30 markets is smaller than the coverage map VZ is using to pick fun at AT&T. At best VZ can push mobile broadband cards for notebooks, but its not really good enough for mobile phones.
I would not trust some obscure blog reporting "its sources" informed it of Apple and VZ testing 4G phones. If there were a 4G chip that would work in the iPhone we would have heard about it.
I have a link for that too, and I think this site is much more reliable.
A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I have a link for that too, and I think this site is much more reliable.
A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.
We?ll see the tables turn in 5 years. Right now CDMA-based networks have the advantage of better voice algorithms while using less power. When LTE becomes common for these networks HSPA will have the advantage on power consumption while potentially matching or exceeding the speed.
A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.
They wouldn't have issued a press release if it didn't have any practicality. In 2010 I'm sure you'll see phones with CDMA and LTE. LTE will first be for data only while CDMA handles voice. Eventually LTE will handle both. No it doesn't say anything about the iPhone but you doubted there being combo chipsets. We all know that Apple is very tight lipped, we're not gonna hear anything but rumors surrounding any new iPhone especially since the 3GS is only a few months old.
AT&T is under-advertising. Verizon is over-advertising. That's the difference.
I don't understand how Verizon is over-advertising. Even this article does not take issue with Verizon's 3G coverage map.
It just complains that Verizon does not show AT&T's "slower but functional" EDGE 2.5G coverage (and Wifi hotspots) in its 3G comparison maps. If that's the case, let's throw in AT&T dial-up lines and make the whole AT&T map solid blue.
I have seen the ads many times, and it seems very clear to me that Verizon is comparing 3G coverage only. I never got the impression that Verizon was implying that AT&T has NO data coverage in their non-3G areas.
I would agree that the whole "3G" talk is somewhat misleading because they are different technologies and real-world speeds are totally theoretical anyway. But I do think it's hypocritical for AT&T to play the 3G claim game and then criticize Verizon for playing it too.
Verizon has started an aggressive ad campaign against Apple and AT&T (yes both....if they did not want to include Apple, then why plagiarize their "Ap for that" and include the iPhone on their commercials?).
Verizon probably realizes that it will take years before 4G is rolled out enough to fully support the next gen iPhone. By that time, all the major carriers will have 4G as well...and all of them will sell the iPhone. Wireless Service will, once again, become a commodity where the lowest price will be the largest factor to winning new customers.
So, in order to prevent and minimize the mass exodus to AT&T or T-Mobile (wouldn't they be next?), they have aligned themselves with Google/Motorola and have begun their marketing campaigns against Apple/AT&T. This should tell us what is really going on inside of Verizon.
If I was Verizon, I would have fired the person(s) responsible for rejecting the iPhone (when it was offered) and I would continuously spread rumors and false hope of an upcoming Verizon iPhone to prevent any more defections. Maybe the latter has already happened.
Verizon has started an aggressive ad campaign against Apple and AT&T (yes both....if they did not want to include Apple, then why plagiarize their "Ap for that" and include the iPhone on their commercials?).
Verizon probably realizes that it will take years before 4G is rolled out enough to fully support the next gen iPhone. By that time, all the major carriers will have 4G as well...and all of them will sell the iPhone. Wireless Service will, once again, become a commodity where the lowest price will be the largest factor to winning new customers.
So, in order to prevent and minimize the mass exodus to AT&T or T-Mobile (wouldn't they be next?), they have aligned themselves with Google/Motorola and have begun their marketing campaigns against Apple/AT&T. This should tell us what is really going on inside of Verizon.
If I was Verizon, I would have fired the person(s) responsible for rejecting the iPhone (when it was offered) and I would continuously spread rumors and false hope of an upcoming Verizon iPhone to prevent any more defections. Maybe the latter has already happened.
Why would you fire them? I think they made a wise choice. They were not ready to say yes to a device sight unseen and have absolutely no control over. They are still the number one carrier in the U.S. without it. VZW is starting the inevitable war between the carriers. We are nearing a saturation point of people purchasing cell phones. How much longer can these companies boast a million plus subs every quarter, soon subs are gonna have to be gained at the expense of other carriers so why not attack the next big dog which is AT&T. VZW is also trying to stop the defections to AT&T for the iPhone.
If you live in or near a city, chances are you're better served by AT&T with a smartphone. If your out in the boonies, you're probably better served with Verizon.
Just like real estate, it's all about location, location, location. Where I live and work and play (Los Angeles and surrounding counties), AT&T works just fine with acceptable voice quality and really fast 3G data. AT&T locally works as well as my friends on Verizon currently, and better than I remember Verizon working on my Palm Treo I had before switching to the iPhone. BOTH drop calls. BOTH have dead zones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
Anyone living outside of NY (or San Fransisco from what I can gather) simply cannot understand how piss-poor AT&T's service is here... it's like being back in 1996 - calls won't connect, when they do they're dropped, I can barely read a 3 line email on my .me account without getting a massive lag... uploading a photo to Facebook... forget it!
Anyone living outside of NYC or SF just doesn't care what the coverage is in those cities unless they happen to go there on more than the rare occasion. Really, do you care what coverage is like in the suburbs of Los Angeles, or Dallas, or anywhere else not on your normal beaten path?
I empathize with anyone who has bad service with where ever they live or work, but to condemn a national company as terrible because some of their service areas are poor reeks of self-centered whining. AT&T works great the places I go, no reason to leave.
If the pain of being on AT&T outweighs the joys of having an iPhone, then switch. Problem solved. If enough people leave AT&T and tell them it's because the service sucks, they'll have to react to that and fix the problem.
Also, seems like many of the tech talking heads from the Bay Area (San Francisco) who were moaning about AT&T coverage "in the city", as they call SF, have stopped complaining since AT&T rolled out its new 850Mhz towers recently. AT&T seems to be responding to the complaints.
A seldom discussed, but significant in my opinion, disadvantage of the CDMA Rev A network in use by Verizon is the inability of the cellular device to access both voice and data simultaneously. AT&T's HSDPA network does not have that limitation.
Your mileage may vary on this, but I find it very useful to be able to check something on Safari or another app (Yelp, MovieFone, etc) while in a voice call with someone. I've also had occasion to send a picture by email or MMS to someone I'm on the phone with to get their opinion of a considered purchase in real time.
Maybe not a deal breaker for most, but something to consider before blindly chatting Verizon's network is "better" than AT&T's. "Better" is at best a subjective term, even if you have hard data on some aspects of the comparison, when user experience is part of the equation.
A seldom discussed, but significant in my opinion, disadvantage of the CDMA Rev A network in use by Verizon is the inability of the cellular device to access both voice and data simultaneously. AT&T's HSDPA network does not have that limitation.
Your mileage may vary on this, but I find it very useful to be able to check something on Safari or another app (Yelp, MovieFone, etc) while in a voice call with someone. I've also had occasion to send a picture by email or MMS to someone I'm on the phone with to get their opinion of a considered purchase in real time.
Maybe not a deal breaker for most, but something to consider before blindly chatting Verizon's network is "better" than AT&T's. "Better" is at best a subjective term, even if you have hard data on some aspects of the comparison, when user experience is part of the equation.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
Wow, this article seems to be lifted verbatim from a ATT press release.
As some people have commented already the "theoretical" speed of the ATT network is completely irrelevant if they do not have enough capacity to handle the traffic.
I live in NYC (10021) in the morning I can get speed on my iPhone around 300 kbps, the other day 11/4 I had an all time low of 47 (yes four-seven) kbps at 5:53 PM, with 3G and 5 bars.
In the middle of the night I get around 800-900 kbps.
Downtown NYC is quite different (zip 10003) there I got speed as fast as 1460 kbps.
There is no question that the ATT network is completely, utterly overwhelmed. Verzion's is not simply because they have very few good smartphone for browsing etc.
As soon as they have 4G and the iPhone they will be overwhelmed as well.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
OUCH!
Yeah you will get the inbound call interrupting the data, but since some of the data is already cached it will only affect the GPS App if you're on the phone for an extended period of time.
I'm sure AT&T has known for a decade or more how much they suck in NYC. When I first got with them in 1998 it was horrible. If you weren't standing outside in the middle of the street you couldn't make a call. Today it sucks for different reasons, but the story is still the same.
It's not a market like anywhere else. The tall buildings and heavy building materials make it much more difficult and require many more towers to adequately cover the same area compared to a regular town. Of course the population density should make it affordable for the carriers to provide more towers per square mile, but I'm not an expert, and I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that.
The other thing is that CDMA, because of the frequency it uses, naturally penetrates buildings better than GSM, so if there's a Verizon tower and an AT&T tower side-by-side, you are more likely to get Verizon in your basement but not AT&T.
I think Verizon knows they have the advantage and has made extra effort to have great coverage in NYC. Everyone in NYC knows it. If they're with a different carrier, then it's because of cost, or the need for GSM for travel outside the US, or for the iPhone, or because their cousin works for T-mobile. No one is under the impression that their carrier's service is as good as Verizon's.
I'm sure AT&T is working on it. I feel like their service is about the same as it was before the iPhone, which must mean they've been working on it a lot, if you factor in all the extra traffic. I wish it would go faster, though. Mostly I just want them to build out the network to the point where they can offer tethering.
Apple was saying that the iPhone 3G was twice as fast as the original iPhone. That was true in several different ways. What is misleading about that?
Verizon is saying their 3G coverage area is larger than ATT's coverage area. And they are using ATT's very own definition of what their 3G coverage area is. So their ads are 100% accurate. And yet people are saying they are misleading.
Just like Verizon neglects to point out that you'll have non-3G data services outside of ATT's 3G coverage area, Apple neglected to point out that if you are on an Edge network you won't get the "twice as fast" data rate. And their ads clearly implied the "twice as fast" applied to your data connection...thus leading to upset comsumers who filed lawsuits. My original point was that everyone dismissed as morons the people filing lawsuits over the twice as fast claim (saying they should have done their research to understand the coverage areas and limitations, etc). And yet then try to argue that ATT's lawsuit somehow has more merit. It's a fairly obvious double-standard. Doesn't the consumer still have the responsibility to understand the choices they are making?
In both cases, they are promoting the facts that make their product/service better (greater 3G coverage or twice as fast) while conveniently leaving out facts that make them look less attractive (ATTs large non-3G coverage area or the fact that you'll only get twice as fast in certain areas of the country). I'm all for stricter standards in advertising, but let's be objective about it and not pick sides just because it's the side our favorite fruit-logo'd company is on.
Edit: And if I recall correctly, Apple has had a few ads deemed misleading by the British oversight group (forget their name) and they were forced to stop airing and printing them. They were the exact same ads they used in the US without anyone here questioning them.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
OUCH!
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yeah you will get the inbound call interrupting the data, but since some of the data is already cached it will only affect the GPS App if you're on the phone for an extended period of time.
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
With a GPS app, this is only true if the Maps are being updated from Google?s servers. If you have a GPS app with localized maps the GPS chip should still function, and because it can run in the background while using the phone, unlike TomTom?s app on the iPhone, you can actually use it while on a call. Pros and cons, but I?ll take WCDMA any day over EVDO.
I kinda feel like if AT&T offered insurance on the iphone, it would bring their reputation up tremendously. If someone steals an iphone, AT&T doesn't do anything do they? They charge the victim full price for a replacement, and allow the thief to start a new account to use the stolen iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
Exactly. Voice takes priority over data.
Yeah, it's actually kind of annoying when someone calls me with Sprint Nav running. There's ways to auto ignore incoming calls but not seamlessly.
Little annoyances like these are a small price to pay for a great phone with a practical service plan.
With a GPS app, this is only true if the Maps are being updated from Google?s servers. If you have a GPS app with localized maps the GPS chip should still function, and because it can run in the background while using the phone, unlike TomTom?s app on the iPhone, you can actually use it while on a call. Pros and cons, but I?ll take WCDMA any day over EVDO.
I did not say "map updates", I said "data updates", data updates would be things such as live traffic (now offered by a couple of the apps), or anything else like current weather or gas prices etc. (Some mapping apps don't have localized map data or cache a lot of map data, isn't that a complaint we hear about Google Maps from time to time? No map displayed, despite the blue dot, if you're out of network service areas...)
But of course this is only an issue to the extent that the app you use doesn't cache the data you need within the duration of the phone call. That's why GPS was not included in my original list of reasons why I find this to be a downside to Verizon's network that the "Verizon-is-better" crowd tends to overlook when bashing AT&T's network.
Comments
30 markets is smaller than the coverage map VZ is using to pick fun at AT&T. At best VZ can push mobile broadband cards for notebooks, but its not really good enough for mobile phones.
I would not trust some obscure blog reporting "its sources" informed it of Apple and VZ testing 4G phones. If there were a 4G chip that would work in the iPhone we would have heard about it.
I have a link for that too, and I think this site is much more reliable.
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...m_to_Ship.html
I have a link for that too, and I think this site is much more reliable.
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...m_to_Ship.html
A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.
We?ll see the tables turn in 5 years. Right now CDMA-based networks have the advantage of better voice algorithms while using less power. When LTE becomes common for these networks HSPA will have the advantage on power consumption while potentially matching or exceeding the speed.
A press release from Qualcomm that gives no indication of how practical this chip is for phones. It will take some time for LTE chips to be as small and energy efficient as current 3G chips. These things won't happen instantly.
They wouldn't have issued a press release if it didn't have any practicality. In 2010 I'm sure you'll see phones with CDMA and LTE. LTE will first be for data only while CDMA handles voice. Eventually LTE will handle both. No it doesn't say anything about the iPhone but you doubted there being combo chipsets. We all know that Apple is very tight lipped, we're not gonna hear anything but rumors surrounding any new iPhone especially since the 3GS is only a few months old.
AT&T is under-advertising. Verizon is over-advertising. That's the difference.
I don't understand how Verizon is over-advertising. Even this article does not take issue with Verizon's 3G coverage map.
It just complains that Verizon does not show AT&T's "slower but functional" EDGE 2.5G coverage (and Wifi hotspots) in its 3G comparison maps. If that's the case, let's throw in AT&T dial-up lines and make the whole AT&T map solid blue.
I have seen the ads many times, and it seems very clear to me that Verizon is comparing 3G coverage only. I never got the impression that Verizon was implying that AT&T has NO data coverage in their non-3G areas.
I would agree that the whole "3G" talk is somewhat misleading because they are different technologies and real-world speeds are totally theoretical anyway. But I do think it's hypocritical for AT&T to play the 3G claim game and then criticize Verizon for playing it too.
Verizon probably realizes that it will take years before 4G is rolled out enough to fully support the next gen iPhone. By that time, all the major carriers will have 4G as well...and all of them will sell the iPhone. Wireless Service will, once again, become a commodity where the lowest price will be the largest factor to winning new customers.
So, in order to prevent and minimize the mass exodus to AT&T or T-Mobile (wouldn't they be next?), they have aligned themselves with Google/Motorola and have begun their marketing campaigns against Apple/AT&T. This should tell us what is really going on inside of Verizon.
If I was Verizon, I would have fired the person(s) responsible for rejecting the iPhone (when it was offered) and I would continuously spread rumors and false hope of an upcoming Verizon iPhone to prevent any more defections. Maybe the latter has already happened.
Verizon has started an aggressive ad campaign against Apple and AT&T (yes both....if they did not want to include Apple, then why plagiarize their "Ap for that" and include the iPhone on their commercials?).
Verizon probably realizes that it will take years before 4G is rolled out enough to fully support the next gen iPhone. By that time, all the major carriers will have 4G as well...and all of them will sell the iPhone. Wireless Service will, once again, become a commodity where the lowest price will be the largest factor to winning new customers.
So, in order to prevent and minimize the mass exodus to AT&T or T-Mobile (wouldn't they be next?), they have aligned themselves with Google/Motorola and have begun their marketing campaigns against Apple/AT&T. This should tell us what is really going on inside of Verizon.
If I was Verizon, I would have fired the person(s) responsible for rejecting the iPhone (when it was offered) and I would continuously spread rumors and false hope of an upcoming Verizon iPhone to prevent any more defections. Maybe the latter has already happened.
Why would you fire them? I think they made a wise choice. They were not ready to say yes to a device sight unseen and have absolutely no control over. They are still the number one carrier in the U.S. without it. VZW is starting the inevitable war between the carriers. We are nearing a saturation point of people purchasing cell phones. How much longer can these companies boast a million plus subs every quarter, soon subs are gonna have to be gained at the expense of other carriers so why not attack the next big dog which is AT&T. VZW is also trying to stop the defections to AT&T for the iPhone.
If you live in or near a city, chances are you're better served by AT&T with a smartphone. If your out in the boonies, you're probably better served with Verizon.
Just like real estate, it's all about location, location, location. Where I live and work and play (Los Angeles and surrounding counties), AT&T works just fine with acceptable voice quality and really fast 3G data. AT&T locally works as well as my friends on Verizon currently, and better than I remember Verizon working on my Palm Treo I had before switching to the iPhone. BOTH drop calls. BOTH have dead zones.
Anyone living outside of NY (or San Fransisco from what I can gather) simply cannot understand how piss-poor AT&T's service is here... it's like being back in 1996 - calls won't connect, when they do they're dropped, I can barely read a 3 line email on my .me account without getting a massive lag... uploading a photo to Facebook... forget it!
Anyone living outside of NYC or SF just doesn't care what the coverage is in those cities unless they happen to go there on more than the rare occasion. Really, do you care what coverage is like in the suburbs of Los Angeles, or Dallas, or anywhere else not on your normal beaten path?
I empathize with anyone who has bad service with where ever they live or work, but to condemn a national company as terrible because some of their service areas are poor reeks of self-centered whining. AT&T works great the places I go, no reason to leave.
If the pain of being on AT&T outweighs the joys of having an iPhone, then switch. Problem solved. If enough people leave AT&T and tell them it's because the service sucks, they'll have to react to that and fix the problem.
Also, seems like many of the tech talking heads from the Bay Area (San Francisco) who were moaning about AT&T coverage "in the city", as they call SF, have stopped complaining since AT&T rolled out its new 850Mhz towers recently. AT&T seems to be responding to the complaints.
Your mileage may vary on this, but I find it very useful to be able to check something on Safari or another app (Yelp, MovieFone, etc) while in a voice call with someone. I've also had occasion to send a picture by email or MMS to someone I'm on the phone with to get their opinion of a considered purchase in real time.
Maybe not a deal breaker for most, but something to consider before blindly chatting Verizon's network is "better" than AT&T's. "Better" is at best a subjective term, even if you have hard data on some aspects of the comparison, when user experience is part of the equation.
A seldom discussed, but significant in my opinion, disadvantage of the CDMA Rev A network in use by Verizon is the inability of the cellular device to access both voice and data simultaneously. AT&T's HSDPA network does not have that limitation.
Your mileage may vary on this, but I find it very useful to be able to check something on Safari or another app (Yelp, MovieFone, etc) while in a voice call with someone. I've also had occasion to send a picture by email or MMS to someone I'm on the phone with to get their opinion of a considered purchase in real time.
Maybe not a deal breaker for most, but something to consider before blindly chatting Verizon's network is "better" than AT&T's. "Better" is at best a subjective term, even if you have hard data on some aspects of the comparison, when user experience is part of the equation.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
OUCH!
As some people have commented already the "theoretical" speed of the ATT network is completely irrelevant if they do not have enough capacity to handle the traffic.
I live in NYC (10021) in the morning I can get speed on my iPhone around 300 kbps, the other day 11/4 I had an all time low of 47 (yes four-seven) kbps at 5:53 PM, with 3G and 5 bars.
In the middle of the night I get around 800-900 kbps.
Downtown NYC is quite different (zip 10003) there I got speed as fast as 1460 kbps.
There is no question that the ATT network is completely, utterly overwhelmed. Verzion's is not simply because they have very few good smartphone for browsing etc.
As soon as they have 4G and the iPhone they will be overwhelmed as well.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
OUCH!
Yeah you will get the inbound call interrupting the data, but since some of the data is already cached it will only affect the GPS App if you're on the phone for an extended period of time.
It's not a market like anywhere else. The tall buildings and heavy building materials make it much more difficult and require many more towers to adequately cover the same area compared to a regular town. Of course the population density should make it affordable for the carriers to provide more towers per square mile, but I'm not an expert, and I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that.
The other thing is that CDMA, because of the frequency it uses, naturally penetrates buildings better than GSM, so if there's a Verizon tower and an AT&T tower side-by-side, you are more likely to get Verizon in your basement but not AT&T.
I think Verizon knows they have the advantage and has made extra effort to have great coverage in NYC. Everyone in NYC knows it. If they're with a different carrier, then it's because of cost, or the need for GSM for travel outside the US, or for the iPhone, or because their cousin works for T-mobile. No one is under the impression that their carrier's service is as good as Verizon's.
I'm sure AT&T is working on it. I feel like their service is about the same as it was before the iPhone, which must mean they've been working on it a lot, if you factor in all the extra traffic. I wish it would go faster, though. Mostly I just want them to build out the network to the point where they can offer tethering.
I don't understand how Verizon is over-advertising. Even this article does not take issue with Verizon's 3G coverage map.
Verizon is comparing their 3G+2.75G vs AT&T's 3.5G.
Verizon should compare their 3G+2.75G vs AT&T's 3.5G+2.75G.
THAT'S what's unfair.
I don't know how to dumb it down anymore.
Apple was saying that the iPhone 3G was twice as fast as the original iPhone. That was true in several different ways. What is misleading about that?
Verizon is saying their 3G coverage area is larger than ATT's coverage area. And they are using ATT's very own definition of what their 3G coverage area is. So their ads are 100% accurate. And yet people are saying they are misleading.
Just like Verizon neglects to point out that you'll have non-3G data services outside of ATT's 3G coverage area, Apple neglected to point out that if you are on an Edge network you won't get the "twice as fast" data rate. And their ads clearly implied the "twice as fast" applied to your data connection...thus leading to upset comsumers who filed lawsuits. My original point was that everyone dismissed as morons the people filing lawsuits over the twice as fast claim (saying they should have done their research to understand the coverage areas and limitations, etc). And yet then try to argue that ATT's lawsuit somehow has more merit. It's a fairly obvious double-standard. Doesn't the consumer still have the responsibility to understand the choices they are making?
In both cases, they are promoting the facts that make their product/service better (greater 3G coverage or twice as fast) while conveniently leaving out facts that make them look less attractive (ATTs large non-3G coverage area or the fact that you'll only get twice as fast in certain areas of the country). I'm all for stricter standards in advertising, but let's be objective about it and not pick sides just because it's the side our favorite fruit-logo'd company is on.
Edit: And if I recall correctly, Apple has had a few ads deemed misleading by the British oversight group (forget their name) and they were forced to stop airing and printing them. They were the exact same ads they used in the US without anyone here questioning them.
So, if I am using a GPS App in my car, where I am constantly getting map info via 3G, I won't get an inbound phone call?
OUCH!
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
Yeah you will get the inbound call interrupting the data, but since some of the data is already cached it will only affect the GPS App if you're on the phone for an extended period of time.
Exactly. Voice takes priority over data.
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
With a GPS app, this is only true if the Maps are being updated from Google?s servers. If you have a GPS app with localized maps the GPS chip should still function, and because it can run in the background while using the phone, unlike TomTom?s app on the iPhone, you can actually use it while on a call. Pros and cons, but I?ll take WCDMA any day over EVDO.
No, you'l get the call, but you won't get any new data updates as long as the phone is still in voice mode.
Exactly. Voice takes priority over data.
Yeah, it's actually kind of annoying when someone calls me with Sprint Nav running. There's ways to auto ignore incoming calls but not seamlessly.
Little annoyances like these are a small price to pay for a great phone with a practical service plan.
With a GPS app, this is only true if the Maps are being updated from Google?s servers. If you have a GPS app with localized maps the GPS chip should still function, and because it can run in the background while using the phone, unlike TomTom?s app on the iPhone, you can actually use it while on a call. Pros and cons, but I?ll take WCDMA any day over EVDO.
I did not say "map updates", I said "data updates", data updates would be things such as live traffic (now offered by a couple of the apps), or anything else like current weather or gas prices etc. (Some mapping apps don't have localized map data or cache a lot of map data, isn't that a complaint we hear about Google Maps from time to time? No map displayed, despite the blue dot, if you're out of network service areas...)
But of course this is only an issue to the extent that the app you use doesn't cache the data you need within the duration of the phone call. That's why GPS was not included in my original list of reasons why I find this to be a downside to Verizon's network that the "Verizon-is-better" crowd tends to overlook when bashing AT&T's network.
I did not say "map updates", I said "data updates?
Gotcha.