I find LTE to be more battery friendly on my iPhone than 3G
Unfortunately some carriers charge more for LTE, so is not worthwhile to enable LTE on the phone.
I'm lucky since I only pay 1$ a month for the extra speed
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 6 Said to Feature Faster Qualcomm MDM9625 LTE Modem with LTE-Advanced Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I find LTE to be more battery friendly on my iPhone than 3G
Unfortunately some carriers charge more for LTE, so is not worthwhile to enable LTE on the phone.
I'm lucky since I only pay 1$ a month for the extra speed
Mine is on LTE for half the day and lasts from 7am to bedtime. So I'm not sure what to say about that.
Same..
This guy is probably one of the same people who turn off push notification and bluetooth thinking it'll save them that much more juice
I see these as pointless as at the end of the day, you are always going to be restricted by your coverage which still varies far too much IMO. Better signals in buildings would be good.
while those speeds exist
...it doesn't matter because unless you have "connections" or are the very wealthy or carrier executives, you can't afford a non throttled connection.
...it doesn't matter because unless you have "connections" or are the very wealthy or carrier executives, you can't afford a non throttled connection.
I think the idea is that the faster you download, the faster you can release the network resource for other people. This is especially important for cities with high density of people. You're right about it already being already too fast though. I get average 50mbps on LTE and can stream youtube video smoothly on HD.
I could be wrong, but aren't the speeds probably 150 Mbps and 300 Mbps... not 150/300 MB/s? A megabit is 1/8th a megabyte, and may SSDs can't transfer at 300 MB/s. No hard drives can.
Actually, while his assumption was incorrect, it was also an honest question. Your response on the other hand was both dead wrong and unnecessarily flippant.
NAND and RAM have nothing in common. One is a form of permanent storage, one is temporary storage, and they work completely differently. It's like comparing your hand to a storage facility and saying your hand is better because it's more versatile and can move.
Also it's theoretically possible to chain enough NAND together to get higher R/W speeds than RAM, which, incidentally, doesn't scale particularly well with increased # of channels. Latency's another issue, but given these two technologies have nothing in common, it's also a non-issue.
Actually, while his assumption was incorrect, it was also an honest question. Your response on the other hand was both dead wrong and unnecessarily flippant.
NAND and RAM have nothing in common. One is a form of permanent storage, one is temporary storage, and they work completely differently. It's like comparing your hand to a storage facility and saying your hand is better because it's more versatile and can move.
Also it's theoretically possible to chain enough NAND together to get higher R/W speeds than RAM, which, incidentally, doesn't scale particularly well with increased # of channels. Latency's another issue, but given these two technologies have nothing in common, it's also a non-issue.
This is pretty sweet, but I find it annoying that my cell phone is capable of around 40mbps down/15 mbps up and my cable provider gives me 10 down and 1 up. And my phone is limited to a tiny amount of data comparatively. The download speed I can live with, but the upload speed limits so many possible applications.
YOU may not need that sort of bandwidth but certainly a lot of people do, it's like saying "why do people need cars because I can get to work fine on the train".
I'm hoping they fix the ludicrous situation of having data disconnected when getting calls, what is this? 90's CDMA American networks???
----------
the sooner the mobile operators wake up and realise they are not really a telco anymore but ISP's the better..... voice should all be carried over IP freeing up bandwidth from Voice/SMS to data, give us some proper data limits.
People do that?
----------
That's verizon's fault. I get 8 mbps here in Italy. And 4G costs an arm
Crazy to hear about all you lot getting charged tons for 4G. In the UK on Three's network, our unlimited 3G data (truly unlimited!) was upgraded to 4G for FREE. No hidden charges, nothing extra. My plan is truly unlimited 4G data for £15 a month, 30 day rolling sim-only contract with included 2000 minutes calls and 5000 texts AND they allow you tether to any device with unlimited use.
http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Built_for_internetting?site=d
http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Built_for_internetting?site=d
Yes. At a bare minimum AT&T has LTE-Advanced. Rolling it out thru California right now.
That would require VoLTE to be enabled and the phone to support it. Apple doesn't appear to be too interested in doing the Android-style deployment to enable it over 3G.
It does not work that way if you download a 10 GB file in five seconds versus 10 seconds so it will eat the same amount of data
That's my biggest question too. Have we heard any new info on the radio chips and whether or not the Verizon users will (finally) be able to talk and look up important info at the same time?