Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Next-Generation iPhone to Have "Faster Internet Speeds"?

Branskins said:
I will be pretty dissapointed if Apple announces any new drastic updates in its hardware revision this year (if one happens) because it might make them look like all of the other phone makers.
Click to expand...
I'd expect to be disappointed then. A new processor is definitely in the cards (either the iPod Touch's, or something newer) and a new GPU is a shoe-in too. If they add HSUPA support then you'd be looking at a new modem, and the power consumption on some of the latest Draft-N WiFi chips is low enough that they could do a drop-in replacement and at least get 2.4ghz N going (5ghz may be an issue due to antenna factors).

Everyone knew that the 3G was a half-upgrade; only the modem was replaced. 2 years (thank you Mr. Moore) is a reasonable amount of time to expect an update on everything else.
 
I'm pretty sure if the next iPhone does have "n" Wi-Fi it won't be to increase Internet speed. That would be overkill. But what if it was for wireless iTunes syncing. That would be pretty slick.
 
If anybody thinks 802.11n will speed up "the Internet" on a cell phone, I'd looooooove to know what service they have that has a Net connection faster than 54Mbps. Otherwise, it's bunk.

It's probably some marketing thing from AT&T. I'd rather them work on even the EDGE network not crapping out on me when I go into a few dips on the road around here. I lost the feed from the basketball game a couple of times last night on the way home. It connected back in a few seconds, but it seems a little crazy that an EDGE signal would drop on a US highway in a populated area.
 
faster processors

My guess is that the internet will be significantly faster due to the extra processing capabilities of the device NOT a significant change in technology.
 
FastLaneJB said:
I haven't read the whole thread but the first 1.5 pages worth and no one so far in that actually realised the iPhone already supports up to 7.2Mbit HSDPA.

So if it's to get faster, I suspect they mean HSUPA is added for faster uploads.

Here's a speed test I did around the time of the iPhone 3G came out on O2 in the UK. We've had 7.2Mbit for a while (Long before the iPhone 3G came out).

2783921613_858864cba5_o.jpg


It needs a faster CPU to get faster Internet.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The baseband hardware does indeed support it already.

http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/channel.html?channel=ff80808112ab681d0112ab6ab94205ef
 
There isn't anything faster than 7.2Mbps on the market now. Hell, the next gen Infineon chip wont even hit mass production until sometime in the second half of this year...

Infineon X-GOLD 618 baseband chipset
  • 7.2Mb/s down, 2.9Mb/s up
  • Integrated high-end video accelerator for H.263, H.264, VC-1, WMV9
  • playback, recording and streaming up to D1/VGA video content
  • MIPI: Camera support up to 5 Mpxl, display support up to WVGA
  • Integrated ISP and JPEG hardware acceleration
  • HW security, LP-DDR1 and NAND flash support
  • UBS high speed OTG
Click to expand...

The main benefit of the chipset above is that its fabbed at 65nm (instead of 90nm) so you get much lower power consumption.
 
"wireless N doesn't do downloads any faster than Wireless G. It's the device-to-device traffic that's faster. The only thing Wireless N would do is make it so the iPhone could work on N-only networks, which would be a bonus."

Beric....are you sure about that? I was going to say that it was time to upgrade my airport but if what you say is true then I really don't need to.

please clarify as that is the first time I ever heard that so I am skeptical
 
Stratus Fear said:
This is correct. The baseband hardware does indeed support it already.

http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/product/channel.html?channel=ff80808112ab681d0112ab6ab94205ef
Click to expand...

I know, I've had 7.2Mbit HSDPA on my iPhone 3G since I brought it. The screenshot was posted to show that not only does it already have the hardware internally but it makes use of it perfectly fine.

Strangely even though I posted that screenshot there is a ton of posts afterwards still saying that the next model will have 7.2Mbit HSPDA like the current model doesn't already have it. If a picture doesn't help these people, I don't know what will :)

Before it can really take advantage of faster 3G it would need a faster processor. If you saw Apple's demo of 3G speeds, WiFi wasn't all that much quicker. The Palm Pre can render a page much quicker on WiFi because it has an much more recent ARM core which is vastly faster. So here is hoping that Apple bumps the next iPhone up to this level as it'll make a world of difference.
 
If it's to do with AT&T's network speed then it can't really be claimed that the iPhone will be faster. AT&T don't operate the networks in the other 78 countries that the iPhone is available in.
 
Branskins said:
I understand the posters frustration with the fact that Apple can only upgrade the phone with a hardware revision instead of a software update. The other night when 3.0 was announced, a podcast I listen to praised apple for distancing itself from other phone makers by showing that it can support its phone through software rather than hardware updates (unlike some phone makers who release a new phone every month!)

I will be pretty dissapointed if Apple announces any new drastic updates in its hardware revision this year (if one happens) because it might make them look like all of the other phone makers. The iPhone hardware is amazing, and as apple showed with the 3.0 preview, they can still do a heck of a lot with the current hardware.

So I really hope Apple waits on this one and shows that its 3.0 software can stand on its own without new hardware. This would send a strong message to all of those manufacturers who create phones and then immediately work on the next revision without supporting its previous hardware: the software is more important than you think.

I remember when I originally tries to buy the iPhone, someone tried to sell me another touchscreen phone saying that it was comparable. But the first thing that popped into my mind was that I KNEW Apple would support their phone way more than Samsung or whoever it was would. 3.0 is a testament to this fact.

Sorry for possibly derailing, but I feel some frustration with this "announcement" as it kind of makes what apple has built so far look weak because it goes against this importance of software updates and makes them look like every other phone manufacturer. I really hope they wait this one out and do a hardware revision with LTE when it is ready
Click to expand...

Sounds like you got locked into a 3G contract and want this phone. I think Apple is accomplishing what they want, and they are still able to support the 1st gen even though they are most likely releasing a third soon.
 
I think this June's iPhone will support up to the 7.2Mbps and video, and the next year will be 20Mbps with OLED screen and iChat front camera :)
 
32GB RAM Is A Certainty

ateslik said:
who cares? 32Gb please.
Click to expand...
I find most interesting about this article is the obvious certainty that the next iPhone 3.0 will contain the choice of 16GB and 32GB Models while the iPod Touch will offer 16GB, 32GB and 64GB models at the same prices as today's 8, 16 & 32 models. The RAM modules that Apple uses are already cheaper than those half their size were when Apple made the RAM upgrade and other improvements to the Touch last February. So we're really behind on the upgrade to both probably waiting for the OS 3.0 and new hardware parts to ship besides cheaper bigger RAM modules like those described in this article.

Looks like it's going to be a very large improvement in the platform. Certainly will be a great party in the queue at the stores this Summer.
 
slowness by erroneous wireless and network "chatter" that is caused by lack of cache, latency and the nature of dropped packets up and down - frequent checksum errors - due to the nature of the wireless connection - mobile, versus a static, wired connection. Better code and faster rendering will take care of dropped packets and latency on the software end of things. If they give it a cache (not sure if the type of memory is a limitation), this will also decrease latency greatly by cutting down on duplicate requests and lowering the number of concurrent server threads both sending and receiving.

You can throw all the speed you want at it, but a 7.2 network with a ton of latency is still going to feel like edge when browsing the web to an end user.
 
Mercury7 said:
"wireless N doesn't do downloads any faster than Wireless G. It's the device-to-device traffic that's faster. The only thing Wireless N would do is make it so the iPhone could work on N-only networks, which would be a bonus."

Beric....are you sure about that? I was going to say that it was time to upgrade my airport but if what you say is true then I really don't need to.

please clarify as that is the first time I ever heard that so I am skeptical
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? That CANT be the first time you've ever heard that wifi is 50 times faster than your internet speed.... Because it's been like that for the past 10 years, from B to G to N now.
 
I was traveling along I-80 through rural Nebraska earlier in the month with a Verizon phone and my iPhone. I had EVDO coverage on the Verizon the entire distance, but only GPRS on my iPhone. I'd vote to expand their 3g footprint to compete with Verizon before upgrading existing markets. Now, granted Verizon's EVDO network is not nearly as quick as AT&T's 3g network (depending on location), but at least I can hop online with reasonable connection speeds wherever I am.
 
This is all well and good for you american and european, and well proper country people. But here in australia i have yet to see my 3g speeds go beyond 10KB/s. And yes i live in a city (brisbane) either optus sucks more then i once thought or all the isps are like this here.

Main problem with this is the fact the internet is down on my landline (thanks again optus). So i have to rely on me iphone. I got this 3g for a reason
 
cameronjpu said:
You're kidding, right? That CANT be the first time you've ever heard that wifi is 50 times faster than your internet speed.... Because it's been like that for the past 10 years, from B to G to N now.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I confused you, You said there would be no difference between N and G , I currently have G and so according to what you said a new airport that runs on N would not help my internet speed throughput to any of my devices...ie a macbook with n or a iphone with n.
 
Mercury7 said:
Sorry if I confused you, You said there would be no difference between N and G , I currently have G and so according to what you said a new airport that runs on N would not help my internet speed throughput to any of my devices...ie a macbook with n or a iphone with n.
Click to expand...

That's right, because your wifi is already way faster than your internet. Imagine the internet as a water pipe - it runs to your house through a 1 inch diameter pipe, and once it gets inside your house you hook it up to a 12 inch diameter pipe. That 12 inch pipe is not going to blast you back in your chair, you'll get your 1 inch of pressure still.
 
Mercury7 said:
I currently have G and so according to what you said a new airport that runs on N would not help my internet speed throughput to any of my devices...ie a macbook with n or a iphone with n.
Click to expand...
Correct, g is 54 Mbit/s (nominally), how fast is your internet connection? My cable modem is rated at 25 Mbit/s and that is the fastest on offer in my city.
 
cameronjpu said:
You're kidding, right? That CANT be the first time you've ever heard that wifi is 50 times faster than your internet speed.... Because it's been like that for the past 10 years, from B to G to N now.
Click to expand...
Theoretically.

I've yet to encounter a network that didn't seem noticeably more sluggish on the wireless side than the wired computers on the same LAN.

802.11b was/is especially poor... I know it *can* do 11Mbps, but it never really does.

G is much better, but still far from perfect.

Also, don't exaggerate. 50 times faster? Really? A typical broadband connection in the US is somewhere around 6Mbps. 802.11G is 54Mbps peak.
That's 9-10x more bandwidth at 802.11G's maximum bandwidth. A far cry from "50x".

Let's not even delve into latency on wireless vs wired networks...

Wireless has a LONG way to go before it'll be able to top a wired connection, even for web browsing. It's very good, but to a discerning user such as myself, it's an obvious difference.

Now for my rant on this 3g nonsense...

I live in Portland, ME and 3g was rolled out here last November. For the first few months, it was relatively speedy and I was quite pleased. It has quickly degraded, and the 3g service is now not only slow, but also so spotty that I leave EDGE on most the time, preferring a reliable connection to quickly check my email rather than crossing my fingers that the 3g will actually establish a connection, give me an IP and let me download what I want within a reasonable timeframe.

I'm not sure where they will be managing to deploy 7Mbps 3g with any reliability... I think AT&T is a little in over their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back