3G and wait until the iPhone has 3G.
Doesn't the iPhone spend a lot of it's time contacting the carrier to check mail or doing other data related crap?
Not really. You can tell the phone how often to check your mail accounts. Push mail only sends mail when there are messages to be sent. Voice and text only come when one is sent.
And the Blackjack is outdated anyhow, the Blackjack II came out in November. I guess the newer 3G chipsets are getting better on power consumption, and/or Samsung is getting better at power management.
There was no BJ 2 when Anandtech did the test. Of course the chipsets are improving just as Steve said he was waiting for them to.
I still think however the lack of 3G for battery related issues was smoke an mirrors to hide the fact they used ancient tech in the iPhone hardware. Now they've got v1 out they can pick more advanced hardware.
The only part you can really argue is old is EDGE. The processor, graphic acceleration, screen, battery, storage are all newer tech.
I think it was partly that, but also that Steve was oh-so put out by the notion of making the iPhone a teensy bit thicker, so as to accommodate either a larger battery, or a swappable one, either of which might've been necessarily to deal with the increased battery demands of the older 3G chips.
I can agree that Steve probably over stated 3G battery drain and obviously did not want the phone to be any thicker than it is.
It's a very annoying attribute of Jobs. While thin is nice, especially when it's also big, he overdoes it at times. If Jobs didn't constantly, and publicly, state the thicknesses of its products, not only would most people not care, they wouldn't even know.
Its just a choice. There really is no right or wrong. The advantage is that I can place my iPhone in my pocket and forget its there. The BlackJack has a bump where the camera is that makes the phone feel unbalanced in your hand. Its not good or bad its just a different design choice.
It shouldn't be a surprise that Steve set a goal to make the phone a certain thickness and promote how thin it is. A big part of Apple's marketing is design.
W
Its just a choice. There really is no right or wrong. The advantage is that I can place my iPhone in my pocket and forget its there. The BlackJack has a bump where the camera is that makes the phone feel unbalanced in your hand. Its not good or bad its just a different design choice.
It shouldn't be a surprise that Steve set a goal to make the phone a certain thickness and promote how thin it is. A big part of Apple's marketing is design.
So you're saying that you would notice a 2mm difference, and would be unhappy about it even if it did mean 20% better battery life, or possibly 3G?
So you're saying that you would notice a 2mm difference, and would be unhappy about it even if it did mean 20% better battery life, or possibly 3G?
That depends. When Apple designed the iPhone could they have fit a larger battery and 3G into 2mm?
That depends. When Apple designed the iPhone could they have fit a larger battery and 3G into 2mm?
Sure. Almost all batteries that are made for small devices such as phones and music/video players are either completely custom, or semi-custom designs. Apple could spec whatever it wanted, as well as higher dpower density versions.
You've seen the iPod replacement batteries that add up to 50% more life than Apple's own. Apple sells enough of these things so that they could get whatever they needed, if they wanted to.
The battery doesn't take up the full height of the unit. A different radio entirely would have been used. No doubt they could have managed if they wanted to. Everything today is surface mount, which takes little thickness.
You've seen the iPod replacement batteries that add up to 50% more life than Apple's own. Apple sells enough of these things so that they could get whatever they needed, if they wanted to.
There has to be some limiting factor between size, capacity, and price. If there weren't we would certainly see more battery capacity than we see in all electronic devices. I'm sure someone could create more capacity for more cost. But there is a limit on price.
No doubt they could have managed if they wanted to. Everything today is surface mount, which takes little thickness.
Jobs says the radio he wanted to use wasn't available, but should be by late 2008. Once again I'm sure someone could have built them one at a higher cost.
There has to be some limiting factor between size, capacity, and price. If there weren't we would certainly see more battery capacity than we see in all electronic devices. I'm sure someone could create more capacity for more cost. But there is a limit on price.
Of course there is. If the battery has 20% more volume, then it has 20% more power. These very thin batteries do what they can. But there are different kinds of Lithium batteries out there, some have greater power densities than others. Cost is also involved. But, the more you need, the lower the cost becomes. Apple orders more batteries for these devices than all other makers put together, by far.
Jobs says the radio he wanted to use wasn't available, but should be by late 2008. Once again I'm sure someone could have built them one at a higher cost.
That's what he says. But what does it mean? Someone here recently stated that he wanted Apple to come out with a full size tablet that was no thicker than the iPhone, with MultiTouch, and other features, and he thought that Apple could do it for $400. So, wanting something can mean many things, including those that are unrealistic.
What Jobs said was thet he wanted a 3G radio that would meet HIS specs. Specs that, if we can believe him about this, that no one yet makes. But, if he were to put in that slightly larger battery, he might have been able to do it now.
Then later, when the newer device came out, he could have revamped the unit, which he would be doing by then anyway, and would be able to announce that the new model was even thinner than the first one, with, possibly, even better battery life. Meanwhile, he would have sold considerably more units, and made much more money .
Apple orders more batteries for these devices than all other makers put together, by far.
This is true. But the battery used in the iPhone may be different from the battery used in the iPod. That same logic could be applied to NAND flash. Apple orders more flash than anyone else so should be able to spec whatever they want.
Specs that, if we can believe him about this, that no one yet makes. But, if he were to put in that slightly larger battery, he might have been able to do it now.
How are you so sure a thicker battery is all it takes to solve this problem.
Meanwhile, he would have sold considerably more units, and made much more money .
I'm pretty sure the current plan is to sell many more units and make much more money.
This is true. But the battery used in the iPhone may be different from the battery used in the iPod. That same logic could be applied to NAND flash. Apple orders more flash than anyone else so should be able to spec whatever they want.
That doesn't mean anything because, as I said, these batteries are custom, so yes, each model will have a different battery. That's the point I'm making.
You can't compare silicon Flash to a battery. If you were talking about a custom chip, then of course, that's what the chip foundries do. Their business is to manufacture the chips designed by others. But, flash is not custom. The price depends on selling, not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of units a year, if possible. Apple, like others, must design around what is available. But because they buy so much, and paid for a good deal in advance, they got very good pricing.
How are you so sure a thicker battery is all it takes to solve this problem.
If we can believe Jobs when he said the problem was battery life, then it stands to reason that a battery that offered more battery life would solve the problem. a thicker battery offers more life, ergo, problem solved.
I'm pretty sure the current plan is to sell many more units and make much more money.
That's the plan, sans sales that are being lost because of the lack of 3G.
You can't compare silicon Flash to a battery. But, flash is not custom. The price depends on selling, not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of units a year, if possible.
I would argue that more batteries are a larger market than flash. Every portable electronic device needs a battery, while only few electronic devices use flash storage.
It should should be easier to lower prices in a commodity market than a customized market.
a thicker battery offers more life, ergo, problem solved.
Depends on if the additional battery life really offsets the extra drain from 3G enough to make much difference. We are talking in theory. You really don't know how this will work until its tried.
That's the plan, sans sales that are being lost because of the lack of 3G.
In its first full quarter of sales the iPhone has outsold every competitor in the US short of the BlackBerry. The iPhone also seems to have a healthy grey market around the world.
So far the official sales numbers we have are from Apple's partners. We don't have current sales numbers from Apple themselves. When these numbers are released will likely be very impressive.
All that to say there are probably a few hundred thousand consumers who will not buy the iPhone sans 3G, but millions are still being sold.
I would argue that more batteries are a larger market than flash. Every portable electronic device needs a battery, while only few electronic devices use flash storage.
It should should be easier to lower prices in a commodity market than a customized market.
Teno, you're missing the point. Sure, there are hundreds, maybe billions of batteries sold each year, and most are standard batteries. But, the custom ones are what we're concerned about.
As for Flash, please, it just isn't going to happen. Try to find a Flash manufacturer (of chips, not packaging) that will design and manufacture relatively small quantities of Flash. No one does that, I can assure you. These are standard units that each Flash manufacturer designs, at great expense, and then sells.
Apple was going to invest in a Flash manufacturing facility a year ago, with Samsung, but decided not to do so when Samsung got into trouble. Possibly, if they had done that, they could have had some influence over what got produced for them, but not basic designs, it simply costs too much.
Depends on if the additional battery life really offsets the extra drain from 3G enough to make much difference. We are talking in theory. You really don't know how this will work until its tried.
Well, again, we don't know the specifics. It seems to be either guarded, or we just have to look very hard, which I'm not interested in doing.
But, I've designed a lot of electronics, and built plenty as well. If the power it there, then the problem is solved. It's not that difficult.
But, jobs went with design. It's what he does with consumer products. Look at the Mini. If it were just a bit bigger, he could have used cheaper, bigger, and faster, 3.5" drives like most people who complain seem to want, but he didn't.
The same thing with the iMac. just a bit thicker, and there would be more room for cooling, and even a card slot for a graphics board, but again, design won out.
In its first full quarter of sales the iPhone has outsold every competitor in the US short of the BlackBerry. The iPhone also seems to have a healthy grey market around the world.
Sure, we all know that. But sales could have been significantly higher with 3G. He would have sold at least two to my family. Look how Aegis, and others, complain about the lack of 3G on European sales. And what's going to happen in Japan, where 4G has been running already? They'll sell some, assuming they have a deal, but not nearly as many as they could.
So far the official sales numbers we have are from Apple's partners. We don't have current sales numbers from Apple themselves. When these numbers are released will likely be very impressive.
The estimates I'm seeing, as you are, are around 2.1 million units this quarter. But, that's likely conservative. That's including the very anemic sales in Europe, the lack of which, even I have been surprised at.
All that to say there are probably a few hundred thousand consumers who will not buy the iPhone sans 3G, but millions are still being sold.
Don't be so sure. It could be that Apple would have seen a million more sales. but, in the coming months, in areas where 3G is much more important, a greater percentage of sales will either be delayed (optimistically), or lost, as consumers buy other phones with it.
Our discussion is interesting and fun, but we will actually know once the 3G model is introduced next year. After three months, the sales numbers will tell us what's what.
For me personally, 3G isn't a big issue as I live in a rural area that has spotty 3G coverage so most of the time I'd switch it off. I've got WiFi too at home/work (same thing for me). The main reason for wanting it is for use on trains when I'm going somewhere as plain old GPRS is painful.
For everyone else though it just seems mad that it doesn't have 3G.
Teno, you're missing the point. Sure, there are hundreds, maybe billions of batteries sold each year, and most are standard batteries. But, the custom ones are what we're concerned about.
It should be a lot cheaper to make hundreds of millions of the standard batteries than to make a couple million custom designed for the iPhone.
As for Flash, please, it just isn't going to happen.
I'm not saying it will but you are applying an uneven logic to economy of scale. Apple buys a lot of flash just like it buys a lot of batteries.
But sales could have been significantly higher with 3G.
I don't see evidence of that. There are a few people on this board who refuse to buy one without 3G. But there are just as many if not more who say they have an iPhone and love it.
That's including the very anemic sales in Europe, the lack of which, even I have been surprised at.
There are a couple of wrinkles in Europe. We are mostly hearing the number of activations. Its close to Christmas so many more activations will likely happen after that. Many phones being bought are likely being hacked onto other mobile carriers or being sold on the grey market. The service price is steep which would give me pause if I were looking to buy an iPhone in the UK.
For everyone else though it just seems mad that it doesn't have 3G.
We know 3G is coming so they should just chill out and be patient. Complaining about it for 6 months isn't changing anything.