Could be 3G capped to EDGE speeds - many suspect that the real reason for them going 2.5 in the States was that it allowed the AT&T to offer an "unlimited" plan for less.If it is O2 it's not EDGE then. Either it's GPRS or 3G.
Could be 3G capped to EDGE speeds - many suspect that the real reason for them going 2.5 in the States was that it allowed the AT&T to offer an "unlimited" plan for less.If it is O2 it's not EDGE then. Either it's GPRS or 3G.
Could be 3G capped to EDGE speeds - many suspect that the real reason for them going 2.5 in the States was that it allowed the AT&T to offer an "unlimited" plan for less.
Yeah, that's my point, they went for the technology that was less expensive to run for the carrier - if millions of iphones could each suck down 3.6 Mbit/s, who do you think pays for the bandwidth?Why do that? It's different technology for a start....
Yeah, that's my point, they went for the technology that was less expensive to run for the carrier - if millions of iphones could each suck down 3.6 Mbit/s, who do you think pays for the bandwidth?
By going for the far slower Edge, they could offer plans at the right price-points for the mass-market.
Sure you do, but that isn't how pricing works - first they choose the price-point, say, £35. Then they work out how little they can get away with providing for that amount. If the extra bandwidth cost for providing 3G is £3.28 per customer (and, remember, I'm not talking about bandwidth on their network but, rather, the bandwidth they're buying in from an upstream wholesale Internet provider) and, let's say an extra quid for the extra maintenance and customer service specific to 3G technology, they have to work out if that extra £4.28 spend - which comes directly out of their profit margins on your £35 - will attract enough extra customers to make up for the money they will lose.I do as a customer who's shelling out 35+ quid a week!
No, but U2 do.O2 don't have EDGE.
locovaca said:Good thing that totally secure platform thing worked out
No piece of hardware, including Macs running OS X, is secure when a hacker has physical access to it so why the sarcasm? The iPhone has yet to show any signs of viruses or remote exploits which is obviously what Apple means by security.
Why are these logos in the software at all? I don't see the AT&T logo anywhere on my phone's screens. Am I missing something?
Why are these logos in the software at all? I don't see the AT&T logo anywhere on my phone's screens. Am I missing something?
Yeah, that's my point, they went for the technology that was less expensive to run for the carrier - if millions of iphones could each suck down 3.6 Mbit/s, who do you think pays for the bandwidth?
By going for the far slower Edge, they could offer plans at the right price-points for the mass-market. Sure, you, I and most people on this forum would rather pay an extra $30 for full 3G but enough of the general public would hesitate to kill the product stone dead. There have been tons of studies done on this and you'd be amazed at how differently people think at different price-points.
No. EDGE is more energy efficient, more mature, and integratable into the phone's very slim form factor. Also, if you look at a map of AT&T's 3G coverage, you'll see that it's very lacking -- only the largest cities.
My speculation is that AT&T wasn't ready for a widespread 3G phone, and Apple wasn't going to add support if it had the design impact as mentioned above as well as not providing a consistent experience to *all* iPhone customers. Also, if AT&T spent $16m to upgrade EDGE, imagine how much it would cost to add capacity to the current 3G installs, in addition to increasing 3G coverage.
Interesting... any chance that is T-Mobile in USA?
Err??? I'm pretty sure T-Mobile 'DON'T' operate in Norway (am I wrong?)If T-mobile Norway has them, then it would be easy to hack it for use on T-mobile USA.