I understand technology and don't need 4G, either. Nothing on my phone or tablet requires anything beyond 3G, I'd much rather networks spent their money improving their 3G network and eliminating the metered data plans. For fast Internet access I have my 300mbps wired connection at home..
I have 4G LTE on my Lumia 900, and I always have it turned off, 3G is plenty fast, and i get great battery life with it. When I run on edge I get about 3-4 days of battery life with normal usage. If I get a iPhone 6 (yes, thats what it really is, just like how the 4S is really the 5), LTE will be off 90% of the time. I'll take longer battery life any day on my phone over speed.
Broadly, consumers don't understand technology or what they think they 'need' until they use it first. I think this is a poorly worded poll, but I'm sure people would and have said the same about broadband internet, HD TVs and mulitcore computers.
4G LTE... So you can exceed your bandwidth and pay hundreds in overage charges to your cellular provider more quickly?
I certainly understand what the technology is, but unless the useless wankers running the phone companies change their plans to support reasonable bandwidth, count me out of "wanting" or "needing" it. $30 to watch a movie seems a bit much no matter how much their TV ads like to show that ability. I typically see download speeds in the 5-8Mbps range on 3G - fine for email and surfing - and any case that I can think of where I'd really want higher throughput is tempered by the idiotic data plans.
People don't know what they need until it comes out.
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
This is what Apple is very good at doing, and the rest of the industry just tags along.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.
LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone. It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle. Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines. It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.
If I get a iPhone 6 (yes, thats what it really is, just like how the 4S is really the 5), LTE will be off 90% of the time. I'll take longer battery life any day on my phone over speed.
You might want to test it first or at least read about tests before doing that. Up until now we're only seen the 1st and 2nd gen LTE chips in use. While it's possible that Apple won't be able to source the 3rd gen 28nm LTE chips from Qualcomm I find that very unlikely. I would expect the LTE to be around as power efficient as 3G chip in the 3rd gen iPhone from 2009. Not too shabby, if that is the case. There might also be some changes to the battery size and chemical makeup, as well as the power efficiency of other components that could lead to an overall increase in longevity, too.
I don't need LTE. I don't stream anything. I don't need to get my email 2 seconds faster nor do I need a webpage to load a few seconds faster.
The next killer app will require LTE to make it work.
It could be turn by turn map instructions
It could be streaming video back to your house
It could be a lot of things... and it will be the speed that makes it 'killer'
Most people didn't think they needed a web browser on their phone 10 years ago, and email on a phone was a 'corporate boughsie' affectation.
Now people are complaining if their android pad isn't 1080P, let alone retina like the iPad. That tells me that the masses are going to evolve to LTE pretty quickly.
I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.
LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone. It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle. Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines. It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.
I don't think it was a carrier issue but a technology issue. It's hard to find an LTE phone that even comes close to the iPhone's size. Besides trying to use the larger display as a marketing tool agains the iPhone which they couldn't compete with on size they also couldn't put LTE in a small device and expect it to have decent battery life. The new chips do make that considerably more possible. \
Apple did this before with the original iPhone being only 2G. Even in 2008 when the iPhone went 3G the battery life suffered considerably for it even though it was still best in class. That's one thing I can trust with Apple; if they are including it they feel the battery life is in a reasonable usage range. I can't say that about any other vendor across all their devices.
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.
LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone. It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle. Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines. It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.
This.
The other reason is that LTE in 'a few' markets makes it hard for Apple to set a 'expectation' of 'insanely great'. Carriers in podunk city Iowa can sell a LTE phone, but the rank and file will be sold a cheaper 3G (2G? TDMS?) phone as their local networks allow. Apple, with 1 flagship model (well, CDMA being 1.5), doesn't want a negative customer experience, so it wants to say '95% of the country is covered by [someone's] LTE'.
With 4s's and 4's being 99 and free with contract phones, it may be less of a deal, but Apple doesn't want to sell something if most people can't exploit its killer features.
The next killer app will require LTE to make it work.
It could be turn by turn map instructions
It could be streaming video back to your house
It could be a lot of things... and it will be the speed that makes it 'killer'
Most people didn't think they needed a web browser on their phone 10 years ago, and email on a phone was a 'corporate boughsie' affectation.
Now people are complaining if their android pad isn't 1080P, let alone retina like the iPad. That tells me that the masses are going to evolve to LTE pretty quickly.
If the next killer app requires LTE, it will be deleted from most phones after people receive the first bill with the overage charges. LTE won't be needed until these ridiculously low data caps are raised.
If the next killer app requires LTE, it will be deleted from most phones after people receive the first bill with the overage charges. LTE won't be needed until these ridiculously low data caps are raised.
<div id="user_yass_bottom_edge" style="background-position:0px 0px;margin:0px;padding:0px;border-width:0px;height:0px;width:100%;display:block;"> </div>
Will that really be a problem for most people? I used more a 100GB a couple times with tethering but without that I use well under my 2GB limit. I'm a heavy user and I can't seem to use more than 650MB in any month. In fact, I'm pretty consistent at 550 to 650MB. LTE will surely increase my usage because I do more things in the same time frame but you don't really gain too much time for a video buffering a little faster. When it comes to emails we're talking the exact same data size for the exact same emails. But for any reasoning that LTE might make you use more data the same can be said for faster 3G whether it's on the device or on the network... and I don't recall people complaining when a carrier upgraded the infrastructure.
Interesting. On the morning that the Retina iPad was announced, I knew within an hour or so if 4G/LTE was going to be usable here in Australia. But I personally know at least one person who didn't bother to check, bought it and then complained about it.
The physical area of Australia that actually has 4G coverage is VERY limited, with the company that has it milking it for all it's worth in advertising, complete with fine print disclaimers.
Australia still needs to hold the auction of 700MHz spectrum before we'll see any real gains in 4G with worldwide compatibility.
Meanwhile I guess we'll just have to make do with the theoretical maximum of 42 Mbps that HSDPA+ offers
I love the build quality of that Samsung Note. Just sayin'.
Even a few years ago when Samsung were still copying Nokia, their build quality was often called into question, that and the paucity of their software updates.
First, it's not 4G
Second, no one NEEDS it
Third, some people do WANT it
Fourth, only idiots think that all "4G" networks are the same Fifth, 4G doesn't even exist
I really wish people would stop making up their own definitions and then expecting the world to comply with their narrow views.
By the International standard definition, HSPA+ is 4G. LTE is, also.
By the International standard definition, HSPA+ is 4G. LTE is, also.
This was news to me, I hadn't seen the memo. I knew they seriously reduced the bit rate requirements, bit I didn't know they added a wireless standard to it.
This was news to me, I hadn't seen the memo. I knew they seriously reduced the bit rate requirements, bit I didn't know they added a wireless standard to it.
They did this a long time ago. HSPA+(DC-HSDPA) and WiMAX were included, as well as reducing what qualified as "4G". The ITU-R made the original definition and so they can change their own definition. They were foolish and then they corrected it but for some reason many people are only holding to the original, but to make it more odd they are only holding to the download speed and not any of the other requirements they initially setup for the "4G' designation.
Comments
I have 4G LTE on my Lumia 900, and I always have it turned off, 3G is plenty fast, and i get great battery life with it. When I run on edge I get about 3-4 days of battery life with normal usage. If I get a iPhone 6 (yes, thats what it really is, just like how the 4S is really the 5), LTE will be off 90% of the time. I'll take longer battery life any day on my phone over speed.
People don't know what they need until it comes out. This is what Apple is very good at doing, and the rest of the industry just tags along.
However, to paraphrase:
I don't "need" a flying car.
(in the 70's) - I don't need to access other computers that are connected to other computers, from my computer!
(in the early 1900's.) I don't need an automobile. I just want a faster horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Broadly, consumers don't understand technology or what they think they 'need' until they use it first. I think this is a poorly worded poll, but I'm sure people would and have said the same about broadband internet, HD TVs and mulitcore computers.
4G LTE... So you can exceed your bandwidth and pay hundreds in overage charges to your cellular provider more quickly?
I certainly understand what the technology is, but unless the useless wankers running the phone companies change their plans to support reasonable bandwidth, count me out of "wanting" or "needing" it. $30 to watch a movie seems a bit much no matter how much their TV ads like to show that ability. I typically see download speeds in the 5-8Mbps range on 3G - fine for email and surfing - and any case that I can think of where I'd really want higher throughput is tempered by the idiotic data plans.
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.
LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone. It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle. Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines. It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.
You might want to test it first or at least read about tests before doing that. Up until now we're only seen the 1st and 2nd gen LTE chips in use. While it's possible that Apple won't be able to source the 3rd gen 28nm LTE chips from Qualcomm I find that very unlikely. I would expect the LTE to be around as power efficient as 3G chip in the 3rd gen iPhone from 2009. Not too shabby, if that is the case. There might also be some changes to the battery size and chemical makeup, as well as the power efficiency of other components that could lead to an overall increase in longevity, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
I don't need LTE. I don't stream anything. I don't need to get my email 2 seconds faster nor do I need a webpage to load a few seconds faster.
The next killer app will require LTE to make it work.
It could be turn by turn map instructions
It could be streaming video back to your house
It could be a lot of things... and it will be the speed that makes it 'killer'
Most people didn't think they needed a web browser on their phone 10 years ago, and email on a phone was a 'corporate boughsie' affectation.
Now people are complaining if their android pad isn't 1080P, let alone retina like the iPad. That tells me that the masses are going to evolve to LTE pretty quickly.
I don't think it was a carrier issue but a technology issue. It's hard to find an LTE phone that even comes close to the iPhone's size. Besides trying to use the larger display as a marketing tool agains the iPhone which they couldn't compete with on size they also couldn't put LTE in a small device and expect it to have decent battery life. The new chips do make that considerably more possible. \
Apple did this before with the original iPhone being only 2G. Even in 2008 when the iPhone went 3G the battery life suffered considerably for it even though it was still best in class. That's one thing I can trust with Apple; if they are including it they feel the battery life is in a reasonable usage range. I can't say that about any other vendor across all their devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
LTE has already been out for a couple years now, so that argument is moot.
Strictly speaking, the rest of the industry has been offering LTE devices already, and Apple is tagging along. However, Apple isn't always about being the first with a technology, to assume such is to misunderstand how they operate.
You're right if you mean to say that needs and demands change. It used to be you could conduct business with a voice-only phone. Now, you're not competitive. If you're not downloading big files for work, then 4G is more a want than a need. In two years, that might change for more people. But "needing" something for its own sake really doesn't solve anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I was trying to be more general than specific to Apple when it comes to just about anything out there.
LTE has been out, but I don't think it was really consistent with carriers which is why Apple did not come out with a 4G phone. It also reminds me of the USB 3.0 debacle. Sure the specs were out and some even marketed products on the pre-final specs, but was never ratified and made final, which is why Apple didn't come out with 3.0 on their machines. It waited until it was a "real" spec and not have something change at the last minute.
This.
The other reason is that LTE in 'a few' markets makes it hard for Apple to set a 'expectation' of 'insanely great'. Carriers in podunk city Iowa can sell a LTE phone, but the rank and file will be sold a cheaper 3G (2G? TDMS?) phone as their local networks allow. Apple, with 1 flagship model (well, CDMA being 1.5), doesn't want a negative customer experience, so it wants to say '95% of the country is covered by [someone's] LTE'.
With 4s's and 4's being 99 and free with contract phones, it may be less of a deal, but Apple doesn't want to sell something if most people can't exploit its killer features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
The next killer app will require LTE to make it work.
It could be turn by turn map instructions
It could be streaming video back to your house
It could be a lot of things... and it will be the speed that makes it 'killer'
Most people didn't think they needed a web browser on their phone 10 years ago, and email on a phone was a 'corporate boughsie' affectation.
Now people are complaining if their android pad isn't 1080P, let alone retina like the iPad. That tells me that the masses are going to evolve to LTE pretty quickly.
If the next killer app requires LTE, it will be deleted from most phones after people receive the first bill with the overage charges. LTE won't be needed until these ridiculously low data caps are raised.
Will that really be a problem for most people? I used more a 100GB a couple times with tethering but without that I use well under my 2GB limit. I'm a heavy user and I can't seem to use more than 650MB in any month. In fact, I'm pretty consistent at 550 to 650MB. LTE will surely increase my usage because I do more things in the same time frame but you don't really gain too much time for a video buffering a little faster. When it comes to emails we're talking the exact same data size for the exact same emails. But for any reasoning that LTE might make you use more data the same can be said for faster 3G whether it's on the device or on the network... and I don't recall people complaining when a carrier upgraded the infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Interesting. On the morning that the Retina iPad was announced, I knew within an hour or so if 4G/LTE was going to be usable here in Australia. But I personally know at least one person who didn't bother to check, bought it and then complained about it.
The physical area of Australia that actually has 4G coverage is VERY limited, with the company that has it milking it for all it's worth in advertising, complete with fine print disclaimers.
Australia still needs to hold the auction of 700MHz spectrum before we'll see any real gains in 4G with worldwide compatibility.
Meanwhile I guess we'll just have to make do with the theoretical maximum of 42 Mbps that HSDPA+ offers
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
I love the build quality of that Samsung Note. Just sayin'.
Even a few years ago when Samsung were still copying Nokia, their build quality was often called into question, that and the paucity of their software updates.
Times don't change.
First, it's not 4G
Second, no one NEEDS it
Third, some people do WANT it
Fourth, only idiots think that all "4G" networks are the same
Fifth, 4G doesn't even exist
In 2012 I still don't need a car. For very light and sporadic use it's much cheaper to rent them.
I really wish people would stop making up their own definitions and then expecting the world to comply with their narrow views.
By the International standard definition, HSPA+ is 4G. LTE is, also.
This was news to me, I hadn't seen the memo. I knew they seriously reduced the bit rate requirements, bit I didn't know they added a wireless standard to it.
They did this a long time ago. HSPA+(DC-HSDPA) and WiMAX were included, as well as reducing what qualified as "4G". The ITU-R made the original definition and so they can change their own definition. They were foolish and then they corrected it but for some reason many people are only holding to the original, but to make it more odd they are only holding to the download speed and not any of the other requirements they initially setup for the "4G' designation.