GeorgeBMac

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

gatorguy said:

beowulfschmidt said:

gatorguy said:

ihatescreennames said:

What are the advantages to having a phone, any phone, with 5G - currently or even in 2020? I understand that downloads would be significantly faster in theory. Even with that I don't know many people that are downloading things that require significant bandwidth on a regular basis. And, of course, having a faster download speed doesn't mean that whatever server I'm connected to can upload fast enough for me to notice.

You're correct, there might be no real-world benefit for most folks. Heck, how many people really need a 100+GB internet connection.

What matters to the companies selling this stuff is that you THINK there's benefits, thus you buy it. Apple will want you to think there's benefits too so you buy a new iPhone,  but until they offer it expect to see a plethora of comments explaining (IMHO accurately for the most part) why there aren't any. 

Yes, this is the sixth scenario, which neither AI nor the original article have addressed, i.e. that 5G won't matter in the slightest for most people for at least three or four years, so Apple won't waste premature time or money on it.

IMHO 5G will matter a LOT to Apple as soon as they have the hardware and marketing in place to profit from it, even if the value to the buyer is still iffy. Apple's goal ain't protecting you from paying too much for a not-yet-mature tech that you don't need. They'll profit from selling it to you as soon as it makes business sense for them with all the needed chips/hardware in place even if the tech roll-out itself is still immature and you the buyer isn't realizing the benefits. As long as you believe you need it is good enough. 

Not what I said.

Apple didn't support 4G for quite a while after it was available.  I don't see them doing much different with 5G, especially given the dearth of compatible modems.

Apple wouldn't be wasting time or money on it if there's good profit to be made. The hardware is the holdup and not the immaturity of the tech and it's value IMHO. 

beowulfschmidt said:

tylersdad said:

beowulfschmidt said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tylersdad said:

My wife and I both have Versa SE (with NFC payments). They do exactly what we want them to do and nothing more. I bought two for what one Apple Watch Series 3 would cost. I don't really care that it doesn't have GPS. I take my phone with me when I exercise, so I'm fine with the Versa using the GPS on my phone...which has a much stronger battery. When you run with an Apple Watch and have your phone with you, it uses the iPhone GPS and there's no way to prevent it from using the GPS on the phone unless you shut off GPS on your phone. 

I'm sure the Apple Watch is really great for some people. For people like me, it's overkill. 

Get one with LTE + GPS and you won't have to worry about a big, heavy, bulky iPhone bouncing around in your pocket or strapped to your arm.

Yes, by all means, @tylersdad should spend 5 times as much for functionality he doesn't need, to get the same convenience he has right now.

Apple Watch is a superb device.  It does not, however, meet the needs or desires of absolutely everyone on the planet, and there's not a damned thing wrong with that state of affairs.

LOL. Since I had to by TWO devices, it would be more like 10x as much.

Well, no.  It still would have only been 5 times as much.  1 Watch versus 1 fitbit is 500+ versus 100.  2 Watches versus 2 fitbits is 1000+ versus 200.  Still a factor of 5.

tylersdad said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tylersdad said:

My wife and I both have Versa SE (with NFC payments). They do exactly what we want them to do and nothing more. I bought two for what one Apple Watch Series 3 would cost. I don't really care that it doesn't have GPS. I take my phone with me when I exercise, so I'm fine with the Versa using the GPS on my phone...which has a much stronger battery. When you run with an Apple Watch and have your phone with you, it uses the iPhone GPS and there's no way to prevent it from using the GPS on the phone unless you shut off GPS on your phone. 

I'm sure the Apple Watch is really great for some people. For people like me, it's overkill. 

Get one with LTE + GPS and you won't have to worry about a big, heavy, bulky iPhone bouncing around in your pocket or strapped to your arm.

Right. All I'd have to worry about is less battery.

No thanks. 

I have the XS Max. Get the right case and it won't flop around or be too heavy. If a 7 ounce phone is too heavy for your arm, you probably need more weight time than road time.

beowulfschmidt said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tylersdad said:

My wife and I both have Versa SE (with NFC payments). They do exactly what we want them to do and nothing more. I bought two for what one Apple Watch Series 3 would cost. I don't really care that it doesn't have GPS. I take my phone with me when I exercise, so I'm fine with the Versa using the GPS on my phone...which has a much stronger battery. When you run with an Apple Watch and have your phone with you, it uses the iPhone GPS and there's no way to prevent it from using the GPS on the phone unless you shut off GPS on your phone. 

I'm sure the Apple Watch is really great for some people. For people like me, it's overkill. 

Get one with LTE + GPS and you won't have to worry about a big, heavy, bulky iPhone bouncing around in your pocket or strapped to your arm.

Yes, by all means, @tylersdad should spend 5 times as much for functionality he doesn't need, to get the same convenience he has right now.

Apple Watch is a superb device.  It does not, however, meet the needs or desires of absolutely everyone on the planet, and there's not a damned thing wrong with that state of affairs.

libertyandfree said:

foregoneconclusion said:

There's no evidence whatsoever that abandoning net neutrality regulations has increased new investment or innovation. 

Not according to the FCC chairman.  Moreover investment right now and for 5G will be gangbusters.  Why mess with something that’s not broken.