Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, this article is leading me to believe ATT will be an inferior product as opposed to the Verizon version. Is this what we are to take from it?

Only if you are technically inept.
*ouch* sorry....

But, on the real- LTE speeds are on average 9-12mbps (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/2/10893088/america-us-lte-4g-coverage-speeds).
Soooooooo.... the difference between whether your "theoretical max" is 45 times higher than what you will see, or 60 times higher than what you will see, is NOT of the slightest consequence.
Would you care whether your car had a top speed of 9000 mph vs 6000 mph if you never drove over 110 mph??
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacSlut
Uhhh no. Sorry mate? It needs to go. That piece of hardware has bugged me. From the beginning. And I have nothing but admiration. The idea he puts across is that of the generalists ideals. But everyone needs to help in ridding the world of the 3.5mm jack.
 
And queue the posts here switching their iPhones around, even though the real life LTE speed from any of the carriers will hardly reach the limit of the slower modem.
 
LOL! As far as my use case, this iPhone 7 is dead on arrival.

I am absolutely happy with my new iPhone SE 64GB, bought cash-and-carry.

Great weight, one-hand UI, battery, analog headphone port, A9 internals, and $100s cheaper than the "next-gen" "big-brother."

Faster theoretical modem LTE? No analog headphone socket?

SMDVH. LOL!
 
At the end of the day, it boils down to reliability. Its not even about the theoretical speed, since you won't achieve it either Qualcomm or Intel in real world scenarios. I just hope Intel will be able to keep up and innovate. We all see whats happened on the desktop CPU side with the recent delays of Broadwell and the move to a Tick-tock-tock cycle. Also the company's history in mobile has been quite lacklustre.
 
Only if you are technically inept.
*ouch* sorry....

But, on the real- LTE speeds are on average 9-12mbps (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/2/10893088/america-us-lte-4g-coverage-speeds).
Soooooooo.... the difference between whether your "theoretical max" is 45 times higher than what you will see, or 60 times higher than what you will see, is NOT of the slightest consequence.
Would you care whether your car had a top speed of 9000 mph vs 6000 mph if you never drove over 110 mph??

ouch. technically challenged sometimes, inept- nah

Further to my thinking:
Qualcomm is the "best" intel, not so in this category as per article mentioned herein.

Forums that have hissy fits include but are not limited to:
Samsung VS. LG/ Screens
Samsung SSD's vs. Toshiba

on and on...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tycho24
It's not only about the speeds. Intel's modem doesn't support a laundry list of features that could be beneficial to users like:

- EVS for VoLTE
- Improved Wi-Fi detection algorithm for better Wi-Fi Calling experience
- 4x4 MIMO
- 256 QAM
- Uplink Carrier Aggregation with 64 QAM

So for US operators like T-Mobile with EVS, Wi-Fi Calling launched and 4x4 MIMO and 256 QAM about to be, Intel simply can't be a better option.

Verizon is also about to be turning on 4x4 MIMO, and both AT&T and Verizon use Wi-Fi Calling and could benefit from X12 features.

If indeed Apple is diversifying the chain, it would make much more sense to split between the markets (US, Asia, Europe, etc) instead of splitting between the US operators. Makes no sense to me.
 
I have trouble caring about this in any way. I'm on AT&T in the bay area, "silicon valley", home of tech, and there are so many dead spots around here I'm pretty much constantly struggling to even stream music. In a few places I see maybe 30-50Mbps, but most of the time it feels more like 1-2. Frequently even though the phone says LTE, I literally have no connection and I have to go in and shut off LTE (back to "4G" on the AT&T network) just to get connected at all. So I have a hard time imagining there will be ANY practical difference between 500 vs 600 Mbps download and 100 / 150 upload.
 
What's the point of faster LTE when it just means your data cap runs out sooner?

/pretends like it's not just snark

Better battery life (racing to idle by using the modem and screen less), less lag time between user requests and input, not to mention the cap doesn't run out sooner if you request the same amount of data, you just finish looking at it sooner.
 
Only if you are technically inept.
*ouch* sorry....

But, on the real- LTE speeds are on average 9-12mbps (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/2/10893088/america-us-lte-4g-coverage-speeds).
Soooooooo.... the difference between whether your "theoretical max" is 45 times higher than what you will see, or 60 times higher than what you will see, is NOT of the slightest consequence.
Would you care whether your car had a top speed of 9000 mph vs 6000 mph if you never drove over 110 mph??

Only if you are geografically inept.
*ouch* sorry....

Like the US is the world...
 
Yet none of these speeds will matter much when you mostly only get 1 or 2 bars of signal strength. If a majority of people got 5 bars of signal then yeah these speeds would be enough to warrant an upgrade. You will only ever be as fast as the strength of your cell signal...
 
Thus ends the Verizon's run of having the best iPhone for multi-carrier/unlocked/ use and resale value.
That ended this year. The SIM-free version of the 6s is identical to the AT&T version and supports Band 30.
 
That is entirely false. There's a direct relationship between the technologies that enable the peak speeds and real world experience. Real world experience scales with the relative gains between the peak speeds.

Add to that the difference in performance when implementing the exact same feature.
[doublepost=1465575550][/doublepost]

Actually it would be the exact opposite of this.

You sure on that? I'd agree with you if people were getting moderately high speeds. We're talking about 450 mbps vs 600 mbps LTE modems. I haven't heard of any regions getting anywhere near that.

Yes, if you're nearing the peak (say, AT&T is delivering you 400), you might get better results with the 600, because you rarely get a perfect signal. But currently, the 2016 4G average is 9.9 Mbps.

Even if you're in a region getting 50 mbps peak, I don't think you're going to be affected. By the time we start hitting 200 mbps peaks and this might start to matter, the phone will likely be obsolete.

It's like debating whether 802.11n or 802.11ac will get you better speeds out of your 10 mbps internet connection. (Ignoring the range differences between those standards.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacSlut and Tycho24
You sure on that? I'd agree with you if people were getting moderately high speeds. We're talking about 450 mbps vs 600 mbps LTE modems. I haven't heard of any regions getting anywhere near that.

Yes, if you're nearing the peak (say, AT&T is delivering you 400), you might get better results with the 600, because you rarely get a perfect signal. But currently, the 2016 4G average is 9.9 Mbps.

Even if you're in a region getting 50 mbps peak, I don't think you're going to be affected. By the time we start hitting 200 mbps peaks and this might start to matter, the phone will likely be obsolete.

It's like debating whether 802.11n or 802.11ac will get you better speeds out of your 10 mbps internet connection. (Ignoring the range differences between those standards.)

Yes, I am 100% sure about that. Let me explain.

When it comes to LTE modems, the advertised peak speed is essentially short-hand for a bundle of underlying technologies.

For example, an LTE modem that supports 450 Mbps peak download speed (Cat 9) means that it features:
  • Aggregating three LTE connections simultaneously
  • Receiving data on two antennas simultaneously
  • Enough signal processing horsepower to decode a max of 6 bits out of information out of every LTE transmission received from the tower.
On the other hand, a modem that support 600 Mbps peak download speed (Cat 12) means that in addition to all of the above, it can decode 8 bits out of every LTE transmission from the tower. It also supports features like receiving data on 4 antennas simultaneously instead of only 2.

Now, why do you as the user care?

Because receiving data on 3 connections simultaneously is faster than receiving on only one connection. The typical LTE smartphone has peak 150 Mbps LTE download speed, which is possible with only one LTE connection. Let's say that out of the 150 peak, you're getting 9.9 Mbps in the real world. Well, now let's say you have a modem with 450 Mbps peak. That 9.9 could become ~ 30 Mbps. Triple the actual real-world speed. And if you had a modem that went further by supporting the more sophisticated signal processing, that real-world speed gets an addition 33% boost, going from 30 Mbps to 40 Mbps.

So will you ever achieve those peak theoretical speeds? No. But what you will really get is the *relative gain*. That's the important thing here. These features are all speed multipliers, independent of what the absolute value of the speeds you're getting.

Here's a video that shows the effect of carrier aggregation - going from 110 Mbps to 220 Mbps peak on Sprint's network. Did the phone with carrier aggregation actually get 220 Mbps? No. But it did get twice the speed of the phone that doesn't support carrier aggregation.

And yes indeed, these feature are actually really launched in other networks around the world. Australia, South Korea, Japan...and they will indeed be launched in the US over the next year. How long does the average user keep their phone? Having these features built into the phone means that a year after purchase the phone gets better as the operators turn on those features in their networks. How many other technologies inside a phone get better with age instead of worse?
 
It's not only about the speeds. Intel's modem doesn't support a laundry list of features that could be beneficial to users like:

- EVS for VoLTE
- Improved Wi-Fi detection algorithm for better Wi-Fi Calling experience
- 4x4 MIMO
- 256 QAM
- Uplink Carrier Aggregation with 64 QAM

So for US operators like T-Mobile with EVS, Wi-Fi Calling launched and 4x4 MIMO and 256 QAM about to be, Intel simply can't be a better option.

Verizon is also about to be turning on 4x4 MIMO, and both AT&T and Verizon use Wi-Fi Calling and could benefit from X12 features.

If indeed Apple is diversifying the chain, it would make much more sense to split between the markets (US, Asia, Europe, etc) instead of splitting between the US operators. Makes no sense to me.
This assumes Apple will enable all the additional features in Qualcomm's modem. They might only enable an equivalent feature-set to avoid this controversy. It might simplify their testing and certification as well.
 
/pretends like it's not just snark

Better battery life (racing to idle by using the modem and screen less), less lag time between user requests and input, not to mention the cap doesn't run out sooner if you request the same amount of data, you just finish looking at it sooner.

500 web pages is still the same amount of data at faster LTE or at 3G speeds.

If instead of working more efficiently and just being done faster, you choose look at another 500 web pages then yes, you will use more data.

If you do exactly the same on a slow or a fast connection there will be no difference, point is that this is not the case.
Real world example, I want to look at a youtube video, about 30 seconds later I decide it's crap, the fast connection has downloaded the whole 100 MB video, the slow one just 10MB, so, it does make a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garylapointe
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.