Yep they only sold, what...a million phones so far...obviously having EDGE is really holding them back from hitting those numbers.
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.
iPhone 3G Size and Battery Life Analysis
- Thread starter paymaster
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep they only sold, what...a million phones so far...obviously having EDGE is really holding them back from hitting those numbers.
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.
Don't know, good question. (so was your answer, by the way)
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.
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.
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 $$ to produce, thus lowering their profit margin on the unit. But if you ask me why the Blackjack has included the chip? Well, the blackjack is a world phone right now, meaning that it is being sold everywhere in the world, it is a matter of allocating some of the produced handsets to the US for distribution.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents
One thing I have not heard mention very often is the fact that the iPhone took 2 years(or more?) to bring to the market. At that time when Apple decides to enter the cellphone market, I am sure 3G implementation was VERY limited especially compares to what it is today. The chipset could be bigger than what we saw on the Blackjack, the battery consumption could be even worse than what the Blackjack gets on this current version. With the network infrastructure in place when the project started, to the technology available at that time(for the US), this current set up may have been the 'best of both worlds'. 3G has since gained more momentum in the big cities, but at this point, issuing an engineering change to include a 3G chipset may delay the product from hitting the market even further. The fact also remains that 3G has not been widely adopted in all of US today(Geographically), doesnt make sense for Apple to include this chip in the iPhone when over 50% (guesstimate, at best here!!) of the population can't use it even. It would cost more $$ 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd take less battery life in a heartbeat for 3g. I would appreciate just being able to choose my poison.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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
) So making changes to the design halfway through is not as easy as one can expect.
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).
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.
WiFi will be the future
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!
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!
Unlimited Data Plan for $20
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.
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.
iPhone 3G Size and Battery Life Analysis
![]()
Anandtech 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:
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
Anandtech 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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.