Ouch. George Bush comparisons? Now you're just being vicious, Teno.
In any case T, I will agree with you that the iPhone has sold well in the US even being EDGE-only. That said, it likely would've sold even better, even in the US, had it had 3G. I don't think any of us doubts that when the 3G version launches, there should be a pretty nice US sales spike.
What was annoying to me, however, was how dismissive you were of 3G, for any market, for the longest time. Your 'two years' comments were ludicrous, and if you'd been paying attention at all to the European and Asian markets back then, you would've known that.
It's not just about the cellphone market changing rapidly... its about the changes that have already taken place in the major non-US markets. Asia and Europe just have higher expectations for what a cellphone should be than the US does, in general, and especially at the high-end. And you either address a market's expectations, or you try to change those expectations by dictating to the market instead.
I think you know which of those approaches I think works, and which one I think is likely to fall on its face.
.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
Well, 3G was power-hungry (not so much anymore), but Steve just didn't want to do the things that he would've had to to have 3G back then-- bigger thicker battery, swappable battery, etc-- because he wanted the slimmest possible phone, and he wanted it to be 'black box' too, like the iPod and MB Air.
He loves appliances, he thinks swapping out batteries is just so pedestrian.
I'd expect that, before too long, the MacBook and MB Pro lineups will go the way of the MB Air regarding their batteries being sealed in. Not sure I really dig that. \
But yeah, I agree that Apple knows now that 3G is a must. They've always known they needed it for Asia, where two of the three major markets (Japan, Korea) have 3G penetration rates exceeding 50%. But I think they were caught by surprise by how much of a factor no 3G has been in Europe.
They seem to have honestly believed that the 2.5G iPhone would do gangbusters over there without it, even though Europe doesn't even have EDGE in many places, but rather, ultra-slow, ultra-crappy GPRS (35 kbps or so). You just have to go, "Whaaaa?".
Well, 3G was power-hungry (not so much anymore), but Steve just didn't want to do the things that he would've had to to have 3G back then-- bigger thicker battery, swappable battery, etc-- because he wanted the slimmest possible phone, and he wanted it to be 'black box' too, like the iPod and MB Air.
He loves appliances, he thinks swapping out batteries is just so pedestrian.
I'd expect that, before too long, the MacBook and MB Pro lineups will go the way of the MB Air regarding their batteries being sealed in. Not sure I really dig that. \
But yeah, I agree that Apple knows now that 3G is a must. They've always known they needed it for Asia, where two of the three major markets (Japan, Korea) have 3G penetration rates exceeding 50%. But I think they were caught by surprise by how much of a factor no 3G has been in Europe.
They seem to have honestly believed that the 2.5G iPhone would do gangbusters over there without it, even though Europe doesn't even have EDGE in many places, but rather, ultra-slow, ultra-crappy GPRS (35 kbps or so). You just have to go, "Whaaaa?".
.
Sooooooo true. I am running my Nokia's at HSDPA speeds, and think, why can't my iPhone do this. If I had the ability of a real, native VoIP application, say Skype or Fring, or even iSkoot on my iPhone, I would be content and relegate the Nokia to the "once in a while" device, but alas my iPhone is the "oh well, I might as well use it" device. The only thing nice is that it is unlocked, jailbroken, has a ton of free apps that Apple will probably want to charge for, and my set of Shure ES530's that I use.
Your location speak volumes about your understanding and usage of 3G. Your argument is that of" A Porsche doesn't matter because I don't have one". I can say after living here in Europe and other parts of the world were 3G speeds are common place, EDGE is a huge disappointment but one I live with currently.
Exactly: every market is different. Here in the US, 3G's competition is not EDGE, it's Wi-Fi. I think the most significant part of the keynote was when Steve said they "would not limit" the use of VoIP protocols like Skype (and after June there will be others, written especially for the iPhone UI) over Wi-Fi, only over the cell-phone networks. Wi-Fi is being built out here much faster than 3G. Face it, they will both always be limited to fairly densely populated areas, but that's where the people are. Farmers making calls from their tractors are going to be limited to EDGE for a long time to come, if they can use cell phones at all. The point is, for the majority of people here, Wi-Fi is going to leapfrog 3G, and many people will be more than happy to see the backs of the cell-phone companies. When the iPhone came out, a lot of people were saying Apple should become a common carrier and start their own cell phone network. The argument against that was that everybody without exception hates their cell phone provider. Instead Apple is taking advantage of a network that's being built out for other reasons, at no cost to them. I'll bet the reason the initial version of the SDK doesn't give access to the dock connector or Bluetooth is that they don't want people attaching microphones or Bluetooth headsets to the iPod Touch and giving the game away too quickly. I've only just now realized the foresight that went into this whole thing! Apple didn't have to put Wi-Fi in the iPhone, nobody would have blinked an eye if they hadn't. But they did, and then blindsided everybody with the iPod Touch, which with VoIP on Wi-Fi will simply circumvent and replace the cell-phone network in built-up areas with a much smaller, less power hungry chip. So you guys in Europe and Asia have fun with 3G and 4G, and whatever G they come up with to gobble ever more power!
P.S.: The iPhone didn't need an accurate 3-axis accelerometer to tell whether it should be in landscape or portrait mode, either. Believe me, they're so far ahead of all of us, I'm just beginning to see the implications!
Blah blah, a lot of old discredited thinking about how WiFi will replace 3G
Wow. No. WiFi is neat as far as it goes, but it'll never have the footprint 3G will have once the networks are built out... actually, Sprint's and Verizon's 3G networks are already pretty built-out, it's ATT that's lagging...
Also, WiFi is pretty useless if you're mobile. If you're walking, are in a car, or are on public transportation, what're you supposed to do, when the average hotspot has a range of only a couple hundred feet or so? \
Sure, it's great when you're at the coffee shop or at work (hotels too), but otherwise, I dunno. Plus, I don't seem to come across many free hotspots... ever.
WiFi has always seemed a bit like a fig leaf for Apple not having 3G right off the bat, though I'm happy to have it.
Perhaps if you'd substituted 'WiMax' for 'WiFi', you would've had a better point, since WiMax has much greater range and coverage. You could use it while mobile too. It's a pretty nice 3.5 or 4G technology (depending on who you ask), and should be a strong competitor to more traditional 3G and 4G wireless technologies.
But WiMax is also probably two years from being significantly built out, and one of its two main US backers (Sprint) has been having a LOT of very serious problems lately...
Quote:
So you guys in Europe and Asia have fun with 3G and 4G, and whatever G they come up with to gobble ever more power!
You're way behind the times. Power-efficient 3G chipsets have been available for several months now.
Ouch. George Bush comparisons? Now you're just being vicious, Teno
Didn't mean that as a personal attack. My intention was to be tongue in cheek.
Quote:
I don't think any of us doubts that when the 3G version launches, there should be a very nice US sales spike.
I agree there will be a boost in sales. But 3G will be one of many reasons. We know there will be a 2.0 OS and third party apps. More than likely all of the hardware will be updated, more storage, faster processor, denser battery, higher resolution screen, as well as 3G.
Quote:
What was annoying to me, however, was how dismissive you were of 3G, for any market, for the longest time. Your 'two years' comments were ludicrous, and if you'd been paying attention at all to the European and Asian markets back then, you would've known that.
I don't think I was being dismissive of 3G. I just didn't think of it as do or die for the iPhone. You are all or nothing about 3G. I feel Apple made the better decision for 6 hours of battery life over twice the speed.
Quote:
It's not just about the cellphone market changing rapidly... its about the changes that have already taken place in the major non-US markets. Asia and Europe just have higher expectations for what a cellphone should be than the US does, in general, and especially at the high-end. And you either address a market's expectations, or you try to change those expectations by dictating to the market instead.
While I agree with you in philosophy. In current reality the iPhone has generated hundreds of millions in revenue in its first quarter of international sales. O2 reported its first quarter with the iPhone saw a significant increase in its data services and increase in long term subscriptions. iPhones are now used in nearly every country on the planet.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
I suppose I'm being cast as a 3G nay-sayer. Because I don't fly the 3G flag no matter the sacrifices in having using it.
Apple was not lying. You did not see the battery test Baggins posted. Battery life in the iPhone and BB Pearl both which are EDGE last far longer than the 3G phones.
What exactly is the next level? And which particular phone is already there?
Quote:
Sooooooo true. I am running my Nokia's at HSDPA speeds, and think, why can't my iPhone do this.
With Nokia's HSDPA speeds the iPhone would download data for 4 hours, instead of 6 hours.
Apple wants the iPhone to download HSDPA speeds for 6 hours.
Exactly: every market is different. Here in the US, 3G's competition is not EDGE, it's Wi-Fi.
WiFi will only be good as a short range high speed data connection. It will never be as ubiquitous as long range mobile phone data connections.
But it is a valuable technology to have since the iPhone touted WiFi, more phones that were previously 3G only are adding WiFi. New iterations of WiFi protocols will be faster than mobile phone data for the foreseeable future.
Quote:
You're way behind the times. Power-efficient 3G chipsets have been available for several months now.
I think this only pertains if the phone has low power needs all around.
I suppose I'm being cast as a 3G nay-sayer. Because I don't fly the 3G flag no matter the sacrifices in having using it.
Apple was not lying. You did not see the battery test Baggins posted. Battery life in the iPhone and BB Pearl both which are EDGE last far longer than the 3G phones.
What exactly is the next level? And which particular phone is already there?
With Nokia's HSDPA speeds the iPhone would download data for 4 hours, instead of 6 hours.
Apple wants the iPhone to download HSDPA speeds for 6 hours.
Which Nokia phones are these? Several here have mentioned Nokia this and that, well which one is it that gets only 4 hours? What is the battery size? Where were the tests performed? Was it open network, on in a lab? Your claims are just air, as I use a Nokia N81 (non-HSDPA but 3G), and an E90 as well as an E61 and they last all day with the E61 lasting the longest. I use 3G services and telephone the entire day and have plenty of battery life left.
WiFi will only be good as a short range high speed data connection. It will never be as ubiquitous as long range mobile phone data connections.
But it is a valuable technology to have since the iPhone touted WiFi, more phones that were previously 3G only are adding WiFi. New iterations of WiFi protocols will be faster than mobile phone data for the foreseeable future.
I think this only pertains if the phone has low power needs all around.
So are you saying if the phone has a high powered need 3G chips are not lower powered? Does this make any sense? Once again, when was the last time you used a 3G HSDPA phone?
Seriously though THT, it's obvious that a revision that brought 3G and absolutely no other changes would be 'major'. I don't think that's the only thing Apple needs to do, however. And honestly, would you be terribly put out if the camera on the 3G iPhone did indeed approach the quality and features of the best cameraphones? No, i didn't think so.
Unsurprisingly, yes I would. My interest doesn't lie in camera functions. I'm fine with a 2 or 3 MP function as long as it is fast, good at low light and doesn't have a lot of noise. I wouldn't mind video recording at 480p, but I take pictures rarely and video even less so. I like Internet browsing better, media consumption better and will gladly trade high spec camera functionality for those.
This means I would like to have a bigger screen. With the existing form factor, Apple can probably put a 4" screen in the thing by eating into the sides a little more and into the top and bottom. The home button can obviously be made smaller and there is a lot room on top. They would have to go to 16:10 for 4". At 3:2 aspect ratio, 3.7" or 3.8" is probably the farthest they could go without making it wider. An increase in resolution to something like 480 x 720 to make smaller text more legible in Safari.
I would like to have better cell phone reception, broadcast, and audio performance. This means more speakers - a stereo speakerphone would be cool - and more microphones to me. Better cell phone reception means do whatever to have less dropped calls, clearer reception/volume on both earpiece and speakerphone, better reception deep inside buildings (even my house which has metallic foil insulation), better side tones, etc.
And then of course, software, UI improvements are legion.
Quote:
Well, not exactly. More like "10% and climbing rapidly"... most forecasts have 3G penetration in Western Europe reaching 50-70% by 2010. Nor is it evenly spread, either... Italy apparently is already at 25%. The UK is not that far behind.
Penetration of availability to the populace? or Penetration in terms of 3G users versus the overall mobile market (users)? My figure was for users. I'm given to understand the 3G availability should be available to a large fraction of the populace, especially in Europe.
If it is 50-70% 3G availability by 2010 in Europe, heck even user base, I don't think there is a huge rush. Certainly not in 2007. Maybe not in 2008.
Quote:
Yeah, me too. You put Safari on a phone, a giant screen, and a pretty fast cpu, all elements for a great mobile internet device... and then you don't put 3G in as soon as possible? Utter madness.
Well, it depends on which tradeoffs are important to Apple. In seems obvious that in a game of EDGE versus UMTS/HSPA, or even UMTS/HSPA versus WiFi, Apple chose EDGE + WiFi in order to have balance with all of the other features and waited it out. Who knows, maybe they went EDGE because they were stuck when Verizon said no, and couldn't make the change in time.
Quote:
Still, I can also see some chucklehead going, "Hey man, I just put a 8GB microSD card into my phone! I just MAJORLY REVISED it! Har har har..."
Apple will be 6 to 12 months ahead of the microSD card cycle. If chucklehead bought an 8 GB microSD card as soon as it become available, I think the hundy+ dollars for those 8 GB would be pretty major. At least they are in the $50 to $60 range now. This is one of their strategic mistakes. The iPhone should have enough storage in it to be 2 cycles ahead of microSD capacities.
Quote:
My Euro friends appear to disagree with you, as do my multimedia geek US friends. I don't think it matters as much as 3G, but it does seem to matter.
Perhaps your friends are demographically niched.
Quote:
I'd say that that same comparative brand-weakness abroad is additional reason to be feature competitive in overseas markets
But that isn't Apple. Apple's brand is ease of use and pleasure of use. They are just as much about art as they are about technology. They'll never compete feature for feature. They only compete on their own terms and if the business model can't work, they don't enter. Like in enterprise desktops or sub-$1000 computers.
Quote:
The thing is, Apple is used to walking into markets and dictating the terms... successfully. Look at the iPod. Apple told everyone that certain features were not necessary, and by gumbo, they weren't.
Not really. They've only been successful once, the DAP market, and that has more to do with available content and social aspects then anything else. In the DAP market, it looks like listening to music is 99% of what people wanted to do, and Apple delivered the right package at the right time. Their monopolization of 1.8" drives and flash in 2004/5 was critical to that as well.
Quote:
The problem is, the cellphone market isn't the music player market. It's much more established, and there's a lot more competition. People, especially in the more sophisticated markets like Asia and Western Europe, already know what they want, to a large extent.
Once again, the market is big enough for a gigantic submarkets, even on the high end. It's fair to say Apple is trying to create their own market of big screen cell phones for internet browsing.
Quote:
And yet, it sure hasn't hurt cameraphones like the N82 and N95 one whit. They take some pretty good pics, and plenty of their users seem to appreciate that.
Did the lack of comparative camera functions hurt N76 or N77 sales? What about the N81? How about the E90? Or the 8800? To me, your argument is circular. The raison d'etre of camera phones is to have good camera functionality. It shouldn't hurt their sales. Even the term "camera phone" bespeaks a unique market subset. Not all high end (high cost) phones have to be camera phones.
Quote:
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the iPhone taking better pictures, having autofocus, a flash, video-recording, etc. It may be 'specialization' to a lot of ppl in the US market, but in Europe and Asia, where they're used to phones having those things, I don't think it's seen that way. And, frankly, I think some of the problem in accurately judging how the iPhone should evolve comes from too many of us having such a "US-centric" view of things.
I really don't think anyone disagrees with having better functionality; as long as Apple has a lot of cell phone models. They just have 1 right now. I hope there will be three by the end of the year (a mid-range, the regular and a "max"). If there is only one model, it will come at a cost. Most likely a thicker device by a couple of mm. A lot of people won't like that trade.
Quote:
The most obvious expression of that was how slow many of us were to grasp that, yup, 3G really was important. \
"was" isn't necessarily true. Obviously, we think "will be" will be. Apple made their decision and decided to get what they could get. Was it a mistake? I'm still contending not necessarily.
"was" isn't necessarily true. Obviously, we think "will be" will be. Apple made their decision and decided to get what they could get. Was it a mistake? I'm still contending not necessarily.
Sorry for the synopsis of your post but I would like to highlight just one thing. Supposedly Sonera and Elisa were offered the iPhone here in Finland but they both turned them down as the iPhone does not have a 3G radio inside and according to Finnish law, a phone offered in a subscription package has to be 3G capable. Some operators invested quite heavily in their networks and they want to get their money back and 3G is how they are going to do it. Last week I spoke with a friend again at Elisa about the iPhone and he was saying that it comes up from time to time in meetings but the fact is, none of the operators here (could include some of the other Nordic and Scandinavian countries as well) simply are not interested in having the iPhone on Apples terms. Considering Finland is probably the most advanced cell phone market, I would think that Apple would take not. The operators here are all glad to see unlocked phones here and people signing up for unlimited data plans, but they do not see the iPhone as a part of their product offering. Many here in Finland are used to more technologically advanced phones and see the iPhone as more so an iPod with phone features. Several of my friends that purchased them realize the phone is crippled (as they put it) but quite handy to have the phone and music player combined. They bought the phone for the convenience rather than the technology.
Who knows, time will tell. Also, with the speculation surrounding the "3G" iPhone, has Apple even filed with the FCC to have a 3G radio put into their phone? My understanding is that it has to have approval, but I do not recall that they ever filed.
I wasn't talking about any particular Nokia phone. I'm saying if the iPhone had Nokia's 3G chips the battery life would be significantly reduced.
Quote:
Where were the tests performed? Was it open network, on in a lab?
Here is how the test of web browsing of an N95 on AT&T network was performed.
To test battery performance while browsing the Web we pointed the phone's browser to a test page that refreshes every 10 seconds. We then ensure the phone's screen stays on and timed how long it took for the battery to die. The Nokia N95 with US 3G support kept on browsing for 6 hours and 12 minutes; a very creditable score, but not the longest we've seen; that honor belongs to the 10 hours and 43 minutes that the BlackBerry 8820 managed.
This time, there is only a very slight difference between this N95 and the older one without 3G; that kept browsing for 6 hours and 8 minutes. Although this isn't part of our normal testing process, we did test what happened to the battery life of the new N95 with US 3G support if we disabled the 3G connection and restricted it to an EDGE data connection (which is what the older N95 used). In this case, it kept browsing for 9 hours and 14 minutes. This goes to show what a difference 3G data connections make; they may be faster, but they are also a big drain on battery life. The moral of this story is that if you have an N95 and want to extend the battery life, turn off the 3G data connection and the bigger battery will give you a boost.
So are you saying if the phone has a high powered need 3G chips are not lower powered? Does this make any sense? Once again, when was the last time you used a 3G HSDPA phone?
Phone energy has to be budgeted out amongst different functions. If a phone has a relatively small screen, slower CPU, small amount of internal memory. The 3G chip can use more of the energy budget and the battery can last longer.
If the phone has a large bright screen, a speedy CPU, and a relatively large amount of internal memory. Those different functions will use a greater amount of the battery budget. Any current 3G chip on top of that will add more power drain on the battery budget than EDGE.
To test battery performance while browsing the Web we pointed the phone's browser to a test page that refreshes every 10 seconds. We then ensure the phone's screen stays on and timed how long it took for the battery to die. The Nokia N95 with US 3G support kept on browsing for 6 hours and 12 minutes; a very creditable score, but not the longest we've seen; that honor belongs to the 10 hours and 43 minutes that the BlackBerry 8820 managed.
This time, there is only a very slight difference between this N95 and the older one without 3G; that kept browsing for 6 hours and 8 minutes.
Wow... the 3G N95 can web browse for over 6 hours on one charge? That's better than the (EDGE) iPhone! :
Cell Phone \tBrowsing Time \tScore
Blackjack II \t4 hours 13 mins \t5.06
Nokia N81 8GB \t5 hours 38 mins \t6.76
BlackBerry Curve \t10 hours 43 mins \t11.66
Palm Centro \t4 hours 22 mins \t5.24
AT&T Tilt \t3 hours 3 mins \t3.66
Apple iPhone \t5 hours 13 mins \t6.26
Nice! Guess the 3G N95 uses one of the newer, more power-efficient 3G chipsets along with the bigger battery (1200 mAh vs 950 mAh).
Seeing as the N95 with EDGE lasts for 9 hours the 3G chips are still not nearly as energy efficient as EDGE.
Obviously the N95 lasts longer than the iPhone because of its thicker battery.
But its good to see you looking at the glass as half full for a change.
Well actually T, no. Even the 1200 mAh batt on the 3G N95 isn't really that big. The iPhone's battery is actually larger, at 1400 mAh. So the N95 is beating the iPhone's batt life on the basis of lower power draw (screen, cpu, chipset), not more battery.
Battery-wise, what happened between versions of the N95 is that it went from an undersized battery to an 'average' one. If you want to see a pretty high-capacity cellphone battery, look at the Treo 650... 1800 mAh battery, standard. Treo 755p and Blackjack II are pretty big too.
And then of course there's aftermarket insanity like 3600 mAh extended batteries for the PSP that stick out like big camel humps.
Wow... the 3G N95 can web browse for over 6 hours on one charge? That's better than the (EDGE) iPhone! :
Cell Phone Browsing Time Score
Blackjack II 4 hours 13 mins 5.06
Nokia N81 8GB 5 hours 38 mins 6.76
BlackBerry Curve 10 hours 43 mins 11.66
Palm Centro 4 hours 22 mins 5.24
AT&T Tilt 3 hours 3 mins 3.66
Apple iPhone 5 hours 13 mins 6.26
Nice! Guess the 3G N95 uses one of the newer, more power-efficient 3G chipsets along with the bigger battery (1200 mAh vs 950 mAh). .
I can't believe you guys have gone round and round on this. Especially this. It's pretty unequivocal and proven that 3G chipsets are more power hungry than EDGE chipsets. You can see it in all of the specifications. What Apple's been saying about it is pretty consistent too (takes too much board space, not integrated enough, power hungry; all resulting in bigger device or a battery life tradeoff). And the more power efficient one aren't coming until Spring this year.
TBaggins quotes wirelessinfo.com's N95-3 review (btw, one of my favorite cell phone sites as they actually have a fairly scientific process, not the greatest but certainly much better than 99.7% of the reviewers out there) for battery performance during web-browsing. What he neglected to show is the talk time comparisons from the same review:
Code:
Call Time (4.44)
To test the N95's battery performance during calls we made a phone call to the device using Skype and piped an audio book over the connection to simulate conversation. We then timed how long it took for the battery to run out.
Two things to look at: 1) Nokia N95-3 (with USA 3G support) on 3G has a talk time of 3 hr, 42 min. versus iPhone on EDGE which has a talk time of 7 hr, 4 min, and 2) the Nokia N95-1 (with only European 3G band support and a smaller battery) on EDGE has a talk time of 5 hr 43 min. For talk time it is unequivocal that 3G (be it CDMA or GSM) has about half of the talk time as EDGE phones. People can solve this be setting their phones to EDGE when talking and 3G when browsing, but that is quite inconvenient. I ask, what are people's experience with 3G handsets for talk time? Do they set their phones to EDGE knowing that they have 1 hour conversation coming?
For chipset size (and battery life), Anandtech did a good job looking at that 8 months ago in this article: No 3G on the iPhone, but why? A Battery Life Analysis. He shows the same poor talk time for 3G handsets. Shows the same web browsing type numbers as wirelessinfo.com. Shows that 3G chipsets are not that well integrated.
Heck, look at the music playback times too. I wonder what is going on with the N95?
Code:
Music Playback
Cell Phones like the N95 do more than just make phone calls; these days, we expect them to keep us amused with music. So, we test the battery life of phones by setting an album playing on repeat (we use MP3 files ripped straight from a CD), then timing how long the phone can keep playing it before the battery runs out. ...
4.5 hrs on the N95-3? I don't what to use a bad word here. That's just not very good for multimedia phone, especially for something that can be done hours on end at a time. It's also amazing that the N95 had longer time at 5.67 hrs on a smaller battery! Wondering if it is using the CPU for music playback or if its just a poor MP3 implementation.
There's no doubt that Apple could have added 3G to the iPhone, but it'll come at a cost that Apple (Jobs) isn't willing to pay.
I can't believe you guys have gone round and round on this. Especially this. It's pretty unequivocal and proven that 3G chipsets are more power hungry than EDGE chipsets.
I can't believe you're so late to the party. Yes, both Teno and I already KNOW that 3G chipsets draw more power than EDGE, but what you may not be aware of is that recent 3G chipsets have improved in that regard.
Quote:
What Apple's been saying about it is pretty consistent too (takes too much board space, not integrated enough, power hungry; all resulting in bigger device or a battery life tradeoff).
Gosh, it's like you haven't read this thread at all. Again, me and Teno already went over all that. The conclusion was that it wasn't only about battery life, but also about the iPhone's form factor.
Quote:
And the more power efficient one aren't coming until Spring this year.
Not exactly... more efficient ones were available since at least November. Samsung used one to help get over 6 hours talk time out of the 3G Blackjack II smartphone. It's fairer to say that the new Broadcom 3G chipset that Apple will likely use on the 3G iPhone will be more efficient still.
Quote:
What he neglected to show is the talk time comparisons from the same review
Not intentionally... its just that what Teno was talking about was browsing time. If you want to see a discussion where I quote talk time results, to the minute, go back to post #116. But that was over the Blackjack II.
Quote:
For chipset size (and battery life), Anandtech did a good job looking at that 8 months ago in this article: No 3G on the iPhone, but why? A Battery Life Analysis. He shows the same poor talk time for 3G handsets. Shows the same web browsing type numbers as wirelessinfo.com. Shows that 3G chipsets are not that well integrated.
Yeah... you're kinda behind the curve again, TH. Me and Teno have been quoting that particular article all over this thread.
It's also an old article that discusses the more power-hungry earlier 3G chipsets, like that found on the Blackjack I.
Quote:
There's no doubt that Apple could have added 3G to the iPhone, but it'll come at a cost that Apple (Jobs) isn't willing to pay.
Well, there's this funny thing about 3G... you can turn it off, if you want to.
Comments
Ouch. George Bush comparisons? Now you're just being vicious, Teno.
In any case T, I will agree with you that the iPhone has sold well in the US even being EDGE-only. That said, it likely would've sold even better, even in the US, had it had 3G. I don't think any of us doubts that when the 3G version launches, there should be a pretty nice US sales spike.
What was annoying to me, however, was how dismissive you were of 3G, for any market, for the longest time. Your 'two years' comments were ludicrous, and if you'd been paying attention at all to the European and Asian markets back then, you would've known that.
It's not just about the cellphone market changing rapidly... its about the changes that have already taken place in the major non-US markets. Asia and Europe just have higher expectations for what a cellphone should be than the US does, in general, and especially at the high-end. And you either address a market's expectations, or you try to change those expectations by dictating to the market instead.
I think you know which of those approaches I think works, and which one I think is likely to fall on its face.
.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
Well, 3G was power-hungry (not so much anymore), but Steve just didn't want to do the things that he would've had to to have 3G back then-- bigger thicker battery, swappable battery, etc-- because he wanted the slimmest possible phone, and he wanted it to be 'black box' too, like the iPod and MB Air.
He loves appliances, he thinks swapping out batteries is just so pedestrian.
I'd expect that, before too long, the MacBook and MB Pro lineups will go the way of the MB Air regarding their batteries being sealed in. Not sure I really dig that.
But yeah, I agree that Apple knows now that 3G is a must. They've always known they needed it for Asia, where two of the three major markets (Japan, Korea) have 3G penetration rates exceeding 50%. But I think they were caught by surprise by how much of a factor no 3G has been in Europe.
They seem to have honestly believed that the 2.5G iPhone would do gangbusters over there without it, even though Europe doesn't even have EDGE in many places, but rather, ultra-slow, ultra-crappy GPRS (35 kbps or so). You just have to go, "Whaaaa?".
.
Well, 3G was power-hungry (not so much anymore), but Steve just didn't want to do the things that he would've had to to have 3G back then-- bigger thicker battery, swappable battery, etc-- because he wanted the slimmest possible phone, and he wanted it to be 'black box' too, like the iPod and MB Air.
He loves appliances, he thinks swapping out batteries is just so pedestrian.
I'd expect that, before too long, the MacBook and MB Pro lineups will go the way of the MB Air regarding their batteries being sealed in. Not sure I really dig that.
But yeah, I agree that Apple knows now that 3G is a must. They've always known they needed it for Asia, where two of the three major markets (Japan, Korea) have 3G penetration rates exceeding 50%. But I think they were caught by surprise by how much of a factor no 3G has been in Europe.
They seem to have honestly believed that the 2.5G iPhone would do gangbusters over there without it, even though Europe doesn't even have EDGE in many places, but rather, ultra-slow, ultra-crappy GPRS (35 kbps or so). You just have to go, "Whaaaa?".
.
Sooooooo true. I am running my Nokia's at HSDPA speeds, and think, why can't my iPhone do this. If I had the ability of a real, native VoIP application, say Skype or Fring, or even iSkoot on my iPhone, I would be content and relegate the Nokia to the "once in a while" device, but alas my iPhone is the "oh well, I might as well use it" device. The only thing nice is that it is unlocked, jailbroken, has a ton of free apps that Apple will probably want to charge for, and my set of Shure ES530's that I use.
Love your dream ticket by the way. Pure poetry.
Your location speak volumes about your understanding and usage of 3G. Your argument is that of" A Porsche doesn't matter because I don't have one". I can say after living here in Europe and other parts of the world were 3G speeds are common place, EDGE is a huge disappointment but one I live with currently.
Exactly: every market is different. Here in the US, 3G's competition is not EDGE, it's Wi-Fi. I think the most significant part of the keynote was when Steve said they "would not limit" the use of VoIP protocols like Skype (and after June there will be others, written especially for the iPhone UI) over Wi-Fi, only over the cell-phone networks. Wi-Fi is being built out here much faster than 3G. Face it, they will both always be limited to fairly densely populated areas, but that's where the people are. Farmers making calls from their tractors are going to be limited to EDGE for a long time to come, if they can use cell phones at all. The point is, for the majority of people here, Wi-Fi is going to leapfrog 3G, and many people will be more than happy to see the backs of the cell-phone companies. When the iPhone came out, a lot of people were saying Apple should become a common carrier and start their own cell phone network. The argument against that was that everybody without exception hates their cell phone provider. Instead Apple is taking advantage of a network that's being built out for other reasons, at no cost to them. I'll bet the reason the initial version of the SDK doesn't give access to the dock connector or Bluetooth is that they don't want people attaching microphones or Bluetooth headsets to the iPod Touch and giving the game away too quickly. I've only just now realized the foresight that went into this whole thing! Apple didn't have to put Wi-Fi in the iPhone, nobody would have blinked an eye if they hadn't. But they did, and then blindsided everybody with the iPod Touch, which with VoIP on Wi-Fi will simply circumvent and replace the cell-phone network in built-up areas with a much smaller, less power hungry chip. So you guys in Europe and Asia have fun with 3G and 4G, and whatever G they come up with to gobble ever more power!
P.S.: The iPhone didn't need an accurate 3-axis accelerometer to tell whether it should be in landscape or portrait mode, either. Believe me, they're so far ahead of all of us, I'm just beginning to see the implications!
So you guys in Europe and Asia have fun with 3G and 4G, and whatever G they come up with to gobble ever more power!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Blah blah, a lot of old discredited thinking about how WiFi will replace 3G
Wow. No. WiFi is neat as far as it goes, but it'll never have the footprint 3G will have once the networks are built out... actually, Sprint's and Verizon's 3G networks are already pretty built-out, it's ATT that's lagging...
Also, WiFi is pretty useless if you're mobile. If you're walking, are in a car, or are on public transportation, what're you supposed to do, when the average hotspot has a range of only a couple hundred feet or so?
Sure, it's great when you're at the coffee shop or at work (hotels too), but otherwise, I dunno. Plus, I don't seem to come across many free hotspots... ever.
WiFi has always seemed a bit like a fig leaf for Apple not having 3G right off the bat, though I'm happy to have it.
Perhaps if you'd substituted 'WiMax' for 'WiFi', you would've had a better point, since WiMax has much greater range and coverage. You could use it while mobile too. It's a pretty nice 3.5 or 4G technology (depending on who you ask), and should be a strong competitor to more traditional 3G and 4G wireless technologies.
But WiMax is also probably two years from being significantly built out, and one of its two main US backers (Sprint) has been having a LOT of very serious problems lately...
So you guys in Europe and Asia have fun with 3G and 4G, and whatever G they come up with to gobble ever more power!
You're way behind the times. Power-efficient 3G chipsets have been available for several months now.
.
Ouch. George Bush comparisons? Now you're just being vicious, Teno
Didn't mean that as a personal attack. My intention was to be tongue in cheek.
I don't think any of us doubts that when the 3G version launches, there should be a very nice US sales spike.
I agree there will be a boost in sales. But 3G will be one of many reasons. We know there will be a 2.0 OS and third party apps. More than likely all of the hardware will be updated, more storage, faster processor, denser battery, higher resolution screen, as well as 3G.
What was annoying to me, however, was how dismissive you were of 3G, for any market, for the longest time. Your 'two years' comments were ludicrous, and if you'd been paying attention at all to the European and Asian markets back then, you would've known that.
I don't think I was being dismissive of 3G. I just didn't think of it as do or die for the iPhone. You are all or nothing about 3G. I feel Apple made the better decision for 6 hours of battery life over twice the speed.
It's not just about the cellphone market changing rapidly... its about the changes that have already taken place in the major non-US markets. Asia and Europe just have higher expectations for what a cellphone should be than the US does, in general, and especially at the high-end. And you either address a market's expectations, or you try to change those expectations by dictating to the market instead.
While I agree with you in philosophy. In current reality the iPhone has generated hundreds of millions in revenue in its first quarter of international sales. O2 reported its first quarter with the iPhone saw a significant increase in its data services and increase in long term subscriptions. iPhones are now used in nearly every country on the planet.
Nice post Mr. Baggins. My take on the 3G nay-sayers is that they can not appreciate what they do not miss nor experienced it. There is simply no way that 3G can be seen as an unimportant technology. I was initially annoyed that Apple lied and obfuscated about 3G being power hungry, not ready, etc.... but Apple knows that for the iPhone to move on to the next level, high-speed mobile Internet is a must.
I suppose I'm being cast as a 3G nay-sayer. Because I don't fly the 3G flag no matter the sacrifices in having using it.
Apple was not lying. You did not see the battery test Baggins posted. Battery life in the iPhone and BB Pearl both which are EDGE last far longer than the 3G phones.
What exactly is the next level? And which particular phone is already there?
Sooooooo true. I am running my Nokia's at HSDPA speeds, and think, why can't my iPhone do this.
With Nokia's HSDPA speeds the iPhone would download data for 4 hours, instead of 6 hours.
Apple wants the iPhone to download HSDPA speeds for 6 hours.
Exactly: every market is different. Here in the US, 3G's competition is not EDGE, it's Wi-Fi.
WiFi will only be good as a short range high speed data connection. It will never be as ubiquitous as long range mobile phone data connections.
But it is a valuable technology to have since the iPhone touted WiFi, more phones that were previously 3G only are adding WiFi. New iterations of WiFi protocols will be faster than mobile phone data for the foreseeable future.
You're way behind the times. Power-efficient 3G chipsets have been available for several months now.
I think this only pertains if the phone has low power needs all around.
I suppose I'm being cast as a 3G nay-sayer. Because I don't fly the 3G flag no matter the sacrifices in having using it.
Apple was not lying. You did not see the battery test Baggins posted. Battery life in the iPhone and BB Pearl both which are EDGE last far longer than the 3G phones.
What exactly is the next level? And which particular phone is already there?
With Nokia's HSDPA speeds the iPhone would download data for 4 hours, instead of 6 hours.
Apple wants the iPhone to download HSDPA speeds for 6 hours.
Which Nokia phones are these? Several here have mentioned Nokia this and that, well which one is it that gets only 4 hours? What is the battery size? Where were the tests performed? Was it open network, on in a lab? Your claims are just air, as I use a Nokia N81 (non-HSDPA but 3G), and an E90 as well as an E61 and they last all day with the E61 lasting the longest. I use 3G services and telephone the entire day and have plenty of battery life left.
WiFi will only be good as a short range high speed data connection. It will never be as ubiquitous as long range mobile phone data connections.
But it is a valuable technology to have since the iPhone touted WiFi, more phones that were previously 3G only are adding WiFi. New iterations of WiFi protocols will be faster than mobile phone data for the foreseeable future.
I think this only pertains if the phone has low power needs all around.
So are you saying if the phone has a high powered need 3G chips are not lower powered? Does this make any sense? Once again, when was the last time you used a 3G HSDPA phone?
Seriously though THT, it's obvious that a revision that brought 3G and absolutely no other changes would be 'major'. I don't think that's the only thing Apple needs to do, however. And honestly, would you be terribly put out if the camera on the 3G iPhone did indeed approach the quality and features of the best cameraphones? No, i didn't think so.
Unsurprisingly, yes I would. My interest doesn't lie in camera functions. I'm fine with a 2 or 3 MP function as long as it is fast, good at low light and doesn't have a lot of noise. I wouldn't mind video recording at 480p, but I take pictures rarely and video even less so. I like Internet browsing better, media consumption better and will gladly trade high spec camera functionality for those.
This means I would like to have a bigger screen. With the existing form factor, Apple can probably put a 4" screen in the thing by eating into the sides a little more and into the top and bottom. The home button can obviously be made smaller and there is a lot room on top. They would have to go to 16:10 for 4". At 3:2 aspect ratio, 3.7" or 3.8" is probably the farthest they could go without making it wider. An increase in resolution to something like 480 x 720 to make smaller text more legible in Safari.
I would like to have better cell phone reception, broadcast, and audio performance. This means more speakers - a stereo speakerphone would be cool - and more microphones to me. Better cell phone reception means do whatever to have less dropped calls, clearer reception/volume on both earpiece and speakerphone, better reception deep inside buildings (even my house which has metallic foil insulation), better side tones, etc.
And then of course, software, UI improvements are legion.
Well, not exactly. More like "10% and climbing rapidly"... most forecasts have 3G penetration in Western Europe reaching 50-70% by 2010. Nor is it evenly spread, either... Italy apparently is already at 25%. The UK is not that far behind.
Penetration of availability to the populace? or Penetration in terms of 3G users versus the overall mobile market (users)? My figure was for users. I'm given to understand the 3G availability should be available to a large fraction of the populace, especially in Europe.
If it is 50-70% 3G availability by 2010 in Europe, heck even user base, I don't think there is a huge rush. Certainly not in 2007. Maybe not in 2008.
Yeah, me too. You put Safari on a phone, a giant screen, and a pretty fast cpu, all elements for a great mobile internet device... and then you don't put 3G in as soon as possible? Utter madness.
Well, it depends on which tradeoffs are important to Apple. In seems obvious that in a game of EDGE versus UMTS/HSPA, or even UMTS/HSPA versus WiFi, Apple chose EDGE + WiFi in order to have balance with all of the other features and waited it out. Who knows, maybe they went EDGE because they were stuck when Verizon said no, and couldn't make the change in time.
Still, I can also see some chucklehead going, "Hey man, I just put a 8GB microSD card into my phone! I just MAJORLY REVISED it! Har har har..."
Apple will be 6 to 12 months ahead of the microSD card cycle. If chucklehead bought an 8 GB microSD card as soon as it become available, I think the hundy+ dollars for those 8 GB would be pretty major. At least they are in the $50 to $60 range now. This is one of their strategic mistakes. The iPhone should have enough storage in it to be 2 cycles ahead of microSD capacities.
My Euro friends appear to disagree with you, as do my multimedia geek US friends. I don't think it matters as much as 3G, but it does seem to matter.
Perhaps your friends are demographically niched.
I'd say that that same comparative brand-weakness abroad is additional reason to be feature competitive in overseas markets
But that isn't Apple. Apple's brand is ease of use and pleasure of use. They are just as much about art as they are about technology. They'll never compete feature for feature. They only compete on their own terms and if the business model can't work, they don't enter. Like in enterprise desktops or sub-$1000 computers.
The thing is, Apple is used to walking into markets and dictating the terms... successfully. Look at the iPod. Apple told everyone that certain features were not necessary, and by gumbo, they weren't.
Not really. They've only been successful once, the DAP market, and that has more to do with available content and social aspects then anything else. In the DAP market, it looks like listening to music is 99% of what people wanted to do, and Apple delivered the right package at the right time. Their monopolization of 1.8" drives and flash in 2004/5 was critical to that as well.
The problem is, the cellphone market isn't the music player market. It's much more established, and there's a lot more competition. People, especially in the more sophisticated markets like Asia and Western Europe, already know what they want, to a large extent.
Once again, the market is big enough for a gigantic submarkets, even on the high end. It's fair to say Apple is trying to create their own market of big screen cell phones for internet browsing.
And yet, it sure hasn't hurt cameraphones like the N82 and N95 one whit.
Did the lack of comparative camera functions hurt N76 or N77 sales? What about the N81? How about the E90? Or the 8800? To me, your argument is circular. The raison d'etre of camera phones is to have good camera functionality. It shouldn't hurt their sales. Even the term "camera phone" bespeaks a unique market subset. Not all high end (high cost) phones have to be camera phones.
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the iPhone taking better pictures, having autofocus, a flash, video-recording, etc. It may be 'specialization' to a lot of ppl in the US market, but in Europe and Asia, where they're used to phones having those things, I don't think it's seen that way. And, frankly, I think some of the problem in accurately judging how the iPhone should evolve comes from too many of us having such a "US-centric" view of things.
I really don't think anyone disagrees with having better functionality; as long as Apple has a lot of cell phone models. They just have 1 right now. I hope there will be three by the end of the year (a mid-range, the regular and a "max"). If there is only one model, it will come at a cost. Most likely a thicker device by a couple of mm. A lot of people won't like that trade.
The most obvious expression of that was how slow many of us were to grasp that, yup, 3G really was important.
"was" isn't necessarily true. Obviously, we think "will be" will be. Apple made their decision and decided to get what they could get. Was it a mistake? I'm still contending not necessarily.
Unsurprisingly, yes I would.......
"was" isn't necessarily true. Obviously, we think "will be" will be. Apple made their decision and decided to get what they could get. Was it a mistake? I'm still contending not necessarily.
Sorry for the synopsis of your post but I would like to highlight just one thing. Supposedly Sonera and Elisa were offered the iPhone here in Finland but they both turned them down as the iPhone does not have a 3G radio inside and according to Finnish law, a phone offered in a subscription package has to be 3G capable. Some operators invested quite heavily in their networks and they want to get their money back and 3G is how they are going to do it. Last week I spoke with a friend again at Elisa about the iPhone and he was saying that it comes up from time to time in meetings but the fact is, none of the operators here (could include some of the other Nordic and Scandinavian countries as well) simply are not interested in having the iPhone on Apples terms. Considering Finland is probably the most advanced cell phone market, I would think that Apple would take not. The operators here are all glad to see unlocked phones here and people signing up for unlimited data plans, but they do not see the iPhone as a part of their product offering. Many here in Finland are used to more technologically advanced phones and see the iPhone as more so an iPod with phone features. Several of my friends that purchased them realize the phone is crippled (as they put it) but quite handy to have the phone and music player combined. They bought the phone for the convenience rather than the technology.
Who knows, time will tell. Also, with the speculation surrounding the "3G" iPhone, has Apple even filed with the FCC to have a 3G radio put into their phone? My understanding is that it has to have approval, but I do not recall that they ever filed.
Which Nokia phones are these?
I wasn't talking about any particular Nokia phone. I'm saying if the iPhone had Nokia's 3G chips the battery life would be significantly reduced.
Where were the tests performed? Was it open network, on in a lab?
Here is how the test of web browsing of an N95 on AT&T network was performed.
To test battery performance while browsing the Web we pointed the phone's browser to a test page that refreshes every 10 seconds. We then ensure the phone's screen stays on and timed how long it took for the battery to die. The Nokia N95 with US 3G support kept on browsing for 6 hours and 12 minutes; a very creditable score, but not the longest we've seen; that honor belongs to the 10 hours and 43 minutes that the BlackBerry 8820 managed.
This time, there is only a very slight difference between this N95 and the older one without 3G; that kept browsing for 6 hours and 8 minutes. Although this isn't part of our normal testing process, we did test what happened to the battery life of the new N95 with US 3G support if we disabled the 3G connection and restricted it to an EDGE data connection (which is what the older N95 used). In this case, it kept browsing for 9 hours and 14 minutes. This goes to show what a difference 3G data connections make; they may be faster, but they are also a big drain on battery life. The moral of this story is that if you have an N95 and want to extend the battery life, turn off the 3G data connection and the bigger battery will give you a boost.
So are you saying if the phone has a high powered need 3G chips are not lower powered? Does this make any sense? Once again, when was the last time you used a 3G HSDPA phone?
Phone energy has to be budgeted out amongst different functions. If a phone has a relatively small screen, slower CPU, small amount of internal memory. The 3G chip can use more of the energy budget and the battery can last longer.
If the phone has a large bright screen, a speedy CPU, and a relatively large amount of internal memory. Those different functions will use a greater amount of the battery budget. Any current 3G chip on top of that will add more power drain on the battery budget than EDGE.
To test battery performance while browsing the Web we pointed the phone's browser to a test page that refreshes every 10 seconds. We then ensure the phone's screen stays on and timed how long it took for the battery to die. The Nokia N95 with US 3G support kept on browsing for 6 hours and 12 minutes; a very creditable score, but not the longest we've seen; that honor belongs to the 10 hours and 43 minutes that the BlackBerry 8820 managed.
This time, there is only a very slight difference between this N95 and the older one without 3G; that kept browsing for 6 hours and 8 minutes.
Wow... the 3G N95 can web browse for over 6 hours on one charge? That's better than the (EDGE) iPhone! :
Cell Phone \tBrowsing Time \tScore
Blackjack II \t4 hours 13 mins \t5.06
Nokia N81 8GB \t5 hours 38 mins \t6.76
BlackBerry Curve \t10 hours 43 mins \t11.66
Palm Centro \t4 hours 22 mins \t5.24
AT&T Tilt \t3 hours 3 mins \t3.66
Apple iPhone \t5 hours 13 mins \t6.26
Nice! Guess the 3G N95 uses one of the newer, more power-efficient 3G chipsets along with the bigger battery (1200 mAh vs 950 mAh).
.
Wow... the 3G N95 can web browse for over 6 hours on one charge? That's better than the (EDGE) iPhone! :
Nice! Guess the 3G N95 uses one of the newer, more power-efficient 3G chipsets along with the bigger battery (1200 mAh vs 950 mAh).
Seeing as the N95 with EDGE lasts for 9 hours the 3G chips are still not nearly as energy efficient as EDGE.
Obviously the N95 lasts longer than the iPhone because of its thicker battery.
But its good to see you looking at the glass as half full for a change.
Seeing as the N95 with EDGE lasts for 9 hours the 3G chips are still not nearly as energy efficient as EDGE.
Obviously the N95 lasts longer than the iPhone because of its thicker battery.
But its good to see you looking at the glass as half full for a change.
Well actually T, no. Even the 1200 mAh batt on the 3G N95 isn't really that big. The iPhone's battery is actually larger, at 1400 mAh. So the N95 is beating the iPhone's batt life on the basis of lower power draw (screen, cpu, chipset), not more battery.
Battery-wise, what happened between versions of the N95 is that it went from an undersized battery to an 'average' one. If you want to see a pretty high-capacity cellphone battery, look at the Treo 650... 1800 mAh battery, standard. Treo 755p and Blackjack II are pretty big too.
And then of course there's aftermarket insanity like 3600 mAh extended batteries for the PSP that stick out like big camel humps.
.
Wow... the 3G N95 can web browse for over 6 hours on one charge? That's better than the (EDGE) iPhone! :
Cell Phone Browsing Time Score
Blackjack II 4 hours 13 mins 5.06
Nokia N81 8GB 5 hours 38 mins 6.76
BlackBerry Curve 10 hours 43 mins 11.66
Palm Centro 4 hours 22 mins 5.24
AT&T Tilt 3 hours 3 mins 3.66
Apple iPhone 5 hours 13 mins 6.26
Nice! Guess the 3G N95 uses one of the newer, more power-efficient 3G chipsets along with the bigger battery (1200 mAh vs 950 mAh).
I can't believe you guys have gone round and round on this. Especially this. It's pretty unequivocal and proven that 3G chipsets are more power hungry than EDGE chipsets. You can see it in all of the specifications. What Apple's been saying about it is pretty consistent too (takes too much board space, not integrated enough, power hungry; all resulting in bigger device or a battery life tradeoff). And the more power efficient one aren't coming until Spring this year.
TBaggins quotes wirelessinfo.com's N95-3 review (btw, one of my favorite cell phone sites as they actually have a fairly scientific process, not the greatest but certainly much better than 99.7% of the reviewers out there) for battery performance during web-browsing. What he neglected to show is the talk time comparisons from the same review:
Call Time (4.44)
To test the N95's battery performance during calls we made a phone call to the device using Skype and piped an audio book over the connection to simulate conversation. We then timed how long it took for the battery to run out.
Cell Phone . . . . . . . . . Time (sec). . . . . . . Score
Nokia N95 with US 3G support 3 hours, 42 minutes . . 4.33
BlackBerry Curve 8320. . . . 7 hours, 24 minutes . . 8.88
Apple iPhone . . . . . . . . 7 hours 4 minutes . . . 8.48
Palm Centro. . . . . . . . . 4 hours 8 minutes . . . 4.96
Pantech Duo. . . . . . . . . 4 hours 20 minutes. . . 5.20
Nokia N95. . . . . . . . . . 5 hours 43 minutes. . . 6.86
Two things to look at: 1) Nokia N95-3 (with USA 3G support) on 3G has a talk time of 3 hr, 42 min. versus iPhone on EDGE which has a talk time of 7 hr, 4 min, and 2) the Nokia N95-1 (with only European 3G band support and a smaller battery) on EDGE has a talk time of 5 hr 43 min. For talk time it is unequivocal that 3G (be it CDMA or GSM) has about half of the talk time as EDGE phones. People can solve this be setting their phones to EDGE when talking and 3G when browsing, but that is quite inconvenient. I ask, what are people's experience with 3G handsets for talk time? Do they set their phones to EDGE knowing that they have 1 hour conversation coming?
For chipset size (and battery life), Anandtech did a good job looking at that 8 months ago in this article: No 3G on the iPhone, but why? A Battery Life Analysis. He shows the same poor talk time for 3G handsets. Shows the same web browsing type numbers as wirelessinfo.com. Shows that 3G chipsets are not that well integrated.
Heck, look at the music playback times too. I wonder what is going on with the N95?
Music Playback
Cell Phones like the N95 do more than just make phone calls; these days, we expect them to keep us amused with music. So, we test the battery life of phones by setting an album playing on repeat (we use MP3 files ripped straight from a CD), then timing how long the phone can keep playing it before the battery runs out. ...
Cell Phone . . . . . . . . . Time (sec). . . . . . . Score
Nokia N95 with US 3G support 4 hours, 23 minutes . . 3.16
BlackBerry Curve 8320. . . . 12 hours, 2 minutes . . 8.66
Apple iPhone . . . . . . . . 10 hours 46 minutes . . 7.78
Palm Centro. . . . . . . . . 6 hours 47 minutes. . . 4.88
Pantech Duo. . . . . . . . . 4 hours 53 minutes. . . 3.52
Nokia N95. . . . . . . . . . 5 hours 40 minutes. . . 4.08
4.5 hrs on the N95-3? I don't what to use a bad word here. That's just not very good for multimedia phone, especially for something that can be done hours on end at a time. It's also amazing that the N95 had longer time at 5.67 hrs on a smaller battery! Wondering if it is using the CPU for music playback or if its just a poor MP3 implementation.
There's no doubt that Apple could have added 3G to the iPhone, but it'll come at a cost that Apple (Jobs) isn't willing to pay.
I can't believe you guys have gone round and round on this. Especially this. It's pretty unequivocal and proven that 3G chipsets are more power hungry than EDGE chipsets.
I can't believe you're so late to the party. Yes, both Teno and I already KNOW that 3G chipsets draw more power than EDGE, but what you may not be aware of is that recent 3G chipsets have improved in that regard.
What Apple's been saying about it is pretty consistent too (takes too much board space, not integrated enough, power hungry; all resulting in bigger device or a battery life tradeoff).
Gosh, it's like you haven't read this thread at all. Again, me and Teno already went over all that. The conclusion was that it wasn't only about battery life, but also about the iPhone's form factor.
And the more power efficient one aren't coming until Spring this year.
Not exactly... more efficient ones were available since at least November. Samsung used one to help get over 6 hours talk time out of the 3G Blackjack II smartphone. It's fairer to say that the new Broadcom 3G chipset that Apple will likely use on the 3G iPhone will be more efficient still.
What he neglected to show is the talk time comparisons from the same review
Not intentionally... its just that what Teno was talking about was browsing time. If you want to see a discussion where I quote talk time results, to the minute, go back to post #116. But that was over the Blackjack II.
For chipset size (and battery life), Anandtech did a good job looking at that 8 months ago in this article: No 3G on the iPhone, but why? A Battery Life Analysis. He shows the same poor talk time for 3G handsets. Shows the same web browsing type numbers as wirelessinfo.com. Shows that 3G chipsets are not that well integrated.
Yeah... you're kinda behind the curve again, TH. Me and Teno have been quoting that particular article all over this thread.
It's also an old article that discusses the more power-hungry earlier 3G chipsets, like that found on the Blackjack I.
There's no doubt that Apple could have added 3G to the iPhone, but it'll come at a cost that Apple (Jobs) isn't willing to pay.
Well, there's this funny thing about 3G... you can turn it off, if you want to.
.