iPhone 3GS Tops T-Mobile G1 and Palm Pre in JavaScript Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-tops-t-mobile-g1-and-palm-pre-in-javascript-benchmarks/)

Medialets today released the results (http://www.medialets.com/blog/2009/06/24/speed-test-iphone-3gs-even-faster-than-apple-claims/) of JavaScript benchmark tests performed using the SunSpider test suite on the iPhone 3G and 3GS, the T-Mobile G1 running Android, and the Palm Pre running webOS. The use of the SunSpider suite for benchmarking studies enables cross-platform comparisons among the devices, as they all utilize WebKit-based Web browsers. In the Medialets study, the iPhone 3GS outperformed the Palm Pre by a factor of three and the T-Mobile G1 by over a factor of five.

Notably, Medialets also tested the iPhone 3G running both iPhone OS 2.2.1 and OS 3.0, revealing that iPhone OS 3.0 provides a nearly three-fold improvement in performance over OS 2.2.1 running on the same hardware. The shift to the iPhone 3GS increases performance a further three-fold. All results were compared to the performance of a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo White MacBook, demonstrating JavaScript performance on the iPhone 3GS only 12X that of the MacBook, a remarkable statistic for a smartphone.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/06/24/152652-sunspider_iphone_3gs_500.png

Medialets cautions readers that the JavaScript benchmark results do not necessarily indicate that one device or operating system is "better" than another, and that each operating system may be more well-suited for certain tasks than the others.

Article Link: iPhone 3GS Tops T-Mobile G1 and Palm Pre in JavaScript Benchmarks (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/24/iphone-3gs-tops-t-mobile-g1-and-palm-pre-in-javascript-benchmarks/)

[mobi]

Real screamer!

I want to test myself real-world side by side...

[mkrishnan]

The findings related to the 2.2.x -> 3.0 jump on old hardware are very happy, too. Impressive that the 3G can keep up with the Pre on this particular metric with the new firmware. The rendering speed changes seem evident to me on my EDGE iPhone also.

[HyperZboy]

Why didn't they test the original iPhone as well?

I'd love to see how the improvement is even on EDGE with the 3.0 software.

I'd laugh my ass off if it beat any other 3G phone just from the Javascript performance, but I guess that's unlikely.

Would still like to know though just for fun.

[elppa]

Why didn't they test the original iPhone as well?

I'd love to see how the improvement is even on EDGE with the 3.0 software.

Javascript is interpreted on the client side, which means that the network the script travelled over to arrive at the client is irrelevant.

What this does prove is Palm's bravado about “OS X being too big, bloated and slow for mobile devices” is mostly nonsense as each operating system may be more well-suited for certain tasks than the others.

[LukeHarrison]

Why didn't they test the original iPhone as well?

I'd love to see how the improvement is even on EDGE with the 3.0 software.

I'd laugh my ass off if it beat any other 3G phone just from the Javascript performance, but I guess that's unlikely.

Would still like to know though just for fun.

I would imagine that as the iPhone 2G has the same internals as the 3G, that the benchmark applies to it also.

Hopefully. :p

[mkrishnan]

I'd love to see how the improvement is even on EDGE with the 3.0 software.

I'd laugh my ass off if it beat any other 3G phone just from the Javascript performance, but I guess that's unlikely.

From what I can tell of this test, this is a test of interpreter speed -- that is, it's not dependent on transmission speed. So the EDGE/3G aspect doesn't really play a role. The original iPhone would be slower because of other things about it that are (modestly, and somewhat more pronounced in things like games) slower than the 3G, as I understand it. But basically, in terms of what this test tests, the performance of the original iPhone should actually be fairly close to the 3G on 3.0.

[iphones4evry1]

So what exactly was measured ... the rendering of Java?
In other words, was it the time it took for the processor to render the Java after it had been downloaded?

"JavaScript execution in WebKit—the open source project that, in varying degrees, powers web browsing technology for these three disparate operating systems. - web rendering technology"

"this benchmark tests the core JavaScript language only, not the DOM or other browser APIs. It is designed to compare different versions of the same browser, and different browsers to each other."

"Network speed and latency have no effect on the results of the test."

Link to original article: http://www.medialets.com/blog/2009/06/24/speed-test-iphone-3gs-even-faster-than-apple-claims/

.

[DipDog3]

That is still quite impressive!

[mkrishnan]

In other words, was it the time it took for the processor to render the Java after it had been downloaded?

Not Java. Javascript. They're two almost completely different things. Javascript is a kind of code that allows web pages to have "dynamic" content -- it underlies a lot of how web pages show different kinds of information and get customized based on user clicks and so forth. It's a pretty major part of the modern internet. Javascript is sent as text code to the browser and then rendered on the computer or phone. So rendering Javascript is a pretty significant part of how fast a website displays, aside from how fast the internet connection works.

So Jscript is one reason why, when you put your iPhone and your notebook computer on the same WiFi network, your iPhone still takes much longer to render a page than your computer does.

It's also the major reason why Safari and Chrome are said to be so much faster than other web browsers -- recently there's been a lot of progress in how to render Javascript, and most of the speed difference between Safari and Chrome and... Firefox, Opera, and IE, is because of javascript rendering speed.

[aristotle]

So what exactly was measured ... the rendering of Java?
In other words, was it the time it took for the processor to render the Java after it had been downloaded?

"JavaScript execution in WebKit—the open source project that, in varying degrees, powers web browsing technology for these three disparate operating systems. - web rendering technology"

Link to original article: http://www.medialets.com/blog/2009/06/24/speed-test-iphone-3gs-even-faster-than-apple-claims/

.
Can't you read? It says quite plainly in what you quoted that these tests measured the time to execute (run) the javascript code on the test pages. Java has nothing to do with it as this is Javascript, not Java.

[iphones4evry1]

Not Java. Javascript. They're two almost completely different things. Javascript is a kind of code that allows web pages to have "dynamic" content -- it underlies a lot of how web pages show different kinds of information and get customized based on user clicks and so forth. It's a pretty major part of the modern internet. Javascript is sent as text code to the browser and then rendered on the computer or phone. So rendering Javascript is a pretty significant part of how fast a website displays, aside from how fast the internet connection works.

So Jscript is one reason why, when you put your iPhone and your notebook computer on the same WiFi network, your iPhone still takes much longer to render a page than your computer does.

It's also the major reason why Safari and Chrome are said to be so much faster than other web browsers -- recently there's been a lot of progress in how to render Javascript, and most of the speed difference between Safari and Chrome and... Firefox, Opera, and IE, is because of javascript rendering speed.

Thank you for explaining. :)

[Mr Maui]

There are those out there who will still complain that despite these types of results from independent testers, that the G3S is not fast enough, and will further complain that although it is faster and offers more/improved features (for the same price) from the 3G, that it is STILL a MINOR upgrade. Hopefully they'll all find themselves posting on PreRumors.com (way popular) or G1Rumors.com (way, Way, WAY popular). :p

[Daniel0418]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

[windywoo]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

[Goona]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

Right there is a huge media bias against the Pre after they hyped it for the past 6 months.

[Goona]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

Which phone is that?

[sellitom]

iPhone ftw.

[iPhoneNYC]

I find it very interesting of the speed bump from just the new software. I'm sure that will make the folks waiting to upgrade happy.

[Lesser Evets]

Wowzers.

What will it be in 2 or 3 years when Apple has fully fleshed out their portable phone/internet tech? 2x baseline of a low end notebook? Technology is going to be leaping by the 20-teens.

[Prof.]

Is anyone actually shocked by this? Of course the iPhone is faster.

Superior Software + Superior Hardware = Superior Product.:cool:

[JBaker122586]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

First of all, this is about Javascript interpretation within the web browser.
Nothing more, nothing less. These are with benchmark tests I believe provided by Sun, so there's absolutely no bias involved.
Whether Sprint's 3G is faster than AT&T or has a stronger signal at your house or the CNet office has absolutely no bearing on the JS rendering ability of the phone.

[GoneFishing]

No competition here. Obviously the White Macbook finished first in the group. Guess I'm getting a macbook then. :p

[JBaker122586]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

They're not comparing it to the Razr, they're comparing it to the Pre (you know, the $300-$100MIR phone with 8GB of storage), and the G1 (the $150 phone with 256MB of built-in storage).

[InkMaster]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

Then going by that theory, shouldn't some of the high end Nokia phones blow away anything else? ...in theory at least :p

[heffeque]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

What does sending pictures and rendering pages have to do with javascript? I'm confused.

[Blunk]

Let me add iPod Touch 2G Benchmark

Thanks 3.0 Copy&Paste :D

http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html


--------------------------------------------
Total: 31864.4ms +/- 2.3%
--------------------------------------------

3d: 5623.0ms +/- 3.1%
cube: 1569.6ms +/- 4.6%
morph: 2125.8ms +/- 9.3%
raytrace: 1927.6ms +/- 6.4%

access: 3324.6ms +/- 3.7%
binary-trees: 460.8ms +/- 11.6%
fannkuch: 712.2ms +/- 6.0%
nbody: 1834.8ms +/- 3.8%
nsieve: 316.8ms +/- 2.4%

bitops: 1573.0ms +/- 9.6%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 245.4ms +/- 1.8%
bits-in-byte: 318.2ms +/- 1.7%
bitwise-and: 327.8ms +/- 3.4%
nsieve-bits: 681.6ms +/- 23.2%

controlflow: 308.8ms +/- 52.3%
recursive: 308.8ms +/- 52.3%

crypto: 1702.2ms +/- 0.9%
aes: 564.4ms +/- 4.7%
md5: 589.0ms +/- 4.1%
sha1: 548.8ms +/- 5.3%

date: 3916.4ms +/- 6.2%
format-tofte: 1436.2ms +/- 5.7%
format-xparb: 2480.2ms +/- 8.8%

math: 3863.6ms +/- 3.2%
cordic: 1283.2ms +/- 7.8%
partial-sums: 1878.2ms +/- 3.9%
spectral-norm: 702.2ms +/- 9.7%

regexp: 2610.2ms +/- 0.7%
dna: 2610.2ms +/- 0.7%

string: 8942.6ms +/- 1.8%
base64: 852.6ms +/- 5.0%
fasta: 1421.8ms +/- 5.5%
tagcloud: 2210.0ms +/- 1.9%
unpack-code: 2527.8ms +/- 2.9%
validate-input: 1930.4ms +/- 1.9%

[evilspoons]

Is anyone actually shocked by this? Of course the iPhone is faster.

Superior Software + Superior Hardware = Superior Product.:cool:

Superior hardware? It's got virtually the same graphics core and CPU (ARM Cortex A8) as the Pre. Obviously it's software. The Pre is brand new, whereas the iPhone is in its third iteration. I'm not arguing the iPhone isn't running Javascript faster, but if you're gonna be smugly superior (for some reason) at least be right about it.

[kdarling]

The good thing is, contests keep all sides constantly improving. Love it.

One thing about this benchmark, though. It says:

"This benchmark tests the core JavaScript language only, not the DOM or other browser APIs."

I wonder why they didn't find a DOM test to run as well? It's crucial in AJAX apps.

[zacman]

Then going by that theory, shouldn't some of the high end Nokia phones blow away anything else? ...in theory at least :p

Symbian supports Opera mini which runs circles around any other custom webkit browser.

[NinjaHERO]

Wow, I really feel good about my 3.0 software now. And good for the Palm Pre. I realize it's fighting a year old 3G phone, but to tie it is something at least.

[Stridder44]

So the iPhone 3GS did the worst? It took the most time to complete. It says time completed in seconds. I'd assume lower would be better, as in fewer seconds, which means faster. :confused: I must be reading this graph way wrong.

[HyperZboy]

Symbian supports Opera mini which runs circles around any other custom webkit browser.

I don't completely doubt your speed claim, but do you have any documentation on that?

Regardless, Opera on Macs is so buggy with so many websites and so much slower than Firefox and Safari, it really makes that claim difficult for me to believe or worthy of interest. Even if its true, Opera still has so many website incompatibilities, it's almost not worth trying just for that reason alone.

I give Opera a try like every year or so, and I'm always impressed with several clever things, but ultimately disappointed in actual regular usage.
Maybe the Windows version is significantly better ???

[Feng Shui]

Introducing the all new, state of the art, ultra compact, super fast, Palm Pre. A whole 0.1 second faster than the iPhone 3G in JavaScript performance. Who said there would be a iPhone 3G S? Crap.

[LAS.mac]

So, this means that my 1 year old iPhone 3 G with 3.0 update is almos as fast as the new, shiny Pre...
Good. Now that I have Documents to Go I'm almost set
:D:D:D:D:D

[Yuniverse]

So the iPhone 3GS did the worst? It took the most time to complete. It says time completed in seconds. I'd assume lower would be better, as in fewer seconds, which means faster. :confused: I must be reading this graph way wrong.

3GS <17 sec
Pre <39 sec

yes, you are reading it way wrong.

[windywoo]

I thought the Palm Pre was $200 and the G1 was on Amazon at $99? Maybe I've just been seeing bargain prices.

[em500]

Superior hardware? It's got virtually the same graphics core and CPU (ARM Cortex A8) as the Pre. Obviously it's software. The Pre is brand new, whereas the iPhone is in its third iteration. I'm not arguing the iPhone isn't running Javascript faster, but if you're gonna be smugly superior (for some reason) at least be right about it.

Yup. I expect that the Pre will almost match the 3GS when/if they update the webbrowser. Currently it's based on Webkit 525, just like Safari in iPhone with OS 2.2.1. Between Webkit 525 and 528 (in iPhone OS 3.0) they updated the Javascript interpreter to the new Squirrelfish Extreme engine, which speeds up Javascript tremendously. On the iPhone 3G you can see that the software update alone gave it a boost of 2.75x on this benchmark with the same hardware. If the Pre gets a similar boost when they update to Webkit 528, they should be able to complete it in 17.7s, which is almost as fast as the 3GS. Which is to be expected, as the CPUs of the 3GS and the Pre are very similar, and this Javascript benchmark is very CPU dependent.

The G1 is a different story. The CPU is quite different, but they might also be using a custom Javascript interpreter as as well.

[Yuniverse]

Introducing the all new, state of the art, ultra compact, super fast, Palm Pre. A whole 0.1 second faster than the iPhone 3G in JavaScript performance. Who said there would be a iPhone 3G S? Crap.

LOL:D

[agfrg]

Just tested SunSpider (to the guy saying that it was done by Sun: that's not true, the benchmark was designed by the WebKit team) on my 3G with 3.0 and I just have to say this: 42.2s

I'm blown away!

[Yuniverse]

I thought the Palm Pre was $200 and the G1 was on Amazon at $99? Maybe I've just been seeing bargain prices.

You're right, however, Pre is $300 - $100 mail-in rebate = $200 except when you get it from BestBuy which would be $100 instant rebate.

G1 is $100 on Amazon, but so is iPhone 3G

[donny77]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

The Benchmarks clearly state they are rendering javascript that is already downloaded. In the wild you are seeing the download plus render. So Sprint's network is either faster than AT&T's (possible) or just less congested (highly possible.) Remember, a cell tower is a shared connection. The more devices hit the tower, the less pie everyone gets. AT&T has the most customers of the networks, and therefore you can assume more customers per tower.

[Snide]

Why didn't they test the original iPhone as well?

I'd love to see how the improvement is even on EDGE with the 3.0 software.

Last night I tested my iPhone 2G (3.0) against my friend's 3GS (both iPhones on EDGE)
at a bar where reception was not so great - ie where I got 74 kbps on Speedtest.net.
We loaded MacRumors home page as well as a few other sites, and his phone rendered them
significantly faster, although it took perhaps 30 seconds for anything to appear due to the weak signal.

[HyperZboy]

The Benchmarks clearly state they are rendering javascript that is already downloaded. In the wild you are seeing the download plus render. So Sprint's network is either faster than AT&T's (possible) or just less congested (highly possible.) Remember, a cell tower is a shared connection. The more devices hit the tower, the less pie everyone gets. AT&T has the most customers of the networks, and therefore you can assume more customers per tower.

I don't think people will ever get that coverage and speeds varies by market.
Overall, VERIZON and ATT probably have the best coverage & speed in most major markets.
But basically, your mileage may vary depending on where you live.

In my area, SPRINT is already doing 4G so their phones would have a distinct advantage not at all shown in these numbers, certainly in overall speed, BUT ONLY WHERE I LIVE, not where anyone ELSE LIVES!
Funny thing is, I've always found Sprint coverage around here to be pretty shabby, so what good is 4G if you can't get a signal? LOL

[soup4you2]

But which one runs flash faster?

[DELLsFan]

But which one runs flash faster?

Ah haha! ;)

Still ... quite impressive performance otherwise. Now next year's model:

... might be twice as fast ...

... might have a front facing camera ...

... might have a matte case ...

... might come with 64GB memory and more RAM ...

... might be less expensive than the 3GS ...

... might have Voice Activation (not Voice Control ... I KNOW what that is) support for BT devices ...

... might have better battery life ...

[SandynJosh]

I am really starting to not trust these benchmarks. At my house on wifi and with 3G my dads pre always loads faster than my 3GS and I have 5 bars he only has 3... Also on c.net the pre won aswell in sending pictures and rendering pages. And my sisters G1 is slower than my 3GS but not by that much... I am starting to sense a huge bias. Oh well never can trust the media.

Hello Daniel...having trouble reading the posts the preceded your own? Or did you just skip right to bellyaching?

All this tests does is show that the iPhone's ability to render javascript is three times faster than your dad's pré. It does not measure anything else, such as how the AT&T cell towers in your neighborhood may be loaded heavily with digital traffic compared to Sprint's traffic. Don't forget AT&T is handling millions and millions of iPhone traffic compared to Sprint's thousands and thousands.

Finally, three bars to five bars doesn't speed up things. That's just a measure of signal strength. Once a phone has two or three bars, more won't speed things up.

Your accusation of media bias in this case is based on your own ignorance of the facts.

[SandynJosh]

So the iPhone 3GS did the worst? It took the most time to complete. It says time completed in seconds. I'd assume lower would be better, as in fewer seconds, which means faster. :confused: I must be reading this graph way wrong.

You are not only reading the graph way wrong, but you're not even reading the text that went with it.

[Drag'nGT]

Now we just need flash support. :p

[Chase R]

Now we just need flash support. :p

+1

I have a feeling it's coming... 3.1 or 3.2?

[clevin]

using js test to judge desktop browser speed is useless enough, using js test to judge mobile browsers is even more absurd.

testing something you don't use for 99% of the time means what?

[RBilRamZ]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

Twice as expensive, based on what math/logic?

I thought the Palm Pre was $200 and the G1 was on Amazon at $99? Maybe I've just been seeing bargain prices.

An 8gb Pre (w/ 2-year contract) is $199 after mail in rebate
A 16gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $199 (no rebate necessary)
A 32gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $299 (no rebate necessary)

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

[SandynJosh]

What will it be in 2 or 3 years when Apple has fully fleshed out their portable phone/internet tech? 2x baseline of a low end notebook? Technology is going to be leaping by the 20-teens.

There will still be those who will saying that whatever future version of phone newly announced, that "this is the phone Apple should have first come out with."

[SandynJosh]

If my phone cost twice as much as the other phones I would expect it to be better in Java benchmarks.

they have an app for you called "Bejeweled."

[Iroganai]

I have a feeling it's coming... 3.1 or 3.2?
I don't think so. Apple is trying to beat Flash on the mobile space; they won't allow Flash on iPhone until they admit "defeat".

[ckorhonen]

using js test to judge desktop browser speed is useless enough, using js test to judge mobile browsers is even more absurd.

testing something you don't use for 99% of the time means what?

They aren't using it to test browser speed - the article explains that they chose JavaScript performance because it provides one of the only fair comparisons between the different platforms.

Comparing CPU's based on MHz is generally meaningless when you are talking about different operating systems and hardware architectures. Similarly, at an application level its also hard to compare Android with Objective-C with WebOS because of the massive differences between each of them.

However, both the G1, Pre and iPhone share WebKit - the engine used in the respective web browsers, leading to a fair ground for benchmarking raw performance of the respective phones, relevant to each other.

[mkrishnan]

Just tested SunSpider (to the guy saying that it was done by Sun: that's not true, the benchmark was designed by the WebKit team) on my 3G with 3.0 and I just have to say this: 42.2s

Since we were talking about the EDGE iPhone in comparison to the 3G, my original iPhone 8GB with 3.0 just scored a 47.5s, which is right along the lines of the test value for the iPhone 3G. I didn't try resetting it or anything -- I just went to the site.

[windywoo]

Twice as expensive, based on what math/logic?



An 8gb Pre (w/ 2-year contract) is $199 after mail in rebate
A 16gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $199 (no rebate necessary)
A 32gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $299 (no rebate necessary)

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

Based on contract prices. Someone said their Sprint bill was roughly half that of AT&T. I'm not sure about T-Mobile.

[Goona]

Based on contract prices. Someone said their Sprint bill was roughly half that of AT&T. I'm not sure about T-Mobile.

Can anyone prove this because I doubt this.

[twoodcc]

wow, that's great. looking forward to getting a new iphone 3gs soon!

[Daniel0418]

Hello Daniel...having trouble reading the posts the preceded your own? Or did you just skip right to bellyaching?

All this tests does is show that the iPhone's ability to render javascript is three times faster than your dad's pré. It does not measure anything else, such as how the AT&T cell towers in your neighborhood may be loaded heavily with digital traffic compared to Sprint's traffic. Don't forget AT&T is handling millions and millions of iPhone traffic compared to Sprint's thousands and thousands.

Finally, three bars to five bars doesn't speed up things. That's just a measure of signal strength. Once a phone has two or three bars, more won't speed things up.

Your accusation of media bias in this case is based on your own ignorance of the facts.

Hmmm yes attack me. Anyway there is no way its 3x faster with exact same hardware specs. Anway I want my 199 back... Shoulda kept 3G phone :(

[Daniel0418]

Twice as expensive, based on what math/logic?



An 8gb Pre (w/ 2-year contract) is $199 after mail in rebate
A 16gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $199 (no rebate necessary)
A 32gb iPhone 3GS (w/ 2-year contract is $299 (no rebate necessary)

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

The pre is 199.99 without rebate at best buy and radioshack. Also the hard drive is fairly unnecessary seeing as most people have 120 GB or the older 160 gb ipods.

[Goona]

The pre is 199.99 without rebate at best buy and radioshack. Also the hard drive is fairly unnecessary seeing as most people have 120 GB or the older 160 gb ipods.

Going by your logic, there shouldn't be any storage increases because everybody has ipods and want to carry around 2 devices. What about the photos we take, our videos, our apps, we should we store all that. I guess we should be storing them on our 120 gb ipods.

[kghoops]

Hmmm yes attack me. Anyway there is no way its 3x faster with exact same hardware specs. Anway I want my 199 back... Shoulda kept 3G phone :(

You don't have any concept of how software works, do you?

[mkrishnan]

Based on contract prices. Someone said their Sprint bill was roughly half that of AT&T. I'm not sure about T-Mobile.

Contract prices are slightly lower on T-Mobile (I pay for 3G but do not get it on the iPhone), although some of their prices have recently gone up. The effect is more pronounced for older contract holders. If I compare my contract to AT&T published prices...

Me = 1000 min @39.99, 400 SMS @4.99, Internet @ 19.99 = 64.97

The closest currently published T-Mobile plan (for comparison) is...

T-Mobile = 1000 min @39.99, Internet @24.99, 300 SMS @4.99 = 69.97

The closest published AT&T plan is...

AT&T = 900 min @59.99, 200 SMS @$5, data @$30 = 94.99

I think? It was a little hard to find a non-unlimited SMS plan on the T-Mobile site -- the price I put in above for 300 SMS is quoted when I searched for text messaging, but it didn't come up in the options when I tried to price out a G1 + plan. If unlimited messaging were done instead, then for the published T-Mobile plan, the internet rate jumps from $25 to $35 (but the $5 for SMS gets removed, so unlimited msging costs $5 additional to what's listed above) and for AT&T the messaging plan cost jumps from $5 to $20, so the published price difference becomes T-Mobile = $74.98 and AT&T = $109.99.

This is without MyFaves on the T-Mobile side; T-Mobile includes wireless hotspots on any device (I'm not sure if AT&T finally does that now, or if it's still officially only the iPhone) and AT&T includes rollover minutes, which T-Mobile does not.

This is also exclusive of any kind of corporate or FAN discounts. And it's exclusive of fees (I think fees may magnify the difference slightly, since I think some but not all fees scale slightly with the total monthly costs).

Of course this is also exclusive of all kinds of other differences like how many hotspots AT&T maintains vs. T-Mobile, how big the relative 3G coverage areas are, etc, etc.

So, from these calculations, based on the published rates for T-Mobile (not Sprint) and AT&T, at roughly comparable levels of plan feature, the T-Mobile plan cost is 74% of AT&T assuming limited messaging and 68% of AT&T assuming unlimited messaging.

I think if anyone is arriving at "half the cost," they are comparing a corporate discount / FAN type of plan on one network to a standard published rate plan on the other network, though.

EDIT: I don't completely understand how Sprint messaging pricing works, but the best comparison to the above numbers seems to be the "Everything Data" plan with 900 minutes, which is $89.99 for 900 minutes, data, and unlimited messaging, 81% of AT&T's cost. It seems to me that the biggest advantage arises on the Sprint published plan rates when one pays for unlimited everything -- this is only $99.99 on Sprint, and I think the comparable AT&T individual plan is $129.99 (unlimited talk and data) + $20 for unlimited messaging, which makes the Sprint plan 67% of AT&T's cost.

[alhedges]

using js test to judge desktop browser speed is useless enough, using js test to judge mobile browsers is even more absurd.

testing something you don't use for 99% of the time means what?

I think that this is a really good point. I am, of course, happy to have upgraded my 3G from 2.2.1 to 3.0, but in my practical, everyday use, I have seen no real improvement in speed. And certainly nothing like the improvement suggested by the graph on page 1. Again, I'm not saying that the graph isn't accurate; I'm just saying it is pointless.

[island]

Contract prices are slightly lower on T-Mobile (I pay for 3G but do not get it on the iPhone), although some of their prices have recently gone up. The effect is more pronounced for older contract holders.

I think if anyone is arriving at "half the cost," they are comparing a corporate discount / FAN type of plan on one network to a standard published rate plan on the other network, though.


I have a "FAN" discount on AT&T which gives me around 20-22% off my total bill which helps out and all it took was a quick visit to the store and a quick chat. If you find a nice rep they would add you on to save you some cash - it adds up with 5 lines.

[mkrishnan]

I have a "FAN" discount on AT&T which gives me around 20-22% off my total bill which helps out and all it took was a quick visit to the store and a quick chat. If you find a nice rep they would add you on to save you some cash - it adds up with 5 lines.

Thanks -- yeah, I would definitely consider trying to do it if I got a 3GS. For the time being, I was just addressing the issue of published contract monthly costs. Every company has a FAN or corporate discount, and on average it doesn't seem like any one vendor's discount is any harder to get, so I guess that particular aspect is a wash in comparing the plans.