Also, mmWave was not intended to be for cell phones. It was designed for fixed terminals and/or smart cars as the spec allows for device to device to tower comunications. Think wireless broadband internet.
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.
mmWave vs. Sub-6GHz 5G iPhones: What's the Difference?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I occasionally travel to the countryside where it is still 3G and if you are lucky LTE. If you are really lucky, the LTE may even be usable. By the time LTE has universal and stable coverage, the big cities will have 8G. I don't mind the cities having 8G as long as it is distributed evenly across the national cell infrastructure. It is not like the cell phone companies chargest you less for only using 3G or LTE. If Cell phone companies are going to charge everyone full price for rolling out new technology, then that technology should be rolled out everywhere in a timely fashion. I expect economics/greed will be used to justify leaving everyone not living in a city behind in a technological wasteland. This is my windmill, come tilt with me.
The towers need to go up now to even start the adoption process, but I couldn't care less whether my next phone supports 5G of any sort. Yes, one day it will make my life better, but first the towers need to go up, then the phone need to support it, then the apps need to make use of it, and then my lifestyle needs to adapt to the new apps. Right now, we're still in the infrastructure deployment phase-- it's like learning they've broken ground on a new subway line. It won't change your commute for a decade.
I'm really curious to see how mmWave turns out. It seems really ill suited for an outdoor multicast system. The range is very short and it can't handle obstructions. Arenas keep getting mentioned, but I'd be shocked if it could penetrate all those ugly bags of mostly water. It seems like this will really be mostly useful in wide open urban spaces where people have their phones out of their pockets.
I'm really curious to see how mmWave turns out. It seems really ill suited for an outdoor multicast system. The range is very short and it can't handle obstructions. Arenas keep getting mentioned, but I'd be shocked if it could penetrate all those ugly bags of mostly water. It seems like this will really be mostly useful in wide open urban spaces where people have their phones out of their pockets.
So if I do buy a new 5G capable iPhone via Verizon, am I going to be forced into a higher plan, whether I want it or not? I hope I will be able to opt out of that at just get the new iPhone and use only LTE. If they force one to pay $10 more a month, many people will opt not to buy the new iPhone.
I feel like the people who come up with these standards give little consideration for real world implementation. They still treat the 4G/5G moniker as a tech spec version rather than how it's really used: an indicator of connection speed. The same thing happened when the 4G/LTE confusion hit.
Either make the technology invisible to the user, or signal in a way that makes sense (pun intended). This whole nonsense about 5G that feels as fast as 4G because of some detail that we all suddenly need to be communications engineers to understand lays the groundwork for consumer manipulation.
Either make the technology invisible to the user, or signal in a way that makes sense (pun intended). This whole nonsense about 5G that feels as fast as 4G because of some detail that we all suddenly need to be communications engineers to understand lays the groundwork for consumer manipulation.
I can get at least 300Mbps in an MRT train but below 20Mbps in my room and office with my 4G. I could expect the worse from 5G.
LTE’s latency is just too high to play any multiplayer games, 5G should fix the latency issue to the point where playing real time shooters is perfect tolerable.
Yeah...that 23ms is really killing us 'mobile' gamers.
The naming has nothing to do with the speed
It is just the fifth generation of mobile networks...Although I'm not sure it is correct either, perhaps you recall the CT2 network, in the Netherlands referred to as Kermit.
Coverage>Speed
I think the way this should work is like this 5G->Sub 6Ghz->LTE->3G->Heck even Edge...they should all exist together based on which signal is available...In the desert? Edge/3G , In the middle of Time Square? mmWave 5G.
My understanding is that 5G was created with the idea of being able to handle a large load, so congestion should not be a problem...coverage is!
I think the way this should work is like this 5G->Sub 6Ghz->LTE->3G->Heck even Edge...they should all exist together based on which signal is available...In the desert? Edge/3G , In the middle of Time Square? mmWave 5G.
Just like the early days of 4G, there will be early adopters enjoying a much faster speed. As more and more handsets are 5G by default, more and more devices will fill up the frequency, and we will be back to square one. Time for 6G.
In my country, LTE sometimes get so congested that reverting to 3G actually works better. Slower speed but more reliable connection.
My understanding is that 5G was created with the idea of being able to handle a large load, so congestion should not be a problem...coverage is!
4G seems decent enough for streaming music.
All that will happen with 5G is websites will start force-feeding us 4K video adverts we didn’t need or want whilst we’re trying to read an article.
Last time I checked having a YouTube video shoved in your face every time you turned the page of a newspaper is not effective advertising.
it's hilarious that you think you can get 23 ms in most places with LTE.
Last edited:
And wonder why they'd spent so much money upgrading for very little.
Even though my carrier isn't charging extra for 5G its rollout plans don't cover my area until 2023. As for mmWave? forget it. It would not even get through the walls to my home.
Then there is the state of the world economy. It is not looking very good so why would people spend lots on money that they might not have in a couple of months on an upgrade to their existing device?
Diminishing return will eventually hit at some point unless underlying design fundamentally changes.
The faster everyone moves to 5G, the better capacity Carrier will have, and possibility of Cheaper Data Plan or More Data for the same price.
You might not need the faster speed, but I doubt anyone would be against cheaper or more Data.
( Not to mention the latency improvement )
And it is strange people talks about 5G being mmWave OR Sub 6.
There isn't a single carrier I know that isn't planning Sub 6 for 5G ( Because it doesn't make any sense, both in business and technical ). So 5G is Sub 6 AND mmWave or Sub 6 only.
At least MR is making a piece on it, better late than never.
You might not need the faster speed, but I doubt anyone would be against cheaper or more Data.
( Not to mention the latency improvement )
And it is strange people talks about 5G being mmWave OR Sub 6.
There isn't a single carrier I know that isn't planning Sub 6 for 5G ( Because it doesn't make any sense, both in business and technical ). So 5G is Sub 6 AND mmWave or Sub 6 only.
At least MR is making a piece on it, better late than never.
But why would anyone look at phones and webpages during a concert? 🤔
Not sure about all concerts but here concerts and festivals serve drinks and snacks. Pre order and pay on a webpage. Also it can be nice to use IM and social media to stay in touch with friends.
I get 90mbps and 22ms Ping, but Australia has always done mobile data well. I assume sub-6Ghz will just extend that and use the frequencies more efficiently.
How about paying for drinks, finding friends, sharing social media posts etc.
Or what about something as mundane as a traffic jam. Often you’ll find when it is gridlocked that you can’t get through so can’t even make a phone call to let people know you are ok or will be late.
There are loads of scenarios where the network gets overloaded too easily.
So it’s not worth getting a 5g iPhone because we’re not going to be able to use it unless I’m outside and close to a tower.
In movie halls typically no Internet due to closed environments. Probably mmWave makes sense (only if it gets deployed inside the halls) only in such scenarios which probably not majority use case. Concerts could be another but closed door halls typically discourage usage of mobiles hence it will be a conflicting scenario for the typical user. Deploying huge number of base stations will also create maintenance nightmare for the providers unless they use aggregated providers responsible for deploying such base stations. I remember using WiMAX which was a disaster as small interference (tree leaves between base stations) could stop the connection responding. Hope they have better solution to address varying scenarios
I aways think of wired and wireless networks like roads and highways. 175 years ago, a road was barely one wagon or carriage wide. As we needed to move faster and faster with more and more vehicles, the roads needed to get wider and better made so it can carry more traffic faster. So in 175 years going from a horse with a cart to a a semi truck that is autonomous and can drive down a highway. Could those people even imagine a truck that large and could drive by itself down a paved road. In the next 20 years, technology that uses this new 5G technology will change are lives.
Probably the BEST article I have read on the topic ever. Bravo MacRumors. And Bravo to the commenters so far educating me even further.