PDA

View Full Version : iPhone 3G Size and Battery Life Analysis




paymaster
Jul 13, 2007, 11:13 PM
Check this article out.
http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3036



Sobe
Jul 13, 2007, 11:19 PM
good read. Always liked those guys over at anandtech

gr8tfly
Jul 13, 2007, 11:31 PM
Thanks. Good article. Actual data based on reality, not hype or other motivations.

AbsenceOfTruth
Jul 14, 2007, 12:15 AM
I honestly dont see the point in 3G when you have WiFi unless you really need to surf the web or do other things on the go all the time. I also think Steve Jobs is right about 3G not being mature enough yet.

Sobe
Jul 14, 2007, 12:19 AM
I honestly dont see the point in 3G when you have WiFi unless you really need to surf the web or do other things on the go all the time. I also think Steve Jobs is right about 3G not being mature enough yet.

the point is that wifi is spotty and if someone had 3G in their previous phone, going to EDGE is not fun.

That being said, I think EDGE + wifi gives a good enough experience that I'm thankful for the longer battery life.

bbplayer5
Jul 14, 2007, 12:35 AM
I actually think edge is quite good. It takes a few seconds to load a page.. wtf cares?! ITS A CELL PHONE... STOP BEING SPOILED!!!

rsbell
Jul 14, 2007, 01:10 AM
Coming from a Blackjack with 3G, EDGE is painful. Can I live with it? Sure, but I'd rather not...

Vuzie
Jul 14, 2007, 05:17 AM
I've been watching all this jabber/complaints about 3G, availability, etc. Another HUGE hurdle is the towers. Even though AT&T may have a bunch of sites already set up for GSM/EDGE networks, they'd have to send techs back to all the towers to swap out the antenna equipment, which means they have to renegotiate all their leasing contracts, review the site engineering, purchase equipment etc. It's a HUGE capital investment and from all indicators, cell site aquisition is in a (cyclical) downturn/capital conservation mode in most markets. Realistically, it's going to be a few years before we see a significant workable 3G network for data in the States.

PowerFullMac
Jul 14, 2007, 05:25 AM
Consider yourselves lucky, theres not even EDGE here! We have to put up with GPRS!

marksman
Jul 14, 2007, 10:33 AM
the point is that wifi is spotty and if someone had 3G in their previous phone, going to EDGE is not fun.

That being said, I think EDGE + wifi gives a good enough experience that I'm thankful for the longer battery life.

Actually for most a lot of people on AT&T 3G would not even be available.

WiFi is only spotty if you live a weird lifestyle or are a fuller brush salesman.

Where I spend most of my time I have wifi which blows 3G out of the water. Both in terms of throughput and latency.

gauchogolfer
Jul 14, 2007, 10:46 AM
WiFi is only spotty if you live a weird lifestyle or are a fuller brush salesman.

This is just a weird comment, to me. How many times when you are out around town do you really have WiFi access? If you happen to stop near a coffee place with free WiFi, maybe you get a signal. The vast majority of the US does not have WiFi coverage that the random iPhone user can tap into.

I don't think EDGE is a problem, I just wanted to say that I live a perfectly normal lifestyle in southern CA and I'm not exactly blanketed with free WiFi.

mrtune
Jul 14, 2007, 10:55 AM
Interesting article. I've seen alot of talk on this forum about how their batteries drain faster on wifi and that it should be turned off when not it use and also turning it off, can offer better charging times while on the dock.

This article is completely opposite. Here I am at home with the wifi always off to conserve battery and these guys are getting better battery life with wifi on an connected.

megfilmworks
Jul 14, 2007, 11:03 AM
Coming from a Blackjack with 3G, EDGE is painful. Can I live with it? Sure, but I'd rather not...

Coming from WiFi, 3G is painful...not as fast and more battery drain.
Who needs it? The EDGE is fine for the very rare moments I don't have WiFi.

3G will come and go (just like EDGE) but WiFi will grow and grow.
For me it is a simple choice.

Interesting article. I've seen alot of talk on this forum about how their batteries drain faster on wifi and that it should be turned off when not it use and also turning it off, can offer better charging times while on the dock.

This article is completely opposite. Here I am at home with the wifi always off to conserve battery and these guys are getting better battery life with wifi on an connected.
It makes sense, WiFi is a short range low power solution compared with EDGE and 3G which are longer range, higher power solutions.

JonHimself
Jul 14, 2007, 11:47 AM
Well at least we can take from this article that Steve wasn't just making up excuses for not wanting to put 3G in the iPhone

ecks618
Jul 14, 2007, 12:02 PM
Wow, Great article. Though this was apparent in the beginning, the whole analysis helped to understand it. I can relate as I have owned a blackjack in the past and know that the battery life when using 3G is horrible.

This makes me feel better that I am using an iPhone

Cleverboy
Jul 15, 2007, 05:10 PM
It's funny. Even with 3G disabled, the battery life still suffers (taking for granted that the battery was otherwise comparable). This kind of raises serious questions for all those people saying, "Wow, I wish Apple had let ME decide if I wanted 3G enabled or not..." If 3G kills one IOTA of my battery life... not worth it. Why? Because, I've actually looked at the coverage chart (unlike most people complaining about wanting 3G).

Even if it improves several months from now... I'll take several months of better battery life and decent EDGE coverage versus lessened battery life and spotty coverage. I've been surfing on EDGE all weekend, and with one notable exception where the connection just dropped, it was GREAT. Not "good", but "great". This of course from someone who didn't have 3G or EDGE before, but IDEN on Nextel (sucky, sucky, sucky).

~ CB

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 05:32 PM
The whole article is fishy. The conclusion is based on a false assumption:

Apple will have no way of improving the "problems" 3G has.

size is bigger, battery lasts shorter, blah, blah, but take a look at their own chart
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/gadgets/3GvsEdge/web.png

if apple can do egde better than others, why don't they think apple can do 3G better than others? or reduce size better than others?

janey
Jul 15, 2007, 05:35 PM
if apple can do egde better than others, why don't they think apple can do 3G better than others? or reduce size better than others?

wait, where's THAT statement coming from? edge is edge. AT&T upgraded their edge network to up bandwidth recently. None of this was from a direct result of something Apple did to the hardware - it was just because the iPhone was a high profile product for at&t and because edge was sucking, and still sucks, they poured millions of dollars into making it ever so slightly faster.

Now, I really wish the iPhone had 3G, and AT&T poured the money from fine edge into their 3G network instead.

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 05:37 PM
wait, where's THAT statement coming from? edge is edge.

that chart indicates that iPhone's battery lasts longer on EDGE than blackberry.

Cleverboy
Jul 15, 2007, 05:43 PM
if apple can do egde better than others, why don't they think apple can do 3G better than others? or reduce size better than others?If Farmer Joe can improve the size of the brown chicken eggs, why can't he improve the size of white eggs? Or wave his magic wand? Do you even realize that Apple didn't build the chip? When Apple comments on the size of the chip and the integration, they're talking about what solutions vendors have been able to offer them. Moreover, if these same specialists can't make the 3G chips smaller, why is it that Apple can magically make the chip smaller?

If you pose two unrelated questions, you can usually get people to agree with you, if they also don't have any background knowledge on the technology involved. You just read an article by technology specialists, so I can't see why you still don't "buy" it. If you're a project manager and you start saying things like, "If one person can do this project in one week, then two people should be able to do it in 3.5 days, right?" Anyone in project management should immediately boo you.

~ CB

janey
Jul 15, 2007, 05:45 PM
that chart indicates that iPhone's battery lasts longer on EDGE than blackberry.

And you never once considered the tiny little fact that there are so many different factors that affect 3g/edge+battery life out there that such a comparison is pretty useless? You know, like different chipsets and batteries and hardware in general and...you get the idea.

Honestly, I'd trade battery life for faster loading pages. EDGE is painfully slow. I mean the time I wait for pages to load on edge sometimes make me wonder if that's enough to be practically the same as having shorter battery life to browse pages faster but...load them faster.

ashVID
Jul 15, 2007, 05:49 PM
Once again, this is not just an Apple issue, it is an ATT issue. Right now, Edge is available in over 13,000 cities in the US while 3G is in 165 cities. There are 15 states with NO 3G at all and 15 more with only 1 city in the entire state with ANY coverage. One could argue that there is way more free wifi coverage in the US than there is 3G coverage.

As I have maintained from day 1, the next iPhone will not be an upgraded version, it will be a cheaper phone targeted at the 13-22 crowd. You will not see 3G until the network matures and any upgrades in the middle will likely be for storage space and perhaps GPS. I think fall 2008 will be the first chance at an iPhone 2.0



ash =o)

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 05:54 PM
And you never once considered the tiny little fact that there are so many different factors that affect 3g/edge+battery life out there that such a comparison is pretty useless? You know, like different chipsets and batteries and hardware in general and...you get the idea.

I was just disputing the statement by anantech which claimed that 3G will be too much battery consuming for iPhone because blackberry's 3G is draining battery faster, do you have a problem with that?

If Farmer Joe can improve the size of the brown chicken eggs, why can't he improve the size of white eggs? oh please, its more like how you arrange 5 eggs to occupy smaller space than reduce the size of one egg, what do you think the iphone is? a brick?

Cleverboy
Jul 15, 2007, 06:01 PM
oh please, its more like how you arrange 5 eggs to occupy smaller space than reduce the size of one egg, what do you think the iphone is? a brick? Yeah, I can't see any logic behind that sentence, and I've read it three times. My egg comparison is basically saying that if you can coerce your chickens to make a smaller brown egg, the same techniques and solutions may not be available to you if you were trying to effect the white eggs too. This is of course, if Apple was in charge of the chickens/chips at all, which they're not. They're talking to the farmers, and the farmers are saying "Nope, can't be done yet. But we're working on it."

So, the review... Apple ain't the farmer.

~ CB

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 06:04 PM
if Apple was in charge of the chickens/chips at all, which they're not.

alter that "charge" to "significant influence", I bet its 80% possible. Its not first time in history a hardware manufacture makes special design for a big company. Such as that cute small mainboard inside mac mini.

janey
Jul 15, 2007, 06:17 PM
Once again, this is not just an Apple issue, it is an ATT issue. Right now, Edge is available in over 13,000 cities in the US while 3G is in 165 cities. There are 15 states with NO 3G at all and 15 more with only 1 city in the entire state with ANY coverage. One could argue that there is way more free wifi coverage in the US than there is 3G coverage.
So what's wrong with having 3g and edge in the iPhone? Are you saying mere availability of 3g should determine whether or not a phone should have 3g support?..in which case, no phone should, except those pricey smartphones businesspeople use because 3g is somewhat available in most major cities. Oh, wait, what about the iPhone?!

It's awesome how a dirt cheap (with 2 year contract) smartphone like the blackjack can browse faster than my iPhone. Really.

AT&T actually did something to make edge speeds marginally faster. Why they couldn't have spent that time improving their 3g coverage and speeds is beyond me. While edge coverage is more widespread, 3g coverage is growing, and it would not have hurt to include this on the iPhone (ignoring all other considerations for the moment).

Honestly the biggest drawback to the iPhone is edge speeds. Everything else has a workaround, but it's not easy to find open wifi networks all over the place.

I was just disputing the statement by anantech which claimed that 3G will be too much battery consuming for iPhone because blackberry's 3G is draining battery faster, do you have a problem with that?
How are you disputing it? You're using a false comparison to back up your belief that Apple can "do" EDGE on the iPhone better than the blackjack (who even mentioned blackberries here?), even though they're not the people who designed the chips in use.

Such as that cute small mainboard inside mac mini.
While I don't dispute the mobos Apple used for the mac mini and iMac G4s as being unique, Apple still did not design the controllers and whatnot being used on the mobo in those computers. Mobos are custom designed and come in MANY different "standard" sizes (ATX, microATX, BTX you get the idea), but usually custom for laptops. Mac mini and iMac G4 aren't really exceptions.

What you're suggesting Apple could have done with 3g on the iPhone is tantamount to saying that Apple personally designed the sound card, the ethernet controller, the video card, the disk controllers...on their computers. Apple doesn't. Hence, there isn't really any way for Apple to "improve" 3g in the way you're suggesting they "improve"d edge (Apple themselves didn't).

Cleverboy
Jul 15, 2007, 06:18 PM
alter that "charge" to "significant influence", I bet its 80% possible. Its not first time in history a hardware manufacture makes special design for a big company. Such as that cute small mainboard inside mac mini.I see. Ok.

~ CB

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 06:27 PM
even though they're not the people who designed the chips in use.

While I don't dispute the mobos Apple used for the mac mini and iMac G4s as being unique, Apple still did not design the controllers and whatnot being used on the mobo in those computers. Mobos are custom designed and come in MANY different "standard" sizes (ATX, microATX, BTX you get the idea), but usually custom for laptops. Mac mini and iMac G4 aren't really exceptions.

What you're suggesting Apple could have done with 3g on the iPhone is tantamount to saying that Apple personally designed the sound card, the ethernet controller, the video card, the disk controllers...on their computers. Apple doesn't. Hence, there isn't really any way for Apple to "improve" 3g in the way you're suggesting they "improve"d edge (Apple themselves didn't).
That kind of extrapolation is un-necessary.

Its interesting to call mac mini's mainboard as any "ATX". which I obviously don't agree, mac mini's mainboard does not fit any "standard".

I guess I can make myself more clear by saying

Apple can improve the battery problem and size problem related to 3G as observed in other 3G cellphones in the original article.

any statement must be applied under certain conditions, if you keep extrapolate to a unlimited situation, then there is nothing I can say about it.

janey
Jul 15, 2007, 06:37 PM
That kind of extrapolation is un-necessary...
Wow what the ****? I never said the mini's mobo was ATX. By the way, there are so many different standard motherboard sizes out there that are vastly smaller than ATX. That's not including custom-shaped/designed motherboards for laptops. Hence your argument that Apple did it with the mini's mobo is moot.

Or do you need to see with your own eyes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Motherboards_form_factors.svg

While Apple can probably find a balance between speed and power usage somewhere, that's still no reason to suggest Apple does it better than anyone else. Anandtech only compared the iPhone to the BlackJack, and I know plenty of phones that last just as long if not longer than the iPhone with EDGE.

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 06:41 PM
Or do you need to see with your own eyes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Motherboards_form_factors.svg

While Apple can probably find a balance between speed and power usage somewhere, that's still no reason to suggest Apple does it better than anyone else.

Well, so let me retreat even more on this, how about I say

the size problem and battery problem observed in blackjack shouldn't be an excuse for iphone not supporting 3G?

PS. that image doesn't even have an unit on the axis. Somebody need to update that thing.

janey
Jul 15, 2007, 06:44 PM
the size problem and battery problem observed in blackjack shouldn't be an excuse for iphone not supporting 3G?

PS. that image doesn't even have an unit on the axis. Somebody need to update that thing.
It doesn't, but it's in millimeters, some of which are smaller than the mini's mobo.

And I'd agree with you on that statement, which is 3g in general not just on the blackjack, but there's other stuff that should be taken into consideration (one already retarded reason mentioned previously about at&t's 3g coverage in the US), for starters. Not saying any of them are particularly good reasons for not including 3g on iPhone, but too late now...obviously will show up in later revisions..

aristobrat
Jul 15, 2007, 06:54 PM
the size problem and battery problem observed in blackjack shouldn't be an excuse for iphone not supporting 3G?
I think the general consensus here is that if the iPhone had to be larger (or the battery were to last less) because of 3G, people would rather have EDGE + WiFi.

If you think it's realistic that Apple, on their first attempt at a phone, should have custom designed their own 3G modem to work better (be smaller/use less battery) than any other 3G modem that's ever been invented to date, ... well, that's your opinion. I surely don't agree with it. As if they don't have a gazillion other things to worry about going wrong the way the iPhone is currently shipped...

defeated
Jul 15, 2007, 07:23 PM
I think the general consensus here is that if the iPhone had to be larger (or the battery were to last less) because of 3G, people would rather have EDGE + WiFi.

I just don't believe that. But obviously its not a thing you can convince me or vice versa. Its a subjective observation I just don't agree with you.

JonHimself
Jul 15, 2007, 10:30 PM
It's awesome how a dirt cheap (with 2 year contract) smartphone like the blackjack can browse faster than my iPhone.

Without getting into any other point you made, this very statement is wrong, you're iPhone can use WiFi and thus can browse (much) faster than the blackjack. And I don't need to hear that "WiFi isn't always available" etc etc because 3G isn't always available either. I would even go as far to say that WiFi is far more accessible than 3G is in almost every city in the US (3G is mainly available in big cities, not small ones... big cities are often very modern and thus also most likely have a ton of WiFi coverage... those small cities without 3G might have coffee shops etc with Hot Spts)

janey
Jul 16, 2007, 03:56 AM
Without getting into any other point you made, this very statement is wrong, you're iPhone can use WiFi and thus can browse (much) faster than the blackjack...
rofl. please stop with that argument (at least to me). :rolleyes:

I live in the 2nd biggest city in the US that's part of the (population-wise) largest state as well.

3g from AT&T in Los Angeles is available a lot more often than an open ANY wifi network.

Despite the plethora of wifi networks in the area whenever I feel like using Safari, pretty much all of them are closed and for the occasional open ones, the range really sucks so I can't really use them at all. So the only time I actually get to use wifi is at home. And then maybe, like, two coffee shops. And one idiot's open network while I'm randomly waiting on a street somewhere. It's also not like I can get ANY tools on my iPhone that'll let me work around the pay-for-wifi or password issue. And I don't have the patience to guess passwords.


btw, it's your and not you're, it wouldn't make much sense to be saying "you are iPhone", would it now?

and lastly, "wifi" is so vague, at least come up with some better number. I could have a wifi network with only dialup, in which case even bloody EDGE is faster than wifi. But I could also have a wifi network with a 100mbit connection, and it would be so fast my iPhone obviously wouldn't be able to handle the bandwidth because the connection exceeds the theoretical limit for 802.11g.

iBlue
Jul 16, 2007, 04:14 AM
FYI:

3G does not mean large phone. That is very outdated thinking. An SE W880i (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=gb&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pip3&zone=pp&pid=10653) is a 3G phone and much smaller than the iPhone.

3G is not a lark - the US is just behind the times with mobile phones.

wi-fi is a pathetic reason not to have 3G. that is hardly a seamless transition even if you can frequently find free wi-fi.


Fine, Apple want to be their typical "we know best" arrogant little selves. but for all their european users who know better, apple will lose a lot of customers with their sub-par phone and ridiculous demands... but that's a whole other story.

janey
Jul 16, 2007, 04:37 AM
Fine, Apple want to be their typical "we know best" arrogant little selves. but for all their european users who know better, apple will lose a lot of customers with their sub-par phone and ridiculous demands... but that's a whole other story.

Agreed.

A fair number of people are obviously unhappy about the lack of 3g on the iPhone, but got them anyway (myself included). Apple might lose a couple of diehard people who absolutely must have 3g, but otherwise...sigh.

Sobe
Jul 16, 2007, 04:57 AM
Yep, we've established that the iPhone isn't perfect.

Well done.

iWizzard
Jul 16, 2007, 05:19 AM
What I found most chocking is the wi-fi speeds. Is it true that the speed is only 1 to 2Mbps ?? that is crap, way slower then 3g is in Europe (3,6Mbps and 7,2Mbps this fall)

With slow speed as 1-2Mbps there is not much need for w-fi in developed countries.


And it is just bad engendering if a chip is taking power even when it is not used.

Cleverboy
Jul 16, 2007, 05:28 AM
I the end of the day, Jobs and company made a pretty good doggone decision. The technology backs it up, according to an article like this. Some people may have wanted Apple to create a BIGGER phone with SHORTER battery life with 3G, but Apple felt it was in their interest to create a SMALLER phone with LONGER battery life, that worked on EDGE only along with WiFi. It's a PERFECT solution for me and MOST iPhone users. While its comforting to have a 3rd party confirm that Apple's reasons actually hold up under scrutiny, these answers will never be enough for some people, who'd likely fire technical consultants they fire themselves if they came back saying that Apple's reasons were valid, and that there was no real way they could escape the fact that WiFi was very fast and inexpensive on the battery, while EDGE was slowest and also least expensive on the battery than 3G, which had truly poor support, and if included, would adversely effect battery life whether in use... or NOT in use.

Most people arguing otherwise have still yet to even produce a single 3G phone that has demonstrably longer battery life than the iPhone, yet as Apple's first entry, they think Apple could somehow change the natural laws of space and time (smaller space than anyone else, in a short development window) to accomplish it. At this point, I guess I should recognize that people who wanted 3G, wanted it so badly that they'd also be ready to complain when it inevitably made the phone experience significantly worst. They would say, "Boy, the iPhone battery life sucks! And the battery isn't removable either! This is horrible!" In fact, with 3G, we'd all be saying that it sucks, and getting even more paranoid about the lack of a removable battery.

I like the product I got. I like its SIZE and I like its BATTERY life, and I like its non-removable battery (because its not super-thick to do it). Making the battery easily replaceable, means that Apple needs to deal with a third-party battery market and its adverse effect on their phones. A lot of other "messy" decisions they could have made either. Same decision for the iPods, yet few people complain.

In the end, its clear the decision for all its pros and cons was Apple's, and Apple's alone. Consumers will choose whether their decision was right, by either BUYING or NOT BUYING the iPhone. Those that BUY the iPhone and still complain that it should have had 3G, seem the strangest to me. At least the ones not buying the iPhone seem to make more logical sense. Those that bought the iPhone purchased Apple's decision making process. While they can say, "I wish it had 3G." Outright disagreeing with Apple's decision in the face of the science and basic logic seems really arrogant to me. I you're going to disagree with Apple, at least accept the science of their reasons and say something like, "I didn't mind a bigger phone with shorter battery life." After a while though, most people would agree that these phones are still out there, and can be purchased for less if the person really wanted that.

~ CB

D1G1T4L
Jul 16, 2007, 07:35 AM
FYI:

3G does not mean large phone. That is very outdated thinking. An SE W880i (http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=gb&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pip3&zone=pp&pid=10653) is a 3G phone and much smaller than the iPhone.

3G is not a lark - the US is just behind the times with mobile phones.

wi-fi is a pathetic reason not to have 3G. that is hardly a seamless transition even if you can frequently find free wi-fi.


Fine, Apple want to be their typical "we know best" arrogant little selves. but for all their european users who know better, apple will lose a lot of customers with their sub-par phone and ridiculous demands... but that's a whole other story.

Go look at the space leftover in the iPhone. Where is the 3G going to go? Fine the W880i has it but it is also missing some things the iPhone has.

Apple "we know best" and yet you turn around and say "european users who know better". Hummmmmm........

:rolleyes:

What I found most chocking is the wi-fi speeds. Is it true that the speed is only 1 to 2Mbps ?? that is crap, way slower then 3g is in Europe (3,6Mbps and 7,2Mbps this fall)

With slow speed as 1-2Mbps there is not much need for w-fi in developed countries.


And it is just bad engendering if a chip is taking power even when it is not used.

That is what Apple is complaining about. 3G chips need to be improved. Of course with the ban in place that is going to slow things down :(

JonHimself
Jul 16, 2007, 07:41 AM
btw, it's your and not you're, it wouldn't make much sense to be saying "you are iPhone", would it now?

Damn homonyms get me everytime. Thanks for the grammar lesson but was it necessary? Probably not... it's not like my post was full of errors and was unreadable, and don't tell me that it weakens my argument or makes my point any less credible because you can't take me seriously if I can't write properly, afterall you did write 'rofl' in your post...

Regardless, yes you live in LA and 3G coverage is excellent there, great. I was just responding to the fact that he said his blackjack (a really cheap phone) could surf faster than a $600 phone, which technically it can't.
Further, my second line was, "And I don't need to hear that "WiFi isn't always available" etc etc because 3G isn't always available either" which is kind of what you would go on to write about... I made a blanket statement, there will be many exceptions, one of those being from someone who spends most of (or all) their time in an area with 3G - of course you will want 3G coverage because it is always available to you. For myself it doesn't really matter if I get a 3G phone (mostly because no one is even carrying the iPhone yet, but also because Rogers 3G coverage, in Ontario at least, is limited to a geographically small area) Having EDGE is fine on my phone and rarely am I without a free WiFi hot spot nearby throughout my entire city.

atszyman
Jul 16, 2007, 08:22 AM
I love the iPhone debate threads and people telling Apple what they should have done...

Apple had a few choices when designing the iPhone, AT&T or T-Mobile (for major GSM carriers in the US) or to go CDMA with Sprint or Verizon and whether or not to include 3G.

The carrier choice was almost a no-brainer. If you're planning on making the phone available worldwide they almost had to go with AT&T. T-Mobile doesn't match their coverage (yet) and GSM is the more universal network on the planet so that ruled out Sprint and Verizon or would force them to design a second version for international (Yes they could have used Verizon's or Sprint's 3G networks but a phone for them would not fall back to GSM where 3G isn't available which would have been a problem internationally). Their only other option was to release an unlocked GSM phone, but they wouldn't have been able to get their voicemail working without the cooperation of at least one carrier and I doubt any one carrier will go through the effort without some sort of deal on the iPhone.

The 3G question is a bit less of a no-brainer but with the iPhone's initial (debug) release in the US 3G doesn't make a lot of sense. Most carrier's 3G networks are still in their infancy (in the US) and with the iPhone being Apple's first cell phone it makes sense to use the more proven network in the US. By going with the more established network it creates an easier product debug since you most likely won't be questioning the network when problems arise eliminating time consuming multiple debug threads to determine if it's the fault of the phone or the network.

For a first time phone builder Apple took the safest path to reach the greatest number of people which is not a bad thing in a Rev A product. I'd expect to see 3G available in a Rev C iPhone within the next 18 months. I think we'll see some fixes in the Rev B iPhone that will be made available internationally and then the Rev C with the update to 3G once the initial tech has proven itself.

iBlue
Jul 16, 2007, 08:34 AM
..
Apple had a few choices when designing the iPhone, AT&T or T-Mobile (for major GSM carriers in the US) or to go CDMA with Sprint or Verizon and whether or not to include 3G.

The carrier choice was almost a no-brainer. If you're planning on making the phone available worldwide they almost had to go with AT&T. T-Mobile doesn't match their coverage (yet) and GSM is the more universal network on the planet so that ruled out Sprint and Verizon or would force them to design a second version for international (Yes they could have used Verizon's or Sprint's 3G networks but a phone for them would not fall back to GSM where 3G isn't available which would have been a problem internationally). Their only other option was to release an unlocked GSM phone, but they wouldn't have been able to get their voicemail working without the cooperation of at least one carrier and I doubt any one carrier will go through the effort without some sort of deal on the iPhone.

The 3G question is a bit less of a no-brainer but with the iPhone's initial (debug) release in the US 3G doesn't make a lot of sense. Most carrier's 3G networks are still in their infancy (in the US) and with the iPhone being Apple's first cell phone it makes sense to use the more proven network in the US. By going with the more established network it creates an easier product debug since you most likely won't be questioning the network when problems arise eliminating time consuming multiple debug threads to determine if it's the fault of the phone or the network.

For a first time phone builder Apple took the safest path to reach the greatest number of people which is not a bad thing in a Rev A product. I'd expect to see 3G available in a Rev C iPhone within the next 18 months. I think we'll see some fixes in the Rev B iPhone that will be made available internationally and then the Rev C with the update to 3G once the initial tech has proven itself.

Apple did not have choices, they had demands and AT&T were the only ones willing to tolerate them. Verizon (and simiarily Vodafone in the UK) told them to shove it. I imagine T-mobile (also a big presence here) did the same.

I don't see how AT&T is supposed to be such a "no-brainer" or so global, I thought that was mainly an american thing. Carriers are not as big of a deal here either as it's a smaller space and coverage is not such an issue. Having a crippled piece of hardware locked to a carrier is, however. ...but that's not what we're talking about right now.

3G is a wise choice for a mobile phone in europe. not having it alienates a lot of would-be customers. that alone is not the problem though, it's just something that grates on a lot of nerves.

Your other parts of the post make sense but I can't see apple being that worried about risk. I digress.



As to that bit someone posted about where are Apple supposed to fit the 3G - it's apple, they fit a whole computer into something no bigger than most monitors. I hardly think that's the issue.

meagain
Jul 16, 2007, 08:59 AM
AT&T's 3g morphs to EDGE when 3g isn't available.

People make it sound like if there's no 3g in their area - there's no service.
This is wrong.

aristobrat
Jul 16, 2007, 09:11 AM
As to that bit someone posted about where are Apple supposed to fit the 3G - it's apple, they fit a whole computer into something no bigger than most monitors. I hardly think that's the issue.
Then what you would say the issue is?

Why would Apple purposefully leave out a piece of technology that may very well kill the iPhone over in Europe (other than it has always treated Europe like a second-class market to the US, based on the forum posts complaining about the prices and sub-par service)?

sushi
Jul 16, 2007, 09:12 AM
I honestly dont see the point in 3G when you have WiFi unless you really need to surf the web or do other things on the go all the time. I also think Steve Jobs is right about 3G not being mature enough yet.
Good points.

Battery life is very important as well. It seems the 3G is not there yet with regards to long battery life in a small form factor. Someday it will, but for now, I think that Apple's solution is a good one.

OT, for anyone with an iPhone. How easy is it to connect to a secure WiFi spot?

JonHimself
Jul 16, 2007, 09:27 AM
OT, for anyone with an iPhone. How easy is it to connect to a secure WiFi spot?

I second that question, in one of the Apple videos (or maybe it was on a post on the forums) someone said that all you have to do is enter in the password, but I also remember reading a couple posts about it not being as easy as it sounded

aristobrat
Jul 16, 2007, 09:37 AM
I second that question, in one of the Apple videos (or maybe it was on a post on the forums) someone said that all you have to do is enter in the password, but I also remember reading a couple posts about it not being as easy as it sounded
Entering a password is all I've had to do on my iPhone when connecting to my home AP and at friends' houses.

By default, the iPhone is set to tell you when there's a Wifi network available. It just pops up a bubble asking if you want to connect or not, along with the names of the networks it's detected.

darngooddesign
Jul 16, 2007, 09:51 AM
Apple should have included 3G AND EDGE with the ability to turn 3G off like you can with WIFI. The size comparison to the SE880i is irrelelvant because it doesn't have to make room for the screen, larger motherboard and flash memory, big ass battery, and to the best of my knowledge wifi b & g.

Sobe
Jul 16, 2007, 09:54 AM
Apple should have included 3G AND EDGE with the ability to turn 3G off like you can with WIFI. The size comparison to the SE880i is irrelelvant because it doesn't have to make room for the screen, larger motherboard and flash memory, big ass battery, and to the best of my knowledge wifi b & g.

Yep they only sold, what...a million phones so far...obviously having EDGE is really holding them back from hitting those numbers.

atszyman
Jul 16, 2007, 10:12 AM
I don't see how AT&T is supposed to be such a "no-brainer" or so global, I thought that was mainly an american thing. Carriers are not as big of a deal here either as it's a smaller space and coverage is not such an issue. Having a crippled piece of hardware locked to a carrier is, however. ...but that's not what we're talking about right now.

For a worldwide phone your choices are 3G or GSM. Given the state of 3G in the US and the US being the initial release market, it made more sense to go with GSM since the network is more widely available and more stable/established so you wouldn't spend time debugging possible network issues alongside hardware issues.

For national GSM carriers in the US it left T-Mobiel or AT&T. AT&T has a larger presence coverage wise and was willing to meet their demands thus AT&T won exclusivity. Are there any quotes of high level execs at Verizon or T-Mobile telling Apple to "shove it" or are we just speculating that this is what happened because we can't believe they chose AT&T? Yes I know that 3G on AT&T falls back to GSM/Edge but since the network is only limited availability and still fairly young in the US Apple probably made the decision to go with the more established network to aid speed of development and debug. How long did it take them to adopt PCI-Express? or the next gen DVD drives? Apple hasn't always been on the bleeding edge with technology, they just do it better when they adopt it.

Yes the lack of 3G might hurt some of the international markets but since I don't know exactly when Apple plans on releasing the iPhone internationally we may be on Rev B or C with 3G capabilities by then.

iBlue
Jul 16, 2007, 10:19 AM
Then what you would say the issue is?
....
(other than it has always treated Europe like a second-class market to the US, based on the forum posts complaining about the prices and sub-par service)?
Don't know, good question. (so was your answer, by the way)

Apple should have included 3G AND EDGE with the ability to turn 3G off like you can with WIFI. The size comparison to the SE880i is irrelelvant because it doesn't have to make room for the screen, larger motherboard and flash memory, big ass battery, and to the best of my knowledge wifi b & g.
Agreed and yes, the comparison is a bit off but I was just giving an example of a phone I am familiar with that is very small and still 3G.

<snip whole post... as it's right above this one>
I kind of just have to nod to your post. When you put it like that it does make sense (even if I don't like apple's choice)

atszyman
Jul 16, 2007, 10:44 AM
I kind of just have to nod to your post. When you put it like that it does make sense (even if I don't like apple's choice)

I never said I liked it, I'd rather they had 3G as well. However, since the likelihood of me getting an iPhone in the next 5 years is about as close to zero as you can get it has very little effect on my life.

I do understand their choices at this point given a US release and first time phone, I see big things in the future for the iPhone with 3G, and opening up to T-Mobile's HotSpot@Home technology with the WiFi access once exclusivity is over, but for their first phone they seem to have made relatively "safe" choices for their initial release to prove themselves as a phone maker, then they can start with some of the other technology.

sho38
Jul 16, 2007, 07:59 PM
Well I don't have the luxury to have an iphone since I don't live in the U.S. Like everyone on the forum (I do believe I can speak for everyone on this), would like to have 3G implemented on the iPhone on v.1. However, this is not the case.

One thing I have not heard mention very often is the fact that the iPhone took 2 years(or more?) to bring to the market. At that time when Apple decides to enter the cellphone market, I am sure 3G implementation was VERY limited especially compares to what it is today. The chipset could be bigger than what we saw on the Blackjack, the battery consumption could be even worse than what the Blackjack gets on this current version. With the network infrastructure in place when the project started, to the technology available at that time(for the US), this current set up may have been the 'best of both worlds'. 3G has since gained more momentum in the big cities, but at this point, issuing an engineering change to include a 3G chipset may delay the product from hitting the market even further. The fact also remains that 3G has not been widely adopted in all of US today(Geographically), doesnt make sense for Apple to include this chip in the iPhone when over 50% (guesstimate, at best here!!) of the population can't use it even. It would cost more $$ to produce, thus lowering their profit margin on the unit. But if you ask me why the Blackjack has included the chip? Well, the blackjack is a world phone right now, meaning that it is being sold everywhere in the world, it is a matter of allocating some of the produced handsets to the US for distribution.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents :)

maokh
Jul 16, 2007, 08:52 PM
wow...1Mbps from UMTS? im shocked. When we looked at it, the network was pulling about 300kbps-400kbps at most off AT&T...not far off from EDGE.

But even with 1Mbps, 4Mbps, or 10Mbps, or 200kbps EDGE, nearly all handsets, PDAs, and even laptops suffer from one fundimental issue: improper window sizes or any mitigation against latency for that matter.

janey
Jul 17, 2007, 03:44 AM
Regardless, yes you live in LA and 3G coverage is excellent there, great. I was just responding to the fact that he said his blackjack (a really cheap phone) could surf faster than a $600 phone, which technically it can't.
Her. Sorry about the continuing lessons, but you replied to my post about the blackjack being cheap and fast, and last I checked, I'm female and had no interest in gender reassignment surgery. And technically, I could surf pretty fast with a blackjack where my iPhone wouldn't be able to do jack **** even on EDGE.

In theory, the iPhone's wifi would be faster than 3g on the Blackjack. In reality, hell ****ing no.
Further, my second line was, "And I don't need to hear that "WiFi isn't always available" etc etc because 3G isn't always available either" which is kind of what you would go on to write about...
Just because it's unavailable to you, you being in the majority of cases, and extremely available to me, being in the minority, doesn't mean Apple shouldn'tve at least considered it other than for power usage and space concerns. And well, there are a lot more iPhone users in LA right now than there are in all of Canada :D And all these carriers are investing in 3g right now, including AT&T - none of them are stagnating or not in use. So it's a bit spotty or nonexistant in a lot of places...but it's growing, improving, and getting faster. What better incentive for massive upgrades than an iPhone with 3G? :p

Like I said, it's practically like determining what should go in a phone purely based on who's going to use it where. Then why is 3g even in cheap phones like the blackjack right now?

Honestly. I do NOT get where people are going with the whole "wifi is faster than 3g" argument. They are completely different things to begin with, and wifi on an iPhone or pretty much any smartphone, phone or pda type device comes with huge issues, namely that of a lack of open or usable networks in places outside of work or home. So yes, wifi on the iPhone is great if I could get some way to run 3rd party apps to crack it so I can at least try my luck with the dozen networks within range. Otherwise it's mostly useless.
People make it sound like if there's no 3g in their area - there's no service.
This is wrong.
Thank you for pointing out something that not many are getting (or so it seems). 3G doesn't mean EDGE fallback is out of the question.
OT, for anyone with an iPhone. How easy is it to connect to a secure WiFi spot?
Easy, given you know the password. Except 99% of the time that wouldn't be the case. And even with the password, typing it is hell and takes forever because you're blindly typing into a password field that's blanked out for obvious reasons.
...nearly all handsets, PDAs, and even laptops suffer from one fundimental issue: improper window sizes or any mitigation against latency for that matter.
Improper window sizes? Are you saying that's actually a problem on the iPhone? Cause other than excessive scrolling, it isn't for me. I actually HATE the default viewport in Safari on the iPhone cause you have to scroll so much on some pages, but otherwise it works like a charm.

meagain
Jul 17, 2007, 08:24 AM
The fact also remains that 3G has not been widely adopted in all of US today(Geographically), doesnt make sense for Apple to include this chip in the iPhone when over 50% (guesstimate, at best here!!) of the population can't use it even.

NOT true! Again.... If the iPhone was AT&T's 3g, if not in a 3g area - it would use EDGE. If the iPhone was 3g, you'd basically be buying 3g AND Edge.
It's not a either/or type thing. You get BOTH.

D1G1T4L
Jul 17, 2007, 08:30 AM
NOT true! Again.... If the iPhone was AT&T's 3g, if not in a 3g area - it would use EDGE. If the iPhone was 3g, you'd basically be buying 3g AND Edge.
It's not a either/or type thing. You get BOTH.

But at a huge cost on the battery for only 50% of the customers? I would love 3G but not at the cost some reports are stating. Had EVDO with sprint but no phone lasted a day with heavy use.

meagain
Jul 17, 2007, 08:43 AM
50%? I suggest we really don't know what percentage this particular phone would decline if on 3g. I myself would love this sacrafice as there is no way I'm away from an outlet or car charger for more than a day unless I was camping. Further, the ability to turn off 3g to save battery would work also.

I'd take less battery life in a heartbeat for 3g. I would appreciate just being able to choose my poison.

aristobrat
Jul 17, 2007, 08:53 AM
Like I said, it's practically like determining what should go in a phone purely based on who's going to use it where. Then why is 3g even in cheap phones like the blackjack right now?
From everything I've read, the BlackJack is the perfect example of what happens when you put immature technology in a device and start shipping it off to the general public.

The fact that you appear to have one and are using it to make the opposite point baffles me.

Google "blackjack battery life" and read all of the posts about it. Like how even though it shipped with two batteries (people were expected to have a charged spare with them? really?) many people were still having issues making it last a whole day. And after awhile, people who complained to Cingular were shipped EXTENDED LIFE batteries, for free, in hopes they could get 24 hours of use out of their phone? A wireless carrier giving away free extended life batteries? When does that ever happen??? :eek:

sho38
Jul 17, 2007, 09:00 AM
NOT true! Again.... If the iPhone was AT&T's 3g, if not in a 3g area - it would use EDGE. If the iPhone was 3g, you'd basically be buying 3g AND Edge.
It's not a either/or type thing. You get BOTH.

Oops...I meant to say if 3g is available nationwide, I am sure everyone will agree that they would like to use 3g on their iPhone. Besides, I never mentioned that wifi had to be taken off of the iPhone to include 3g.

kdarling
Jul 17, 2007, 09:28 AM
One thing I have not heard mention very often is the fact that the iPhone took 2 years(or more?) to bring to the market. At that time when Apple decides to enter the cellphone market, I am sure 3G implementation was VERY limited especially compares to what it is today. The chipset could be bigger than what we saw on the Blackjack, the battery consumption could be even worse than what the Blackjack gets on this current version.

No excuse for Apple there. :)

It's likely that the Blackjack and all other 3G phones had similar incubation periods. They'll all have similar battery problems. But at least they gave people the choice.

As for those commenting about extended life batteries on the Blackjack, well gosh I think it would be nice if the iPhone had that as an option. It solves the 3G battery problem for those away from chargers, at the cost of adding slightly more depth.

Battery life is a pitiful excuse for leaving stuff out anyway. Why not leave out Bluetooth? Why not leave out WiFi? Why not a smaller screen? Especially why not a slower CPU? Because customers expect to have all the options available.

sho38
Jul 17, 2007, 09:33 AM
50%? I suggest we really don't know what percentage this particular phone would decline if on 3g. I myself would love this sacrafice as there is no way I'm away from an outlet or car charger for more than a day unless I was camping. Further, the ability to turn off 3g to save battery would work also.

I'd take less battery life in a heartbeat for 3g. I would appreciate just being able to choose my poison.

Right I know you and a bunch of people who would...but did you get my point I was trying to make? Instead of going back to the same points over and over again? My point is a) When this project started, 3g was relatively new in the US and Apple did not know how widely adopted it would be or if it will even be adopted when the target rollout date of the iPhone hit shelves. That may be the reason why 3g wasn't part of the desgin. b) 3g is now gaining momentum in the US but at this point, it was too late to make an engineering change to include the chip and not miss the the target shipdate c) implementing a 3g chip in the iPhone does not make financial sense when only a portion of the population (smaller portion, not majority) can use it. Including the chip would lower the profit margin.

sho38
Jul 17, 2007, 09:41 AM
No excuse for Apple there. :)

It's likely that the Blackjack and all other 3G phones had similar incubation periods. They'll all have similar battery problems. But at least they gave people the choice.

As for those commenting about extended life batteries on the Blackjack, well gosh I think it would be nice if the iPhone had that as an option. It solves the 3G battery problem for those away from chargers, at the cost of adding slightly more depth.

Battery life is a pitiful excuse for leaving stuff out anyway. Why not leave out Bluetooth? Why not leave out WiFi? Why not a smaller screen? Especially why not a slower CPU? Because customers expect to have all the options available.

Well it was a business decision...Apple end up including components that everyone can use. Also keep in mind that this is Apple's first crack at a mobile phone. They have spent at least 2 years on the development. I can only assume that Mobile phone manufacturers have better expertise to turn something from the drawing board to hit the shelves in a more efficient manner(At least they don't have to secretly solicit the phone to carriers :P) So making changes to the design halfway through is not as easy as one can expect.

megfilmworks
Jul 17, 2007, 09:52 AM
Apple did not have choices, they had demands

Companies with choices can make demands.
Besides, I like the idea of a successful business model (Apple) making demands on a cumbersome inefficient model (AT&T).

atszyman
Jul 17, 2007, 09:56 AM
No excuse for Apple there. :)

It's likely that the Blackjack and all other 3G phones had similar incubation periods. They'll all have similar battery problems. But at least they gave people the choice.

The other phone manufacturers who are doing 3G already have many mobile phones released and have a pretty good idea that their back-end hardware and software work and have most of those issues flushed out. Therefore moving to 3G is less of a risk.

For a first time phone manufacturer it makes no sense to start off with the less proven network. If Apple had gone 3G, given it's relative new-ness in the US, every issue they ran into with the services would have had a 2 prong debug cycle trying to figure out if it was the network or the phone causing the issue. By using the GSM network Apple could almost always assume that issues they were having were issues with the phone itself which would greatly speed the debug process. Once the initial release flushed out any other phone bugs then they can take their back-end interface hardware and software and migrate to 3G. If they had included 3G it's entirely probable that they'd still be 6-12 months from releasing the iPhone.

From a business and engineering standpoint this approach makes the most sense and I'd expect to see a 3G iPhone in about 12-18 months.

ukneeq
Jul 17, 2007, 10:12 AM
I personally don't get what everyone complains about with 3G. Sure if you have it in your area it would be great. But seriously the majority of the country doesn't have it on AT&T's networks. So from a business standpoint there really wasn't a compelling reason for them to have it in the iPhone. Plus wifi is being deployed at a faster rate than 3G is being rolled out. I think carriers are starting to notice that wifi really is the way of the future so 3G will be a very mute point. If you look alot of the carriers are already opening up their hot spots. AT&T has already announced they will. Plus they are working with Metro areas to deploy city wide wifi. So it will just be a matter of time til wifi over takes 3G anyways. Just my two cents!

d21mike
Jul 17, 2007, 10:47 AM
I don't see this talked about much. As most of you know you can't buy this phone on a business plan. The normal cost for unlimited data is $40 per month. How many of you would be willing to pay an extra $20 per month for 3G? For my wife and I to get 2 iPhones and pay $20 per month each was a major consideration. Other phones (on Verizon, Sprint and ATT) have a minimun cost of $40 per month. Over 2 years that would cost me $960 ($20 x 2 x 24). That is almost the cost of the 2 phones. For me, I am extremely happy, all things considered.

MacRumors
Jul 17, 2007, 11:29 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3036) explores the validity of Apple's decision not to use 3G wireless network technology in the iPhone.

Jobs' explanation for not using 3G in the iPhone came down to issues with size and battery consumption:"When we looked at 3G, the chipsets are not quite mature, in the sense that they're not low-enough power for what we were looking for. They were not integrated enough, so they took up too much physical space. We cared a lot about battery life and we cared a lot about physical size. Down the road, I'm sure some of those tradeoffs will become more favorable towards 3G but as of now we think we made a pretty good doggone decision."

Anandtech disects a Samsung Blackjack as well as the iPhone to compare chipset sizes for 3G vs EDGE implementations and concludes that indeed the "iPhone would have to be a bit thicker, wider or longer to accommodate the same 3G UMTS interface that Samsung used in its Blackjack".

They then proceeded to try to determine exactly how much of a battery life penalty the Blackjack suffered from when using its 3G network. The comparisons aren't direct, but they were able to determine the relative usage penalty on the Blackjack itself (3G vs EDGE) and compared to the iPhone's (EDGE vs Wifi).

In the end, 3G network usage on the Blackjack caused a 23% battery life reduction in using 3G vs EDGE to browse web pages. In contrast, iPhone's EDGE implementation produced a 25% battery life reduction compared to its Wifi implementation. This would suggest an even more substantial battery drain on the iPhone (relative to Wifi) if it did implement the 3G network.

A more interesting observation was that simply leaving the 3G network enabled on the Blackjack reduced the Blackjack's talk time from 9 hours to slightly over 4 hours. They conclude that the iPhone's talk time would be reduced to less than 3 hours of talk time if its battery was similarly affected by a 3G implementation.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/07/17/iphone-3g-size-and-battery-life-analysis/)

jshbckr
Jul 17, 2007, 11:56 AM
Wow, it's nice to see that they weren't just blowing smoke up our arses when those comments were made and that it looks like 3G would have taken a considerable hit on the battery life.

jimN
Jul 17, 2007, 11:58 AM
God knows what they are planning to do when it comes to Europe but I hope that they make up their minds soon.

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
Given that the maeket for the iPhone is a phone that can work as an iPod, Apple seems to have made the right choices for the time being.

speedbumpnv
Jul 17, 2007, 12:04 PM
From what I was told when looking into a 3G phone, the 3G network in the US is kinda quirky. I did have more dropped calls with my 3G RAZR than my normal GPRS Nokia. ATT/Cingular told me this was because of the way the new UMTS network prioritizes its network signal selections. So I am betting there were prolly other reasons for not going 3G initially.

motorazr
Jul 17, 2007, 12:07 PM
well...if this is about 3G would do (the added size and crap battery life), then I'm glad they didn't add it. Edge isn't that bad anyway...and wifi is great.

cire
Jul 17, 2007, 12:48 PM
Looking back at the prelaunch concerns, after three weeks of using my iPhone I think the big stories for me are: 1) Virtual keybord works better for me than the physical keyboard on the phone I replaced 2) Most of the time, EDGE is far better than I expected and much better than dialup 3) battery life is what I expect for a device that I actually use all the time. 4) My fears about the touch screen breaking and getting scratches were overblown.

While I would love 3G, I am very happy with the compromises that apple made. Now if I just could find a case that I actually like and that doesn't let the phone fall out of the holster on to the concrete!

Rocketman
Jul 17, 2007, 01:08 PM
I have been an advocate of Apple adopting EDGE long before there was an iPhone (look it up), primarily because it is so widely deployed in the USA. I was not aware it could have its bandwidth substantially improved as it has been leading to the iPhone rollout.

What I wonder is if the 3G system could be set to sleep when not in use and if the bandwidth difference between EDGE and 3G is sufficient to save battery net-net due to shorter load times when active. In short why can't each 3G send-receive event be a distinct connection event as well?

Rocketman

megfilmworks
Jul 17, 2007, 01:17 PM
Not only is Wifi the future, but it is a solution with freedom.
Would you rather have ATT control your data access or have the ability to use the internet for free? Anyone can set up a great WiFi, but only the big corporations can set up 3G..Let's see; less money, more freedom, better battery life and better performance....hmmmm tough choice.

TPALTony
Jul 17, 2007, 01:24 PM
IMHO I totally agree.

Me too. I'm currently roaming in the UK with the iPhone and the EDGE network over here is definitely slower than in the US, but mainly because the 3G network is more widely deployed.

In the US the compromise isn't a compromise, because that implies that the decision isn't the best one. In the US case I think the decision was the best one. No point having a 3G phone that can't get on the data network half the time when you're not in a city! It sounds for me a lot like the Sprint network in my area. "Sprint: Where all your calls are clear." Yeah, sure, in the 3 places within a 5 mile radius of my house you can can actually MAKE a call, I'm sure the call is very clear! :-) I also know what they mean about network prioritization. My ex had a Sprint Treo and you had to call 3 times before it would go through to the phone rather than voicemail. She got a lot of email and it was forever prioritizing the network data and missing calls. Drove us nuts!

Oh, and over here in the UK, if someone sees an iPhone, they think you're a rock star. Every flight attendant on the way over wanted to see it (I was watching some TV shows on it) and thought it was really cool. Finally a gadget that attracts women! I might NOT die alone! LOL!

be well

t

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 17, 2007, 01:24 PM
I have been an advocate of Apple adopting EDGE long before there was an iPhone (look it up), primarily because it is so widely deployed in the USA. I was not aware it could have its bandwidth substantially improved as it has been leading to the iPhone rollout.

What I wonder is if the 3G system could be set to sleep when not in use and if the bandwidth difference between EDGE and 3G is sufficient to save battery net-net due to shorter load times when active. In short why can't each 3G send-receive event be a distinct connection event as well?

Rocketman

hey on my old samsung blackjack, you could turn off the 3G network and have it run on edge, but it took a while to go back to 3G, and wastes a lot of battery running 3g.

Me too. I'm currently roaming in the UK with the iPhone and the EDGE network over here is definitely slower than in the US, but mainly because the 3G network is more widely deployed.

In the US the compromise isn't a compromise, because that implies that the decision isn't the best one. In the US case I think the decision was the best one. No point having a 3G phone that can't get on the data network half the time when you're not in a city! It sounds for me a lot like the Sprint network in my area. "Sprint: Where all your calls are clear." Yeah, sure, in the 3 places within a 5 mile radius of my house you can can actually MAKE a call, I'm sure the call is very clear! :-) I also know what they mean about network prioritization. My ex had a Sprint Treo and you had to call 3 times before it would go through to the phone rather than voicemail. She got a lot of email and it was forever prioritizing the network data and missing calls. Drove us nuts!


Oh, and over here in the UK, if someone sees an iPhone, they think you're a rock star. Every flight attendant on the way over wanted to see it (I was watching some TV shows on it) and thought it was really cool. Finally a gadget that attracts women! I might NOT die alone! LOL!

be well

t

Haha i was in canada and totally was kickin int with the women when i showed the ladies my iPhone!


this post should go on the main page, this is very important stuff, i still love my iphone regardless.... :)

meagain
Jul 17, 2007, 01:33 PM
Other phones (on Verizon, Sprint and ATT) have a minimun cost of $40 per month.

And allow tethering to a laptop.

Not only is Wifi the future, but it is a solution with freedom.
Would you rather have ATT control your data access or have the ability to use the internet for free? Anyone can set up a great WiFi, but only the big corporations can set up 3G..Let's see; less money, more freedom, better battery life and better performance....hmmmm tough choice.

But many of us find it a great inconvenience to drive to a Panera Bread, etc. to get Wifi. I'd still like to know where everyone's getting this constant free fast Wifi cuz I sure can't get it on the road in a car, outside at a picnic, etc. etc.

Furgster
Jul 17, 2007, 01:39 PM
i knew edge was the way to go ;)

cyberdogl2
Jul 17, 2007, 01:48 PM
one thing they didn't mention was that although 3G wasted more energy (23% i believe), 3G is also hundreds of times faster, loading webpages a little (beating edge by seconds i guess) faster. This saves both time and power.

In light of this, however, the electrons wasted per bit send/receive is probably better on edge.

Andrmgic
Jul 17, 2007, 02:23 PM
one thing they didn't mention was that although 3G wasted more energy (23% i believe), 3G is also hundreds of times faster, loading webpages a little (beating edge by seconds i guess) faster. This saves both time and power.

In light of this, however, the electrons wasted per bit send/receive is probably better on edge.

For data, yes.

However, in their tests, having 3G enabled on the blackajck murdered talk time as well. For iPhone, less than 3 hour talk time (especially without a removable battery) would be far less acceptable than using the EDGE network for data and building in Wifi for faster data access

kdarling
Jul 17, 2007, 02:26 PM
Not only is Wifi the future, but it is a solution with freedom.
Would you rather have ATT control your data access or have the ability to use the internet for free?

The trouble is, somebody has to pay, somewhere. Hotspot. Routers. Cables. Servers. Nothing is free.

The major utilities are still carrying a lot of the network load, and they need to pay hundreds of thousands of workers to keep things going and to expand coverage.

Yes, cities sometimes put up free WiFi, but they tax for the privilege.

It's possible that someday the Feds will take over providing free WiFi... but at a price in privacy.

mikeinternet
Jul 17, 2007, 02:27 PM
I haven't had any problems with edge, not with speed or coverage. And wifi is growing anyways.

atszyman
Jul 17, 2007, 02:37 PM
But many of us find it a great inconvenience to drive to a Panera Bread, etc. to get Wifi. I'd still like to know where everyone's getting this constant free fast Wifi cuz I sure can't get it on the road in a car, outside at a picnic, etc. etc.

Well, in the car you just have to be selective about where you pull over to do your browsing. If you're trying to browse while driving, you might want to re-think your driving habits....:D

d21mike
Jul 17, 2007, 02:37 PM
And allow tethering to a laptop.

Yeah, but it will cost you an extra $20 per month for it. Right? For me I would prefer to only pay $20 per month (for me and my wife's phone) on a slower network without the need to use my laptop. I mainly use data for email and some web access which I normally use the mobile version of the various web sites for faster access and for less data on the screen. If I had a real requirement for laptop access I would just get a card for the laptop from a provider that provided the fastest access. Again, why should I pay for that on all of my pda phones.

Sobe
Jul 17, 2007, 02:42 PM
I don't understand the love for tethering. If I'm mobile, I'm happy to use what the iPhone has. If I am lugging around a laptop 99.9% of the time I'd be in a hotel or a coffee shop or an airport where I can get wifi anyway.

Where are you people using your laptops--on the side of a highway?

nallwdrgn
Jul 17, 2007, 02:53 PM
Good... now they should run a test and see if the extra amount of battery life makes up for the extra amount of time needed to load larger websites in crappy areas with edge :p

</sarcasm>

toneloco2881
Jul 17, 2007, 03:11 PM
one thing they didn't mention was that although 3G wasted more energy (23% i believe), 3G is also hundreds of times faster, loading webpages a little (beating edge by seconds i guess) faster. This saves both time and power.

In light of this, however, the electrons wasted per bit send/receive is probably better on edge.
People also have to remember the superiority of Apple's software and their optimization. I've used 3g on a variety of other devices, including the Blackjack, and it's browsing speed is comparable if not slower than the iPhone on edge. My father has a Blackberry 8830 through Verizon, that operates on their 3g network, and it's not even close to the iPhone in terms of an on-device browsing experience relative to surfing the iPhone on edge.

When tethering with 3g phones is where you see the benefit of the higher data speeds. I think some people look at the data speeds, and automatically assume the browsing experience would be that much better; but in practice the software on other phones is so horrible and slow, it negates that advantage imo.

kdarling
Jul 17, 2007, 04:27 PM
True, it'd be easier to get a 3G card for a laptop. But then you'd need another data plan. So it's cheaper to pay for one (the phone) and tether to it.

A lot of airports (even major ones) don't have free WiFi everywhere or at all.

A lot of coffee shops don't have free WiFi.

A lot of hotels still try to charge for Internet access, WiFi or cable.

But there's another reason. Let's say you had to access a customer website that used Flash. Oh wait, can't do that on some phones. No sweat, just use the more powerful laptop for display and tether to the phone's data plan.

I'm sure there's other reasons you can think of. Heck, what you wanted to ssh into a work server and your phone didn't do that? Basically, lots of applications where you NEED the laptop, and NEED the data plan... but they're on two different devices :)

cyberdogl2
Jul 17, 2007, 04:47 PM
When tethering with 3g phones is where you see the benefit of the higher data speeds. I think some people look at the data speeds, and automatically assume the browsing experience would be that much better; but in practice the software on other phones is so horrible and slow, it negates that advantage imo.

which is the story behind many apple products, especially somewhere around the G3 G4 days vs. intel/amd

yayaba
Jul 17, 2007, 05:03 PM
Good argument going on in this thread. Here's my two cents.


I don't understand the love for tethering. If I'm mobile, I'm happy to use what the iPhone has. If I am lugging around a laptop 99.9% of the time I'd be in a hotel or a coffee shop or an airport where I can get wifi anyway.

Where are you people using your laptops--on the side of a highway?


The tethering argument for me is lessened with the iPhone because it has Safari which renders pages basically like my desktop browser. But tethering is useful because most places (at least in the US) don't have free wifi. I can't access my company's WiFi because it's VPN which requires special software which I can't install on the iPhone. Bookstores like Border's and Barn'es and Nobles have paid WiFi. Hell, SFO (San Francisco International Airport) didn't even have free Wifi in the international terminal that I was in. With my old phone, tethering on my Macbook was extremely useful as it let my bypass those no-free-Wifi restrictions.


I personally don't get what everyone complains about with 3G. Sure if you have it in your area it would be great. But seriously the majority of the country doesn't have it on AT&T's networks. So from a business standpoint there really wasn't a compelling reason for them to have it in the iPhone. Plus wifi is being deployed at a faster rate than 3G is being rolled out. I think carriers are starting to notice that wifi really is the way of the future so 3G will be a very mute point. If you look alot of the carriers are already opening up their hot spots. AT&T has already announced they will. Plus they are working with Metro areas to deploy city wide wifi. So it will just be a matter of time til wifi over takes 3G anyways. Just my two cents!


This sounds incredibly idealistic. The day when entire towns are blanketed in free wifi is a long ways away. Why wait for that solution when a current solution (3G) already exists?

Wifi really isn't as great as some of you make it out to be. Yes, I know 3G isn't available in every city but it still is loads better than Wifi because of one simple fact -- it exists across an ENTIRE city no matter where you are while a wifi hotspot is only inside of a specific store. It's incredibly useful when you're on the go in someone else's car, walking down a street, in a place with no free wifi, etc.

As for why Apple decided to go with EDGE, I'll go with the argument that at the time (2 years ago at least), 3g wasn't as prominent in the US as it is now. I'm sure no one at Apple enjoys using EDGE and you can be for certain that they have 3g prototypes already. As for when those will come out, who knows for sure.

I'm personally OK with EDGE. I've never used 3g before so I don't know how much faster it can be over EDGE but doesn't latency play into it also? I don't think 3G signals have better latency do they? If not, it'll still be pretty slow browsing but download speeds will definitely be better.

Sobe
Jul 17, 2007, 05:38 PM
so it's not a lack of access issue, it's a lack of free access issue.

bigjohn
Jul 17, 2007, 06:21 PM
Add 3G, Lose WiFi and make WiFi a 30-pin connector add-on device...

Problem solved, how is that so tough?

bigjohn
Jul 17, 2007, 06:21 PM
Add 3G, Lose WiFi and make WiFi a 30-pin connector add-on device...

And then you can also add WiFi to your iPod, move it around from device to device.

synth3tik
Jul 17, 2007, 07:19 PM
WOW it's cool that they went ahead and did this. It does add a layer of fact to Steve's comments on the matter.

amx
Jul 17, 2007, 07:27 PM
Add 3G, Lose WiFi and make WiFi a 30-pin connector add-on device...

Problem solved, how is that so tough?

Well if you closely study the article the wifi chip is quite small. Wifi has been commercially available for over 5 years now and has been through many reductions and is quit power efficient and embedded. You cant just replace it with a 3G chip. A 3G system is not quit as reduced or efficient as wifi modules are. Hence Steve Jobs comments align with that of Anandtech article. The technology is not mature enough yet at a silicon level. So give it 6 months, with the launch of iPhone there are many companies that probably have a smaller and less power hungry 3G chip on their roadmap. The next iPhone will definitely have 3G or better communication platform.

Also to respond to some one else's comment earlier to the fact why didnt apple just make it smaller. Apple is an OEM, they do not design or manufacture silicon. Hence they go out and buy different chip packages from different companies like Samsung and Intel.

MacTheSpoon
Jul 17, 2007, 07:51 PM
Wow, great article by Anandtech. After reading that, I feel that my doubts about my iPhone not having 3G have been laid to rest. I think EDGE was the best decision by Apple, after all. I agree with the trade-offs they decided to make in terms of battery life and iPhone size.

Having said that, once a smaller, lower power 3G chipset becomes available, it will be awesome to have it in my iPhone. That iPhone 2.0 is going to kick some serious ass... it'll have at least 16 GB of RAM, plus 3G, plus by then Apple will have solved the 3d party developer access problem.

Really an exciting product. Apple really stepped up to the plate and delivered. All those who worked on it should be really proud of themselves.

aristobrat
Jul 17, 2007, 08:09 PM
Interesting.

BlackBerry just announced that their next model (soon to be released) will support WiFi + EDGE. They appear to have passed on 3G this go-round as well.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9746191-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

mickeymikey
Jul 17, 2007, 09:24 PM
Another great objective analysis by the crew at Anandtech...

I know some of you are commenting on how you never see any "free" wifi. My experience is actually shockingly opposite. With the iPhone constantly searching for wifi, my eyes have been opened to a world where I find open access points all over the place (and I live outside of the city). It's actually a little scary how many people have no clue about security.

Just google "wigle" and see where all the free stuff is...

iPoodOverZune
Jul 17, 2007, 10:34 PM
Consumers will choose whether their decision was right, by either BUYING or NOT BUYING the iPhone. Those that BUY the iPhone and still complain that it should have had 3G, seem the strangest to me. At least the ones not buying the iPhone seem to make more logical sense. Those that bought the iPhone purchased Apple's decision making process.

~ CB

Amen.

But CB, even those thoughts won't shut up the retarded idiots who think they are more clever. Its a simple decision. You don't like the profile of a gadget, then buy the one that suits you better. If you are really that smart, then you should also be able to find other better products in the market and avoid cribbing over something that you can't control as per your stature. Show your smartness by become a Jonathan Ive first and come up with better products or better ideas to support your hypothesis/design concept. Otherwise, this fretting behavior is typical of people seeing only a part of the picture and declaring they have seen whole like that story of blind men touching different parts of elephant and touting their view as the complete picture. I see too many people here in my own research work too who question everything and crib a lot and yet can't come up with even a remotely reasonable solution to their own question when asked. I guess its just in their habit! Its good to ask question and offer constructive criticism but its just stupid to crib over some problem.

So my personal take. I like apple's philosophy of product design after first getting introduced to macs four years ago (from the Windoze). And I have played with iPhone at a local store and I think it is a very good phone. But I would like to see 3G in iPhone too. So since its not in their current iteration, I will wait until it appears, even if that is a year or so (my current phone is good enough until then); or if the circumstances turn out that I really need to have it sooner for my work and I can't live without 3G, I will look for something else that satisfy my requirements. As simple as that! Peace out. :)

gazzzmoly
Jul 18, 2007, 07:37 AM
WI-FI is great if you have it in your area.

Fact is in the uk we have very little wi-fi coverage, to the point where it is almost a pointless technology. we only have 1 city "London" that as just rolled out our first true wi-fi area and that only covers 1 square mile near the financial district.

we only have a few city's and for the most part our country is made up of towns that have populations of less than 100,000 people.

In the uk 3G is mature we have had the service for over 3 years all our providers offer 3g and i will be honest i think if the iphone came here without 3g that yes you may get the faithful buyng it or the people that need to be on the bleeding edge, but the people that rely on data and 3g will stick with there blackberrys or there 3g smartphones

emotion
Jul 18, 2007, 08:13 AM
Not read all comments but:

There's no mention of signal strangth on any of the networks tested.If the phone is "reaching" for a signal the battery life is likely to be less.

Also when a lot of Europeans say 3G they actually mean support for HSDPA (and would also like HSUPA support).

aristobrat
Jul 18, 2007, 08:21 AM
but the people that rely on data and 3g will stick with there blackberrys or there 3g smartphones
The fact that people will chose a non-3G device (like a BlackBerry) if the other features on the device make it worthwhile says something, no?

pjo
Jul 18, 2007, 10:29 AM
But even with 1Mbps, 4Mbps, or 10Mbps, or 200kbps EDGE, nearly all handsets, PDAs, and even laptops suffer from one fundimental issue: improper window sizes or any mitigation against latency for that matter.


Improper window sizes? Are you saying that's actually a problem on the iPhone? Cause other than excessive scrolling, it isn't for me. I actually HATE the default viewport in Safari on the iPhone cause you have to scroll so much on some pages, but otherwise it works like a charm.

Hmm.. the first time I read maokh's post I assumed it was in refference to TCP windows ... are we talking about that or screen resolution/size issues?

techkidd4400
Jul 19, 2007, 08:01 AM
I am willing to accept what Jobs said about 3G not being mature enough, but I less convinced that Apple got the battery right in the iPhone. My battery drains in significantly less time than the specs say no matter what I turn off. I took my iPhone back to the Apple store and discovered that they are aware that some of the batteries don't work right and the problem is more serious than a UI bug that can be fixed with a software upgrade. I like my iPhone so I'll use my warranty to get the battery replaced, but I am not pleased that Apple has another battery issue that they are not publicly acknowledging.

aristobrat
Jul 19, 2007, 08:37 AM
the problem is more serious than a UI bug that can be fixed with a software upgrade.
Huh? Software updates can do much more than just UI changes. Have you seen any of the software updates Apple has sent out to their laptops that change the firmware of the batteries, addressing battery performance issues?

http://search.info.apple.com/?search=Go&lr=lang_en&kword=&type=&newstype=&q=battery%20update

techkidd4400
Jul 19, 2007, 12:59 PM
Huh? Software updates can do much more than just UI changes. Have you seen any of the software updates Apple has sent out to their laptops that change the firmware of the batteries, addressing battery performance issues?

http://search.info.apple.com/?search=Go&lr=lang_en&kword=&type=&newstype=&q=battery%20update

You missed my point. I am assuming that most iPhone users already know that Apple has admitted that the battery "bug" many are complaining about is due to a software glitch in the UI. My point is : well, there may be bugs in the user interface, but the battery suffers from more than a software glitch. I know this to be so, but I do not know how extensive the problem is. Who knows how many users have defective batteries? My guess is the number is significant. Even aside from the batteries with defects, the battery just does not produce the charge claimed by Apple. I do not know of any who disagrees. I wish it did.

aristobrat
Jul 19, 2007, 02:50 PM
My point is : well, there may be bugs in the user interface, but the battery suffers from more than a software glitch.
And my point is that sometimes some "non-software" characteristics of a battery (i.e. how long it lasts, how long it takes to recharge, etc) can be changed via a firmware update to the battery itself.

Do I know if Apple is planning any battery firmware updates for the iPhone? No.

Have I been on the forums here long enough to have seen some people post about getting longer battery life after Apple's released a battery update for their notebook? Yes.

Personally, I would never run my iPhone as Apple did during the tests where they determined the battery life.

# Talk Time: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. All talk time testing was done connected to a 1900MHz network. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.

# Standby Time: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.

# Internet over Wi-Fi: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. Internet over Wi-Fi testing conducted using a closed network and dedicated web and mail server, simulating browsing to 20 popular URLs and checking mail once an hour. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks and Auto-Brightness were turned off; WPA2 encryption was enabled. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, Wi-Fi connectivity, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary. Internet over EDGE: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. Internet over EDGE testing conducted over a 1900MHz EDGE, using a dedicated web and mail server, simulating browsing to 20 popular URLs and checking mail once an hour. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks and Auto-Brightness were turned off. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.

# Video Playback: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. Video content was a repeated 2 hour 23 minute movie purchased from the iTunes Store. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks and Auto-Brightness were turned off. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.

# Audio Playback: Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2007 using preproduction iPhone units and software. The playlist consisted of 358 unique audio tracks, a combination of content imported from CDs using iTunes (128-Kbps AAC encoding) and content purchased from the iTunes Store (128-Kbps AAC encoding). All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off. Battery life depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.

madfuku
Jul 19, 2007, 04:40 PM
I am new to the forum but I just had to chime in.

First, I am FROM Japan and am in Japan right now. Sitting in front of me is a bunch of magical Japan 3G phones. None being more than 8 months old. Anyway, next to them is my wonderfully elegant iPhone that I imported from the states.

This 3G discussion is such non-sense. I am in the epicenter of 3G technology (i-mode) and it is over-hyped improperly deployed technology with no practical use. I hope you guys in the US don't get suckered like europe and australia did.

Yeah, it is faster than EDGE but you pay a hefty premium to use it. In Japan it can cost hundreds of US dollars per month to do what you do with flat data fees under EDGE. Flat fee, that is so cool. We call them packets. 3G phones are really big, even the small ones. I took pictures of the SMALLEST 3G phones in Japan right now. I also took a screen shot from one of the BEST phone displays in Japan SHARP 910SH of our crappy high tech 3G web browser.

Most Japanese do not use 3G the way you folks are thinking we use it. Since it cost so much we usually only use our phones for sending text messages to each other. In fact, i rarely even talk on my phone and never use things like video talking because no one would bother accepting my call because the rates are so high. And the video looks horrible too, kinda like really low res youtube stream.

Beyond that, our handsets have terrible battery life. I can not go a day without charging my high tech 3G brick. Now, don't get me wrong I love my SHARP 910SH with its awesome 5MP camera and video. But if I actually use the thing I get maybe 4 to 5 hours of life with text, telephone and device use. Its also pretty big. I took picture for you guys comparing the latest JAPANESE 3G phone to iPhone.

The thin phones are also 3G but have no features and boast 2MP camera like iPhone. The iPhone is better all around and I can't wait for the official one to come out in Japan. I pray it won't be 3G (but it must because we are just so smart here to make sure foreign products are not compatible with out networks) because it would have a battery life just as bad as every other Japanese phone here.

BTW, I have used EDGE too when I was in the US on Cingular network in NY. It was sloooow but I hear it has improved. WIFI is the way to go, screw AT&T and DoCoMo(Japan). All you need is a SKYPE client on the iPhone!

Apple did good with the iPhone, in fact it did great and I can't wait for this thing to hit Japan. Soooo many news outlets here call iPhone total garbage, just like the iPod. Except the iPod is the most successful mp3 player in Japan and iTunes Japan is the number one online music store.

I guess they think if they trash Apple enough it will make up for there inability to innovate.

Anyway, I think there is a new consumer electronics shift away from Japan and to the US. I see products like Apple computers, ipods, iPhones, AppleTVs, slingbox, XBOX 360, etc... All american innovations a new front in consumer electronics that is just starting to make the world stand up and take notice.

needthephone
Jul 20, 2007, 06:01 AM
I would concur about the limited ea 3 g use. In Australia 3g is widespread but hardly anybody uses it to its full potential. I have a nokia 6280 on three and when I accidentally hit the planet three(the internet type thing) button I am struck by blind panic as I desperately try to turn it off-its ahhh How much is this costing me. I have to charge every night too.

And finaly the Nokia 6280 is the worst phone Iv'e ever owned. It so buggy and horrible to use that I would never consider a nokia phone again.

I would take a 2.5g iphone tommorrow-wifi is everwhere here.

emotion
Jul 20, 2007, 06:08 AM
It's clear the issue is not really with 3G (though coverage is more patchy than is ideal, even in major cities like Manchester, UK). The real issue is the provision of flat rate data plans.

We are at a point where the networks are all going to switch to flat rate plans. This is similar to the situation where everyone was on dial up paying per minute of use just before broadband came along with flat rates.

madfuku
Jul 20, 2007, 06:59 AM
It's clear the issue is not really with 3G (though coverage is more patchy than is ideal, even in major cities like Manchester, UK). The real issue is the provision of flat rate data plans.

From your mouth to gods ears. And more power efficient 3G chips while he's at it. I think the iPhone will force that hand in Japan. We are packet fee happy here. But flat rates won't change the terrible execution of handset software and 3G features :).

eflaten
Jul 20, 2007, 01:14 PM
"I honestly dont see the point in 3G when you have WiFi unless you really need to surf the web or do other things on the go all the time. I also think Steve Jobs is right about 3G not being mature enough yet."

At least in Norway many people using the 3G network when sending MMS and videocalls. 3G is stable and has been so in about 2 years.

Vodaphone turned Apple down because of the lack of 3G. Apple was first with USB, Firewire, wifi. Why be last in on 3G. Makes sence in US where the carriers dont have 3G, but not in europe where poeple use this evryday.

askripko
Jul 23, 2007, 03:17 PM
It is natural, to become the high-grade competitor of iPhone, the potential opponent should have touch display and of course 3G, at least. Taking into account the given requirement ten main competitors of Apple iPhone have been selected.

1. Samsung F700 Ultra Multimedia
2. LG Prada (KE850)
3. Meizu miniOne
4. Neonode N2
5. Microsoft Zune Phone
8. Nokia Aeon
9. BenQ-Siemens Black Box


Read the rest here:
iPhone's main competitors (http://iphonews.ifastnet.com/index.php/2007/07/12/10-main-competitors-of-iphone/)

Krevnik
Jul 23, 2007, 04:12 PM
AT&T's 3g morphs to EDGE when 3g isn't available.

People make it sound like if there's no 3g in their area - there's no service.
This is wrong.

One of the reason's UTMS chips in AT&T phones are so huge (like in the blackjack), is because it has EDGE and GRPS circuitry, in addition to the UTMS circuitry. The chips wind up being large until you can either ditch EDGE, or die shrink the chips and integrate them onto a single chip.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 23, 2007, 04:14 PM
One of the reason's UTMS chips in AT&T phones are so huge (like in the blackjack), is because it has EDGE and GRPS circuitry, in addition to the UTMS circuitry. The chips wind up being large until you can either ditch EDGE, or die shrink the chips and integrate them onto a single chip.

this is exactly how they were able to make the iphone thinner than the blackjack

janey
Jul 25, 2007, 03:44 AM
this is exactly how they were able to make the iphone thinner than the blackjack
After half a week of only having my iPhone for internet access, I will willingly pay extra for a 3g iPhone that's double the size that has 5 hour battery life.

..The fact that you appear to have one and are using it to make the opposite point baffles me...
I don't have one, but I've gotten the chance to use one very often. I am aware of battery life issues regarding the blackjack, but it's not like I get 24h usage from my non-3g iPhone either (and although that might drive in the point that 3g on iPhone would have huge implications on the already pathetic battery life...).

...That may be the reason why 3g wasn't part of the desgin...
I'm sorry, even though Apple might be new to the whole industry does not mean that others take only half the time to design and start manufacturing a new phone just cause they have the expertise and experience. Apple didn't hire complete newbies fresh out of universities. Apple itself may not have had the experience, but the people Apple hired certainly did.

Plus wifi is being deployed at a faster rate than 3G is being rolled out....Plus they are working with Metro areas to deploy city wide wifi. So it will just be a matter of time til wifi over takes 3G anyways. Just my two cents!
Are you saying widespread 802.16 deployment is that imminent?

Or that it's cheap and easy to deploy wifi mesh networks?

Google's own 802.11b/g mesh network still doesn't cover all of Mountain View and has extremely slow speeds rivalling EDGE sometimes, ran into some snags, and was not very cheap. In addition, if you want to use it indoors, you're mostly out of luck. Mountain View is geographically and population-wise not very large.

Not only is Wifi the future, but it is a solution with freedom.
Would you rather have ATT control your data access or have the ability to use the internet for free? Anyone can set up a great WiFi, but only the big corporations can set up 3G..Let's see; less money, more freedom, better battery life and better performance....hmmmm tough choice.
Nothing is free. Nor is a mesh network cheap. Or free. Or necessarily secure. Or free. (repeat 100x)

Personally, I'd worry about security concerns with public and open wireless networks, given some of the IDIOTIC decisions made by the iPhone team at apple in regards to that little (or, maybe not so little) aspect.

But many of us find it a great inconvenience to drive to a Panera Bread, etc. to get Wifi. I'd still like to know where everyone's getting this constant free fast Wifi cuz I sure can't get it on the road in a car, outside at a picnic, etc. etc.
I can't not agree with you. I almost never find open/secure+auth networks unless I'm at a coffee shop or restaurant. And most of the time I use edge is not when I'm at a restaurant or coffee shop.

Honestly. To all those iPhone users out there who have miraculously free wifi wherever they go (that don't live in a place like mountain view)...where do you live and what do you do to get free wifi? I've had a laptop since forever, I've had mobile devices with wifi, I now have my iPhone...I have never encountered such a plethora of open usable networks such as the ones you people here are describing. Never. Never over years of having wifi on my laptops.

If you're trying to browse while driving, you might want to re-think your driving habits....:D
I've gotten passengers to look up directions on gmaps for me on my iPhone while I was driving whenever my gps nav system hated me. Works pretty well. And I've taken pics and emailed them in the car (while I wasn't driving), like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chix0r/860723804/in/set-72157600933874473/).

Good... now they should run a test and see if the extra amount of battery life makes up for the extra amount of time needed to load larger websites in crappy areas with edge :p

</sarcasm>
Maybe you meant to be sarcastic, but even though 3g and 3g coverage is ******, it's still noticeably faster (imo).

I've relegated myself to browsing mobile versions of sites when I have the opportunity...regular pages take way too long to load, if at all. Waste of a nice mobile browser that works nicely with wifi, but since that's almost never except at home (when I'd use a computer instead)...

Hmm.. the first time I read maokh's post I assumed it was in refference to TCP windows ... are we talking about that or screen resolution/size issues?
My bad, I must have been half asleep when I read that :(

Bush438
Jul 28, 2007, 03:40 PM
Lets not forget that Apple is slated to launch the iPhone in Europe by the 4th quarter of 2007. From every carrier that has spoken about the possibility of carrying the iPhone in Europe, 3G has almost been spoken about as a forgone conclusion.

Question being, if they do release 3G iPhone over there, who's to say they won't simlultaneously release a 3G one here?

Ghostrider555
Aug 25, 2007, 09:16 PM
I had some one working for Apple tell me today that the I Phone is already for 3G, just needs to be activated via update. His rational was that there have been other products introduced with "lower" speeds and then "all of a sudden" yes they work with the higher speeds.

He pointed out the airport wireless and newer lap tops.

Hmm. Could be?

Sure wish I knew, want one so bad.

Luigi239
Aug 25, 2007, 11:48 PM
I had some one working for Apple tell me today that the I Phone is already for 3G, just needs to be activated via update. His rational was that there have been other products introduced with "lower" speeds and then "all of a sudden" yes they work with the higher speeds.

He pointed out the airport wireless and newer lap tops.

Hmm. Could be?

Sure wish I knew, want one so bad.

No, that can't happen. People have cracked open the iPhone and there was no 3g radio to be found, only an edge one. The only way the iPhone will get 3g is via a hardware upgrade.

fabianjj
Aug 29, 2007, 02:14 PM
Not read all comments but:

There's no mention of signal strangth on any of the networks tested.If the phone is "reaching" for a signal the battery life is likely to be less.

Also when a lot of Europeans say 3G they actually mean support for HSDPA (and would also like HSUPA support).

I don't know about you guy's, but I assume you are mostly americans. I'm from Sweden and we are used to better performing cell phones. I mean we have almost COMPLETE nationwide WCDMA coverage (like 375 kbit/s) and COMPLETE EDGE (although only about 70 kbit/s) coverage, and pretty fast expanding wifi and HSDPA (3,6-14 Mbit/s)

So if Apple is planning on releasing the iPhone here, they better up the specs for that kind of price.

and comparing it to other phones in that price range, that's just pointless.
take Nokia N95 (HSDPA,WCDMA, wifi?, 5mp camera, gps) for example, or how about the swedish Sony Ericsson K810.
the only phone on the market that i've seen trying to compete with theese specs and prices would be the LG Prada, but that's it.

aristobrat
Aug 29, 2007, 04:47 PM
So if Apple is planning on releasing the iPhone here, they better up the specs for that kind of price.
All guesses are that the won't (hardware-wise, anyway), so it should be interesting to watch.

D4F
Sep 18, 2007, 09:00 PM
iPhone introduced for UK market comes without 3G.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/18/iphonequestions/index.php

aristobrat
Sep 18, 2007, 09:04 PM
But they get free Wi-Fi at 7,500 places. That's kinda sweet. :)

yagrax
Sep 20, 2007, 12:05 PM
OK, so the size increase arguement probably holds true, no one wants to carry a big brick of a phone around with them. And I truely do appreciate the form factor of my iPhone vs my previous phones the Treo 650 and 700.

But I'm not so convinced on the battery life aspect. In my daily life, and I'm sure countless others as well, we are near power sources all day long.

Home, office, car, plane, airport, etc.

Yes you'd have to take a charger with you, but in these places a professional would have a laptop or other bag with them to store the charger. Or in the case of the car you'd just have it left in the car, plugged in.

Personally, I have at least 4 chargers for my iPhone.

All in all, I'd rather have 3g and have a shortened batterylife. But I want the form factor as well, so we'll have to wait the "year" before the next iPhone with 3g. That should really be the killer phone as this version of the iPhone is killer-1.

tutwo0000
Jul 20, 2008, 03:40 PM
Is it upto the hyped?

the tech specs is not that impressive when compared to Nokia N95 or N82

Iphone tech specs (http://brandnewmobilephones.blogspot.com/2008/07/iphone-3g-tech-specs.html)