That's not what I said at all. I simply said people are praising this feature as if Apple pioneered it, which they didn't.
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.
Latest iPhone 2.0 Firmware Has 3G On/Off Option
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I willingly spent my money expecting 2G.
My issue (not anyone elses, but mine) is that I spent £279 on an iPhone, on the premise of '3g is too battery intensive', then 7 months later they add 3g, with a warning saying 'may decrease battery life'.
I would rather have had 3G with a warning, 7 months ago.
I just feel kind of cheated, I don't really see this 3G implementation an evolution, but a 'we didn't put it in the first one so we can make people buy another'.
iPhone 3.0 will feature flash....
Virtually every phone released with 3G capability in the last two years has the ability to switch it off. Why is this such a fuss?
"MAKE"? no one "made" you to do anything. This model obviously was for the U.S. first where EDGE was much more widely in use than 3G. Then it was for those in other countries who would be "ok" in going with a slower technology/better battery life. You ponied up the dough as an early adopter to accept the phone that was being offered. I guess that's why you only "kind of" feel cheated.
Why would Apple introduce the iPhone in the US and offer a 3G phone that really wouldn't benefit the majority of the people here and would only eat up battery life? That's just ignorant. They had ONE shot to do this right and to sell the most phones. Most areas are EDGE. Very simple decision. Steve's decision, also I'm sure, was made knowing that a 3G iPhone would eventually be made available and hopefully by then, some more improvements would be made in batteries for cell phones (which the evolution is always in motion) -- just like many of us consumers WAIT before we buy the next technology (hoping for better performance), so does Apple.
I think most are confused ...
Having read a number of posts here, it is clear to me that most people don't understand the technologies in question, and the implications of this switch.
Current iPhone is a (2.5G) Quad Band GSM + GPRS device, that also supports EDGE for enhanced cellular data rates. WiFi is also supported.
If the new iPhone is going to be a true 3G Device, it would implement UMTS. This replaces GSM + GPRS, as UMTS is the 3G voice standard, as well supporting data rates of 384 k/bits. The question also here is will Apple implement HSDPA (minimum) to make it a 3.5G. It would make sense if the new switch was to turn on/off HSDPA as this is the piece that will consume more battery power.
So, I would think that the new iPhone spec's would be:
Also, I think the switch would be useless if Apple implements 3.5G Data (i.e. HSDPA) correctly, in so far as it is only powered when data is being downloaded, as opposed to having it continuously powered - much to Delta-NC's point:
Having read a number of posts here, it is clear to me that most people don't understand the technologies in question, and the implications of this switch.
Current iPhone is a (2.5G) Quad Band GSM + GPRS device, that also supports EDGE for enhanced cellular data rates. WiFi is also supported.
If the new iPhone is going to be a true 3G Device, it would implement UMTS. This replaces GSM + GPRS, as UMTS is the 3G voice standard, as well supporting data rates of 384 k/bits. The question also here is will Apple implement HSDPA (minimum) to make it a 3.5G. It would make sense if the new switch was to turn on/off HSDPA as this is the piece that will consume more battery power.
So, I would think that the new iPhone spec's would be:
- Quad Band GSM + GPRS with EDGE
- Tri Band UMTS, supporting HSDPA (Switchable for power saving)
- WiFi for hotspot / wireless data.
Also, I think the switch would be useless if Apple implements 3.5G Data (i.e. HSDPA) correctly, in so far as it is only powered when data is being downloaded, as opposed to having it continuously powered - much to Delta-NC's point:
Yeah, Apple, Why can't you snap your fingers and have 5-10 years of R&D, prototyping, manufacturing build-out, and mass production done of an entirely new nanotube-based Lithium-SuperPolymer battery?
</sarcasm>
No that doesn't make sense. The switch will most likely turn off UMTS/HSDPA so that the phone falls back on GSM (and EDGE for data). Although UMTS/HSDPA is actually more power efficient during standby, it takes more power for both voice and data connections compared to GSM/EDGE. Also, the iPhone is nearly guaranteed to support HSDPA ("3.5G" fast/low latency download), as all new 3G phones do -- the question will be if it is software-upgradeable to HSUPA ("3.5G" fast/low latency upload).
Apple can only do so much -- Although newer 3G chipsets have been heavily optimized for power-efficiency and are made at a smaller process node than say chipsets that were available two years ago during the production of the original iPhone, There is only so much that can be done. UMTS/W-CDMA is a more complex system that requires more processing power on the phone.
This is what I'm getting at. The switch is probably for the User to elect to turn on HSDPA at the expense of battery, or opt to use the base UMTS 384 k/bits data rate.
Which bit doesn't make sense?? HSDPA is to UMTS in the same way that EDGE is to GSM. They are extensions for high-speed data. I can have a 3G phone (UMTS) without HSDPA, in exactly the same way that older (2G) GSM + GPRS phones didn't have EDGE.
This is the iPHONE we are talking about, the most controversal phone since the first cell phone that was ever released and the RAZR. This phone is a breed of its own and that's why people are getting excited when basic functionality that is available on all phones is added to the iPhone, because people are too sucked in to it to realize what they used to have on a previous phone.
This is the hottest item out right now, you see it everywhere, always hear about, all gadget websites have several articles on it, it is just a universal device.
ah.... exactly the point I was looking to add on to...... why would anyone want to switch back to 2G? .... why even offer this?
why not just make the phone 100% 3G....
actually, i can understand if one is not in a 3G network and has fall back on the 2G... but wouldn't this be "automatic"....
so back to my original question, if you are in a 2G and 3G network..... why give use the option to switch to the slower network?...i would guess there has to be some kind of performance difference...
guys????
It's stated why right underneath the damn switch itself......TO SAVE BATTERY LIFE
You can get a new phone at any time. If you get it subsidized or if it's an iPhone you have to extend your plan.
ok ok.... *****...you got me....
I actually do feel pretty idiotic...
I totally missed that...
really....dam!
well, thank your for not seriously ripping on me....
(one tiny point, was I the only one who missed the obvious answer to my question.....i mean i did spark a bit of a debate .....
)T-xdays till new iPod!!
ok ok.... *****...you got me....
I actually do feel pretty idiotic...
I totally missed that...
really....dam!
well, thank your for not seriously ripping on me....
(one tiny point, was I the only one who missed the obvious answer to my question.....i mean i did spark a bit of a debate .....
T-xdays till new iPod!!
"For those of you who are going to "turn off 3G when I'm not using it" you'll actually be making your battery life worse, when in a passive state 3G is more efficient than 2G.".. actually what about this quote....
now i am confused
So you're saying you know something that the engineers at Apple don't know, in regards to the battery life with 3g enabled/disabled.
I would have thought they would have done their homework in this regard especially as battery life was the supposed reason 3g wasn't implemented in the first iPhone.
It clearly states underneath the switch that turning 3g off will save battery, are you saying they're lying?
oh dude .....
my bad....i believe u, (think i gave the wrong impression in my response)
i was quoting "Delta-NC" above...
....just wondering why he would say that.....
