Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next iPhone Will Reportedly Have "Global [4G] LTE Support"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LTE came out and the battery life was atrocious, now they will be able to offer comparable battery life to 3G phones, and improving on that with each release (we hope).
Depends on who you ask. I for one wouldn't care if it was LTE or 3G. Or, I might care if it being LTE is AT&T's excuse for making me get rid of my unlimited plan. Cause then I'd actually have preferred it stay 3G (I have no real complaints about 3G connection. Sure, LTE will be faster but I'm not actually frustrated by the speed my data connects on my phone. And I'm on a 4 that doesn't have the better antenna like the 4S that apparently loads data faster or whatnot).
It matters now because carriers are finally starting to roll out their LTE!! Even sprint is starting to catch up to AT&T in rolling out LTE and I even think sprint will roll ahead of AT&T because sprint is determined to have all 3G spots covered in LTE by the end of 2013
Tell that to AT&T.
I seriously want to know should we be expecting speeds of +20 Mbps or not with the iPhone 5.
sigh... not w/ the same power consumption. I like LTE, just don't love how much battery it sucks out of the current devices. Android LTE phones are like buying a car that can run really fast, but you have to stop every 1/4 mile to fill it up w/ gas.
Do you know if AT&T has any yet? From what I hear is AT&T is behind in LTE technology
I hope this is true, Apple will be a laughing stock if they release an all new iPhone without 4G internationally when others have had 4G phones on the market for the last year.
I would assume the same chipset would be inside the iPad Mini and new 'full size' iPad.
I would assume the same chipset would be inside the iPad Mini and new 'full size' iPad.
So true. My friend had an Android phone a year & half ago and switch to iPhone because the battery life was terrible. He would have to charge his phone all the time
It's funny how you choose to ignore the reason Apple didn't include 4G and instead pretend that Apple decided it didn't matter. What they had to decide, more or less, was whether it mattered enough to make it worth the hit to the battery life it would have required, thereby making the iPhone as terrible as every one else's phones. It was a considered choice. Battery life or Faster data. Given that the iPhone has remained successful as have several competing phones that went the other route, cold, hard logic would suggest that neither choice was wrong or right for everyone. That's why it's good to have competition. Different ways of doing similar things provide the consumer with choices that are meaningful to them.
And along comes Qualcomm with a solution to everyone's problem. Win Win!
Why the need for LTE?
I´m seriously interested in understanding the need for LTE on a smartphone...
Can someone explain this to me? I understand the benefits if you want to replace your existing ADSL broadband or even cable broadband (Not fibre) with a mobile broadband that delivers higher speeds. But not entirely...I´ll explain why later...
What I do not understand is the need for the speed on a smartphone. The iPhone 4s delivers speeds to about 14 Mbit on 3G network, what do you do on your smartphone that demands higher speeds? Do you want to download apps 2 sek faster? Do you want pages to load 1 sek faster in safari? Do you want to recieve the mail 0,5 sek faster? I just don´t get it.
About mobile broadband here in sweden...
Every contract (on all carriers) that offers 3G or even 4G has a datalimit. The datalimit differ from contract to contract and from carrier to carrier. On mobile broadband the limits offered are between 1 GB to about 50 GB/ month. The problem here is that when you download movies, songs, games and play online regularly, you exceed this limit in about a day or two. That´s why it is not an option for most users to replace the existing broadband at home. I understand the use for it for students or people that travel alot, bur other than that, i don´t see the point. Even less if you have a smartphone that you can use as a mobile broadbandmodem (tethering).
Conclusions are that if you travel alot and have a smartphone, you can tether with an ipad or computer and would therefore benefit from higher speeds. For normal users that travel between home and work and use their smartphone only would not need the higher speeds...
What do you guys think?
I´m seriously interested in understanding the need for LTE on a smartphone...
Can someone explain this to me? I understand the benefits if you want to replace your existing ADSL broadband or even cable broadband (Not fibre) with a mobile broadband that delivers higher speeds. But not entirely...I´ll explain why later...
What I do not understand is the need for the speed on a smartphone. The iPhone 4s delivers speeds to about 14 Mbit on 3G network, what do you do on your smartphone that demands higher speeds? Do you want to download apps 2 sek faster? Do you want pages to load 1 sek faster in safari? Do you want to recieve the mail 0,5 sek faster? I just don´t get it.
About mobile broadband here in sweden...
Every contract (on all carriers) that offers 3G or even 4G has a datalimit. The datalimit differ from contract to contract and from carrier to carrier. On mobile broadband the limits offered are between 1 GB to about 50 GB/ month. The problem here is that when you download movies, songs, games and play online regularly, you exceed this limit in about a day or two. That´s why it is not an option for most users to replace the existing broadband at home. I understand the use for it for students or people that travel alot, bur other than that, i don´t see the point. Even less if you have a smartphone that you can use as a mobile broadbandmodem (tethering).
Conclusions are that if you travel alot and have a smartphone, you can tether with an ipad or computer and would therefore benefit from higher speeds. For normal users that travel between home and work and use their smartphone only would not need the higher speeds...
What do you guys think?
So?
I played with an lte phone at an AT&T store the other day and wasn't impressed
What good was the 4G when it sucked the battery life of the phones so badly people were tied to their chargers like umbilical cords.
Yep, great feature.
Couldn't say it any better, totally agree. Apple has always been know for and will be forever is battery life & efficiency. It's the reason 6 years ago or so Apple switch their computers from PowerPC to Intel processors because the battery life to power was not efficient enough
That means it'll work on T-Mobile's LTE network
If only Apple had allowed the iPhones up to now to use on 1700MHz, they'd be able to run on T-Mobile's HSPA+ too :/
If only Apple had allowed the iPhones up to now to use on 1700MHz, they'd be able to run on T-Mobile's HSPA+ too :/
It's a fairly big deal here in the U.S. for Verizon customers who want faster data speeds and want the ability to talk and use data simultaneously over the cell network.
Verizon has the largest coverage area here in the U.S., but its 3G network is quite a bit slower than other 3G networks around the world as well as AT&T's 3G network here in the U.S.
The next iPhone will be the first really big test for Verizon's LTE network. People are typically getting 20-45 Mbps down on the network right now; but it'll be interesting to see how that throughput is impacted when a bunch of LTE iPhones hop on the network.
I for one just hope Apple pulls something out of the bag next week because otherwise this tsunami of leaks has completely destroyed any sense of excitement. I feel I already know pretty much what the iPhone 5 will be, I'm already over the honeymoon 'shock' period and am more or less at the 'meh' stage before the darn thing has even been announced. It's pretty dispiriting to be honest and I can't help but go all nostalgic over the Steve Jobs blanket secrecy, deliberate misinformation 'one more thing' era...sigh....
I don't think it'd make much difference to me whether the next iPhone will have 3G. I've had a 3G phone since 2006 and it's only recently that i've had a reliable 3G signal where I need it. I got a 3G signal in the centre of Glasgow but at home and work (northern suburbs of Glasgow) I only got a 3G signal outdoors.
It'll probably be years before I see a reliable 4G signal so what I'm wanting from the next iPhone is processor speed, more RAM and a better camera. Flash (proper camera flash that is) would be good too but not holding my breath. I'd also like a phone that would survive the odd drop to a hard surface without a case, but foresee me buying a case too.
It'll probably be years before I see a reliable 4G signal so what I'm wanting from the next iPhone is processor speed, more RAM and a better camera. Flash (proper camera flash that is) would be good too but not holding my breath. I'd also like a phone that would survive the odd drop to a hard surface without a case, but foresee me buying a case too.
Sacramento is listed as "Coming Soon" for AT&T LTE. They definitely got a late start on deployment. As far as current LTE coverage across the U.S., Verizon leads by a lot, AT&T is second, and Sprint is way behind. I think Sprint is only in six or seven markets at present.
The big push for LTE, and faster data speeds, is simple; Cloud Computing, Streaming Video, Online Gaming, VoIP, Video Calling, and I could go on.
The problem lies as technology grows, the demand for faster speeds grows with it. Remember when 28.8 Kbps modems were around. No one ever complained, they loaded internet pages just fine and the local AOL chatroom. Then digital cameras took off, 56K was introduce, and webpages started hosting larger content (i.e. pics, small low quality videos; real player)
Now you have services like dropbox, while HSPA+ networks are sufficient to some degree, you have people like Apple, Google, Amazon, all pushing for "Cloud" computing.
I don't care about LTE.
I'm perfectly happy with my HSPA+ GSM service.
However, Apple was smart not to jump on the LTE bandwagon early. Battery life with those old chips was awful.
I'm perfectly happy with my HSPA+ GSM service.
However, Apple was smart not to jump on the LTE bandwagon early. Battery life with those old chips was awful.