Samsung Galaxy S10 5G now on sale via Verizon, but can only use 5G network in two cities

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 16
Samsung's first 5G-compatible smartphone, the Galaxy S10 5G, is finally going on sale in the United States on Verizon, but prospective owners will only be able to use the new connectivity speeds in parts of just two cities for the moment: Chicago and Minneapolis.

Samsung Galaxy S10 5G at Verizon


Introduced in February alongside the standard Galaxy S10 and two other models, the 5G variant boasts a 6.7-inch Quad HD+ AMOLED screen, an octa-core processor, 8GB of memory, and up to 512GB of storage. Offering a 4,500mAh battery, it includes NFC, Bluetooth 5.0, USB Type-C connections, stereo speakers with Dolby Atmos support surround sound support, and both face and fingerprint recognition.

On the back is a quad-camera setup consisting of 12-megapixel telephoto and wide-angle shooters with optical image stabilization, an ultra-wide 16-megapixel sensor, and a 3D depth sensor. On the front is a 10-megapixel selfie camera, and another 3D depth sensor.

The main attraction for the device is its ability to connect to 5G networks, meaning Samsung has made it to market with a 5G-compatible smartphone ahead of Apple, though it is still beaten by Motorola's Moto Z3 and the 5G Moto Mod. Apple is not currently believed to be bringing out a 5G-compatible iPhone until the second half of 2020, with a 2019 release highly unlikely to have 5G connectivity.

For the moment, the Galaxy S10 5G is being sold exclusively from Verizon, at a cost of $1,299.99 for the 256GB model upfront or $54.16 per month for 24 months on Verizon's Device Payment, while the 512GB model is $1,399.99 or $58.33 per month. Customers will also have to subscribe to either Above Unlimited or Beyond Unlimited at $95 or $85 per month respectively to use 5G, and will eventually require an additional $10 per month to access under a 5G Ultra Wideband add-on after a period where it is included in the plan for free expires.

The ability to use the device on 5G is also somewhat limited at this early stage, as Verizon and other carriers work to build out their 5G networks. In the case of Verizon, 5G is currently available only in Chicago and Minneapolis, but has previously advised it aims to deploy the technology in 30 U.S. cities by the end of 2019.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    wallymwallym Posts: 11member
    I think 5g is much further out than anyone thinks.  I remember 4g took forever to rollout.  5g requires so many more towers/access points, which means physically going and doing things, that it’s going to be a while before it means anything to anyone.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 27
    bigtdsbigtds Posts: 94member
    $1300???. No way. No phone is worth that. Who needs 5G on a phone anyway?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 27
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,968member
    I am fine with consistent advanced 4G/LTE. Easily can wait few more years for 5G.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 27
    cintoscintos Posts: 113member
    ... $95 or $85 per month? For one line?
    cornchip
  • Reply 5 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,936member
    wallym said:
    I think 5g is much further out than anyone thinks.  I remember 4g took forever to rollout.  5g requires so many more towers/access points, which means physically going and doing things, that it’s going to be a while before it means anything to anyone.
    Industry thinking is the exact opposite. That 5G will roll out faster than any previous generation (government issues permitting).
  • Reply 6 of 27
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 333member
    bigtds said:
    $1300???. No way. No phone is worth that. Who needs 5G on a phone anyway?
    Just for show off, hahaha.....$1300 for 2 Cities ?? To download what and at what cost??? Not this time
    olswatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    baka-dubbsbaka-dubbs Posts: 110member
    avon b7 said:
    wallym said:
    I think 5g is much further out than anyone thinks.  I remember 4g took forever to rollout.  5g requires so many more towers/access points, which means physically going and doing things, that it’s going to be a while before it means anything to anyone.
    Industry thinking is the exact opposite. That 5G will roll out faster than any previous generation (government issues permitting).


    Agree with the fast roll out, but this is the wrong modem and wrong type of 5G.  the X50 modem(from my understanding) only allows for the millimeter wavelength 5G bands.  This gives you the massive speeds, at the cost of terrible range(I think max of 200 yards).  The X55 modem I believe supports other bands, and will allow for much greater range(at the cost of some of the speed) and allows for building penetration.  I personally wouldn't buy a device until at least the X55 that comes out later this year, which supports both mm wavelength and the sub 6ghz bands, so you can get wider coverage and the ridiculous speeds in certain areas.  Basically, the currently available modem does support all 5G, and is already outdated.

    Edit:  So, looking at Qualcomm's website, the X50 does support sub 6 bands, but not completely.  Its has half the supported standards of the X55, doesn't allow 5G/4G spectrum sharing and doesn't integrate the LTE modem.  IE, the X50 looks like a half baked product per Qualcomms own website(comparison towards the bottom)

    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon-x50-5g-modem

    edited May 16 1STnTENDERBITSMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 27
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,593member
    It should be noted that, per previous AI articles, saying that "5G" is "available" in Chicago and Minneapolis is misleading. While true in a technical sense, it is presently limited to small test sites -- so don't get the impression that anyone other than testing engineers are actually using it at present.(source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/03/verizon-flips-switch-on-5g-network-in-chicago-and-minneapolis)

    Another problem with "5G" stories is what I consider to be deliberate obfuscation of the term by the provider companies. There's really (broadly) two types of "5G" -- first is the wide-coverage kind, which is more efficient but not really much faster than advanced LTE. That's the kind almost all "5G" smartphone owners will be getting pretty much all time time.

    The second kind os "millimetre wave" 5G -- that's the very fast but extremely limited sort of "5G" where the experience is very much like infrared: you need line-of-sight with no obstructions of any sort, but it is indeed extremely fast. That's the kind consumers are not likely to ever see in wide use due to how easily it is blocked.

    This same writer had a terrific article on the reality of sub-6Ghz "5G" versus mmWave "5G" earlier this month: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/01/what-is-5g-and-mmwave-and-when-will-you-be-able-to-realistically-use-it

    Bottom line: if you're buying a "5G" phone now or in the near future you are a) paying too much for a phone that will give you very ordinary LTE performance, b) paying too much in the future for "5G" service that might not even be a noticeable speed increase for you compared to advanced LTE, and c) isn't going to be available in most cities for years.
    edited May 16 MplsPwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 27
    baka-dubbsbaka-dubbs Posts: 110member
     
    Bottom line: if you're buying a "5G" phone now or in the near future you are a) paying too much for a phone that will give you very ordinary LTE performance, b) paying too much in the future for "5G" service that might not even be a noticeable speed increase for you compared to advanced LTE, and c) isn't going to be available in most cities for years.
    You and I agree on many points, I wouldn't buy anything with this first generation modem.  However, I beleive main difference with 5G sounds like massive latency reduction and more bandwidth for you spectrum.  If those are both achieved, it allows for potential advances outside of phone industry, more bandwidth availablility(ie, less congestion) as well as becoming a potential last mile broadband service.  So while I wouldn't hesitate to buy a phone right now without 5G, later this year or earlier next year when the X55 modem starts showing up I would rather "future proof", as I tend to hang on to my phones for around 3 years.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    Ars Technica has a pretty good article with more detail about this phone.  It's apparent Samsung had to make some real compromises to get this phone to work.  It is definitely, a phone for a first adopter phone geek.  They had to increase the size of the phone, reduce the metal used and increase the glass, include an SD855 for 4G, the X50 for mmWave, and add 4 5G antennas along the side.  This is a big ass phone.  Bonus: The Ars article does have a video clip of someone in the right place at the right time hitting astronomical mmWave speeds.  Not gonna lie, it is impressive.  Not impressive enough to fork over thirteen hunnit for a limited use speed boost that has to annihilate data at an alarming rate.  Two device generations from now the 5G network should be more fleshed out and the $1300 phone will probably be $450.  Til then somebody's gotta be first I guess.  Not exactly worth it imo. 
    cornchipCarnage
  • Reply 11 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    wallym said:
    I think 5g is much further out than anyone thinks.  I remember 4g took forever to rollout.  5g requires so many more towers/access points, which means physically going and doing things, that it’s going to be a while before it means anything to anyone.

    Depends what you mean.  For it to reach ubiquity, yes...it's quite some time off.  It depends where you live, obviously.  I live in the very last Western exurb of Philadelphia.  I might as well be in Lancaster County.  In that area, my ATT still flips from what is really 4G LTE to 3G frequently (they call it 5GE and 4G, of course).  At work (25 miles closer to the city) I have consistent LTE coverage.   But it took YEARS to get there.  I got an iPhone 5 with LTE capability in 2012 or 13...can't remember which.  I'd say it took 5 years to have consistent LTE coverage in the suburbs.  And as I said, the exurbs and rural areas still aren't consistent.  

    Based on what I've read, I'd say you'll see major mass market deployment start in 2020.  It will likely take 2-3 years to build out across the country, starting with the densely populated areas first.  We're probably 5 years away from the kind of coverage we have now with LTE.   
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,454member
     
    Bottom line: if you're buying a "5G" phone now or in the near future you are a) paying too much for a phone that will give you very ordinary LTE performance, b) paying too much in the future for "5G" service that might not even be a noticeable speed increase for you compared to advanced LTE, and c) isn't going to be available in most cities for years.
    You and I agree on many points, I wouldn't buy anything with this first generation modem.  However, I beleive main difference with 5G sounds like massive latency reduction and more bandwidth for you spectrum.  If those are both achieved, it allows for potential advances outside of phone industry, more bandwidth availablility(ie, less congestion) as well as becoming a potential last mile broadband service.  So while I wouldn't hesitate to buy a phone right now without 5G, later this year or earlier next year when the X55 modem starts showing up I would rather "future proof", as I tend to hang on to my phones for around 3 years.
    I saw some articles documenting testing of the 5G sites after Verizon activated them several weeks ago and the performance was generally underwhelming. Verizon and T-Mobile executives have come right out and said that the mm wave high speed components of 5G will be limited to more densely populated areas. (AT&T, on the other hand, lets you get 5GE almost everywhere right now!) 

    As you state, the benefits of 5G seem to be outside the mobile phone industry. I yet to see any current or near-term uses for 5G that would significantly impact mobile phone users. Even the speed gains are not necessarily going to make a big impact - true 4G LTE speeds are more than adequate. When we made the switch from 3G to 4G, there was already demand/use cases that existed when it rolled out. Based on the current status and lack of actual uses for 5G, I would not expect it to have a significant impact on the average mobile phone user for 3-5 years. 

    Beyond the tower/antenna issue, latency and speed are affected by the entire network, not just the last leg from t ahe antenna to the device. To achieve the promised specs, the entire network will need to be upgraded. I assume this is happening in the background right now, but I have to wonder how the network capacity will handle the extra traffic. IME, adding bandwidth is kind of like adding lanes to a freeway. At first you have this wide open freeway with everyone cruising at 65MPH. then everyone learns about the wide open freeway and starts to use it and the speeds slow down so it's just like the freeway you had before except with more cars.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    While I can fully get behind buying a phone which has some future proofing, the additional costs must be balanced against the likelihood of utility. This is an expensive phone with little to distinguish itself from far cheaper competitors other than the inclusion of 5G cellular. Additionally Verizon charge a monthly premium to access 5G, making an ongoing cost for something that will provide minimal difference to the owner.

    Combining this with the small roll out of 5G and the likelihood of the device being both outdated and worn before 5G reaches an acceptable level of deployment and you're left with little reason to purchase this over Samsung's cheaper devices. If you're an iPhone user, it presents no reason to leave the platform.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 27
    GG1GG1 Posts: 257member
    Ars Technica has a pretty good article with more detail about this phone.  It's apparent Samsung had to make some real compromises to get this phone to work.  It is definitely, a phone for a first adopter phone geek.  They had to increase the size of the phone, reduce the metal used and increase the glass, include an SD855 for 4G, the X50 for mmWave, and add 4 5G antennas along the side.  This is a big ass phone.  Bonus: The Ars article does have a video clip of someone in the right place at the right time hitting astronomical mmWave speeds.  Not gonna lie, it is impressive.  Not impressive enough to fork over thirteen hunnit for a limited use speed boost that has to annihilate data at an alarming rate.  Two device generations from now the 5G network should be more fleshed out and the $1300 phone will probably be $450.  Til then somebody's gotta be first I guess.  Not exactly worth it imo. 
    My guess is that this large size is setting up consumers for mmWave capability later. mmWave will require multiple antennas placed inside the phone. The bigger the phone, the better the placement of the mmWave antennas. The phone will decide which mmWave antenna to use at a particular time, since your hand placement and proximity to walls and other obstructions as you physically move about will cause the phone to continually switch to different mmWave antennas (called antenna diversity).

    Edit: the article isn't clear to me, but maybe this phone has mmWave antennae (4 of them), which explains its large size. An earlier article I read said Samsung's first 5G phone wouldn't have mmWave capability, but that a second 5G phone (quickly following this phone) would have it. Perhaps Samsung moved up the mmWave phone as their first 5G offering and canned the non-mmWave phone.
    edited May 16
  • Reply 15 of 27
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 3,328member

    I'd expect a headphone jack at that price! It'd better be there before I even consider buying one!



    /s

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 27
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    bigtds said:
    $1300???. No way. No phone is worth that. Who needs 5G on a phone anyway?
    All people who live in crowded areas will immediately benefit from 5G
  • Reply 17 of 27
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    chasm said:
    It should be noted that, per previous AI articles, saying that "5G" is "available" in Chicago and Minneapolis is misleading. While true in a technical sense, it is presently limited to small test sites -- so don't get the impression that anyone other than testing engineers are actually using it at present.(source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/03/verizon-flips-switch-on-5g-network-in-chicago-and-minneapolis)

    Another problem with "5G" stories is what I consider to be deliberate obfuscation of the term by the provider companies. There's really (broadly) two types of "5G" -- first is the wide-coverage kind, which is more efficient but not really much faster than advanced LTE. That's the kind almost all "5G" smartphone owners will be getting pretty much all time time.

    The second kind os "millimetre wave" 5G -- that's the very fast but extremely limited sort of "5G" where the experience is very much like infrared: you need line-of-sight with no obstructions of any sort, but it is indeed extremely fast. That's the kind consumers are not likely to ever see in wide use due to how easily it is blocked.

    This same writer had a terrific article on the reality of sub-6Ghz "5G" versus mmWave "5G" earlier this month: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/01/what-is-5g-and-mmwave-and-when-will-you-be-able-to-realistically-use-it

    Bottom line: if you're buying a "5G" phone now or in the near future you are a) paying too much for a phone that will give you very ordinary LTE performance, b) paying too much in the future for "5G" service that might not even be a noticeable speed increase for you compared to advanced LTE, and c) isn't going to be available in most cities for years.
    If you try to convince people on technical ground, you'd better be correct.  5G is coming indeed in 2 phases.  The first phase which uses the same frequencies as 2G/3G/4G, is installed now and the second wave which uses the millimeter waves, which will be installed later and only in the city centers.   Concentrating on the first phase the advantages are considerable compared to 4G.

    The first advantage is lower latency, quite important for e.g. interactive gaming.  A player on a 4G LTE connected device will loose in a multiplayer shooter game from a player connected to a 5G device, simple because he will see the enemy later.

    The total available bandwidth in a 5G base station is roughly 3  times higher than in equivalent 4G base station.  The current 4G networks get saturated in crowded areas during peak hours, reducing the bandwidth of the connected users.  With 5G more people can be connected with higher bandwidth.   For people living in densely populated areas this is clearly an advantage. 

    So your claim that people buying now a 5G phone will get an ordinary LTE performance is not true. 

  • Reply 18 of 27
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,593member
    I did in fact say that ever sub-6 “5G” would offer improvements, actually, but I used the term “more efficient” rather that you (better) “lower latency” term. But in more typical use — surfing, watching a video, texting, calling — there’s not going to be anything like the kind of speed increases the hype we’re seeing would suggest, and we’re many years away from a level playing field where every gamer has the same low latency you’re (over) emphasizing. That’s my point.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 27
    GG1GG1 Posts: 257member
    chasm said:
    I did in fact say that ever sub-6 “5G” would offer improvements, actually, but I used the term “more efficient” rather that you (better) “lower latency” term. But in more typical use — surfing, watching a video, texting, calling — there’s not going to be anything like the kind of speed increases the hype we’re seeing would suggest, and we’re many years away from a level playing field where every gamer has the same low latency you’re (over) emphasizing. That’s my point.
    You may be mixing up latency and speed (throughput). 5G's most obvious improvement is latency, so gaming (copr's comment) and other mission critical applications (remote medical procedures, such as surgery, and intelligent transportation, such as cars talking to cars and to infrastructure) would now be possible with even the cheapest 5G phone/modem. And this would happen over existing (legacy) frequencies. I doubt speed would increase much, if any (but I'm not 100% sure).

    But mmWave opens you up to far greater speeds vs. legacy frequencies purely by the virtue of much higher operating frequencies. That's where the marketeers are having their fun convincing you to buy 5G phones now (most of which are not mmWave-capable). Unless you meant "wait for mmWave for the speed increases," in which case you are correct.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    GG1 said:
    chasm said:
    I did in fact say that ever sub-6 “5G” would offer improvements, actually, but I used the term “more efficient” rather that you (better) “lower latency” term. But in more typical use — surfing, watching a video, texting, calling — there’s not going to be anything like the kind of speed increases the hype we’re seeing would suggest, and we’re many years away from a level playing field where every gamer has the same low latency you’re (over) emphasizing. That’s my point.
    You may be mixing up latency and speed (throughput). 5G's most obvious improvement is latency, so gaming (copr's comment) and other mission critical applications (remote medical procedures, such as surgery, and intelligent transportation, such as cars talking to cars and to infrastructure) would now be possible with even the cheapest 5G phone/modem. And this would happen over existing (legacy) frequencies. I doubt speed would increase much, if any (but I'm not 100% sure).

    But mmWave opens you up to far greater speeds vs. legacy frequencies purely by the virtue of much higher operating frequencies. That's where the marketeers are having their fun convincing you to buy 5G phones now (most of which are not mmWave-capable). Unless you meant "wait for mmWave for the speed increases," in which case you are correct.
    5G using the existing frequencies does increase the speed if the base station is used at full capacity.   A mobile cell is a bit like a cable network, it is a shared medium.  So If you have a 4G base station with 100 users connected each at 1 Mbit/s, the same 5G base station will be able to serve 100 users at 3 Mbit/s.  This is a bit of a simplification of the reality because the bandwidth a user actually gets depends on a lot of parameters,  like e.g. the distance to the base station.   Nevertheless the principle remains, the total bandwidth of all connected users of 5G base station will be roughly 3 times that of 4G station


    GG1muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.