For all those wanting 4G: study says most people don't care

[Centient]

I'm more interested in screen size/quality, UI/functionality (e.g. NFC), reception, and phone durability/reliability.

More speed is certainly better, but I don't want 4G at the expense of battery life. At this point, with the current crop of 4G devices, that seems to be the trade-off.

 

[ped]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/smartphone-buyers-dont-care-about-4g-yet-study-shows/

Just an article done about one study that is saying that 4G is not a big selling point (yet) for consumers.

Just thought it would be interesting as you see people on here saying it is a big mistake for apple not to put LTE on the iphone.

Maybe once again proof that you can't go by what people on here want cause we are not representative of your average consumer (though honestly I'd say 4G is not a selling point to me, in fact, if AT&T makes you go to a different plan to have a 4G phone, I would explicitly not want it cause it's not worth losing my unlimited over).

I agree - I'd rather have the battery life than higher speed. If cell providers made bandwidth cheaper or made it an all-you-can-eat plan I'd be for more bandwidth, but not until then.

 

[DiamondMac]

People don't care about 4g because the only thing we have heard about 4g nationally is that it doesn't work NOR is found in many places

Hence...it not really being a sticking point

But, I am not sure you can find a single study that says that cellphone users don't want MORE speed, better connections, etc....

 

[WelshBluebird]

I dunno what it is like in the US, but in the UK 4G networks will have the option of using lower frequencies (800Mhz). This means that coverage should be hugely better than all of the 3G networks and some of the 2G networks. If you asked people do they want better coverage, I bet they would say yes. And in the UK at least, 4G should lead to better coverage.

 

[AreYouIn?]

Quite honestly my 3G is fast enough for me seeing as I only use it maybe twice a day. Other than that I am on wifi. I am one of those users who could care less about 4g.

 

[icstars989]

Most people also don't have nor do they care about smartphones...so whats you're point?

 

[tigress666]

Our brand new computers at work were bought just before the latest iMac update, so they don't have Thunderbolt. Not a big deal, some may say, but what if in five years it's just standard for cameras and stuff to have that port and we're stuck on USB 2.0? We're still running Mac OS 9 apps and can't upgrade above Tiger on our NEWEST computers, which are G5 Power Macs. A bunch of our computers are G3 Power Macs with like 12-inch CRT displays.

So in other words, not a big deal now, just as I didn't think 3G was a big deal on the first iPhone if it killed battery life. But now a smartphone without 3G would be a joke. I think Apple is smart to skip 4G LTE right now if the battery life isn't there yet, especially if the iPhone 6 will have some universal cellular radio that works on a crapload of bands on all sorts of networks.

Oh, I agree.

And I'd say that is why I'd say it's not stupid for APple not to put LTE on the iphone for this year (unlike some people I've seen on this forum who claim it would be a bad move). Eventually they'll have to put it in, but for now I don't think it's necessary.

 

[ssmed]

UK Perspective

The reception for 3G is terrible in many areas and there are large areas of the country without even 2G. In London and the large cities the 3G network is saturated. The number of people needing the service and their geographic location appears to be unattended to. The speed of 3G would likely be good enough for most were they able to get it. I have two phones (different networks) just to get phone signal over most of the country and that system fails me at times. Our home, which is at the edge of a medium sized town has no 3G on either network!

Personally I don't care about 4G I just want what I am already paying for.

 

[theLimit]

I'm very interested in 4G/LTE service, but until it is available in the places that I use my phone 90% of the time, it doesn't really matter. It was only a little over two years ago that the areas where I live and work got 3G coverage on Verizon and AT&T, and the speeds are about 300kbps and 1mbps respectively. I'll worry about 4G in two or three more years.

 

[dccorona]

4G speeds are just not worth an extra $10 a month to me...now, one thing I WOULD be willing to pay for (even more than the $40/month 4G would be) is for that service to include TRULY UNLIMITED, UN THROTTLED data, and allow tethering/mobile hotspot. 4G gives cell carriers the opportunity to outshine broadband networks, and become a comprehensive internet solution for many people.

 

[Dmunjal]

HSPA+ seems to be a good compromise. AT&T has it in my area and I typically see 5000-6000 Mbps all day long with no difference in battery life. This is better than I've seen with WIMAX. True 4G LTE seems to make more sense for USB modems right now since you have a dedicated source of power.

 

[maclaptop]

I do think that once the smoke clears, and the standard is firmly established, there will be demand.

The good news is this should give Apple time to learn how to make a phone that works. Then the focus will shift to making it a "smartphone" in earnest.