Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPhone' started by erickufrin, Mar 3, 2008.
Should switch to dialup... seriously.
If you dont see the benefit... then you are an idiot.
Except EDGE is faster than dial-up already, and in bake-offs between 3G phones like a BlackBerry and the iPhone, the BlackBerry did not perform incredibly faster. It was faster, but not by an unbelievable margin.
I'm not saying 3G isn't faster, but I don't think it's going to be the stunning improvement some on this forum would have you believe.
It is if you live in Europe. Which I do.
Of course 3.5G (HSDPA) is even faster.
Right now the complaints are " there is no 3G ".
When there is a 3G iPhone the complaints will change to " 3G isn't that much faster than EDGE ".
Of course for me, 3G may never exist. I live in the woods!
I was getting +900k on my Treo 750, in milwaukee....
With my iPhone on EDGE I can get about 150k....
Not to mention the latency difference...
Far too many people out there have figured out how to read a spec sheet and convinced themselves that they absolutely need 3G. Congratulations guys, you've figured out how to compare numbers and guess what, 3G's theoretical throughput is "higher" than EDGE's. Congratulations, you've figured it out... bigger numbers are better!
What these people need to realize is that 3G DOES NOT dramatically improve the user experience as compared to EDGE. Sure, I'd prefer higher throughput, but losing sleep over such marginal improvements is utterly ridiculous.
Let the engineers do their jobs, if all they did was compare spec sheets to make decisions then you'd be working for Apple too.
The bake-off was between a UMTS-only phone, as I recall, and the iPhone - 3G, yes, but I want to see a 3.5G vs. EDGE comparison.
Actually it does. I have a Nokia 6310i which uses GPRS and EDGE for mobile browsing and an N95 which uses 3G/HDSPA. The N95 is much, much quicker.
Pulling random articles off the net that don't compare like with like doesn't change that fact. The author of that Blackfriar's piece should hang his head in shame for the sheer amount of technical misinformation and wishful thinking it contains. EDGE latency being better than 3G indeed!
blackberry is not 3G... Compare the speeds of the iphone's edge to the nokia n95-3's 3G and the n95 blows it out of the water.
Game Over. Thanks for playing...
*Sigh* Hook, line, and sinker...
Everybody wants the shiny new acronym.
Wirelessly posted (Apple Communication Device: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
I believe the bottleneck is elsewhere, e.g. Browser, CPU. I had an evdo treo 755 and it's not that much faster than my iPhone.
Well, I *am* an engineer for a phone company.
The only reason people pooh-pooh 3G is because of sour grapes... that is, because they don't have it. Once they do, then suddenly their tune will change.
While the only decent comparison will be between a 3G iPhone and an EDGE one, a good example was this test between a 3G Tilt running Opera (not PIE) and the iPhone, both with the same speed CPU:
3G two to four times EDGE
3G would be great on an iPhone but I am not willing to give up battery life for 3G. 3G is not widely available in the US so the complaints would just change to "Why is there no 3G coverage in my area?", and "Why is my 3G iPhone using EDGE?"
To me it doesn't really matter, since most of the places I go usually has WiFi and when I happen to not be in a WiFi zone...well, I am patient enough to wait 1 minute for a page to load.
Not really. I think a substantial amount of people poo-poo 3G because some people obsess over 3G as if everything else is profoundly unacceptable, and that's simply not true. It's the firey retort of someone hell bent on not having someone ruin their relative happyness with unnecessary anxiety. The #1 reason anyone will get a 3G iPhone is because the phone will DO MORE than just 3G. Otherwise, for most people, its substantially less important than storage space. This need not be proven either, considering iPod Touches do not have EDGE at all. Proof meet pudding. That said, nothing in this post is intended to poo-poo 3G. Just to put it in its PROPER perspective, and not an artificially inflated one.
Is your primary internet application TELNET!?!?!?!??! Are you one of the 10 people still using AOL??
for some reason i was expecting to see a 3g iphone in an elevator...
Haha, no, I don't use telnet on my iPhone but you're right in that telnet is definitely an application heavily sensitive to latency. When I said that the user experience does not dramatically improve with 3G, I was mostly referring to HTTP which is generally what the average consumer uses as their "benchmark" for network performance. It's no secret that if you're streaming video and downloading large files on your phone then you'll see a definite improvement with a 3G enabled device. But for the most typical usages such as Googling something, checking the weather, reading your email, or simply perusing the MacRumor forums, then the advantages of 3G are greatly negated by the latency issue.
I think Cleverboy was right on when he said:
Nobody is arguing that 3G isn't technically superior. Rather, I'm trying to point out that EDGE is nothing to balk at, especially considering that the latency issue marginalizes 3Gs advantage over EDGE in typical web-browsing scenarios. Instead of demanding that carriers further invest in deploying 3G which is only a small step-up, wouldn't it be better to push the industry to instead take the next evolutionary step and develop the next generation of mobile networks (whatever that may be)?
hahaha, post of the day!
i saw the silverthorne-run 3G iphone in the same elevator where steve jobs began practicing witchcraft (aka creating the first imac)
Not really, 3G's been out for a couple of years now. Most modern phones actually allow use of 3.5G (HSDPA) anyway. Point is it's faster and therefore better for data access.
As for battery drain due to 3G, it's a bit heavier than 2.5G but not as bad as wi-fi. Ultimately you can always switch to GSM if you're not using it so it's a moot point.
I think this is the main reason why I couldn't Skype on EDGE, but I can on 3G. It's because 3G does not dramatically improve my user experience... my ass.
Since I hooked up the 3 Macs of my parents' to a 3G router instead of an older EDGE one, the "user experience" is finally comparable to 512k ADSL. On EDGE it was quite a joke.
Using a post from a blog which sole reason for existence is the neverending fight with the "Tyrrany Of Too Much" with some very discussable claims won't really help.
I will be glad when the 3G phone arrives, just so people will stop posting about it.
In my experience, 3G would be a complete waste of time without HSDPA: I get 220-250K on EDGE and with Orange 3G I was getting 280K. I think Orange's 3G implementation is pretty hopeless but even so, without HSDPA I think it will cap out at around 384K.
I know people with HSDPA modems and they get 2MB+ which is where the next get iPhone should be heading.
The one thing that 3G will give however is simultaneous access to data and voice functionality.
In certain cases it is the browser. On a Palm OS Treo, you could be on wifi and have the fastest possible connection but it would still suck at actually rendering faster because the browser is so. damn. slow.
3G would be nice but AT&T has done a good job with EDGE...I rarely feel like I'm waiting forever.
Well a few comments.
1. EDGE is ok but its not that common (still) in the UK. Even when you do get it the speeds are unreliable. O2 clearly to blame here.
2. O2s 3G coverage ain't that good either (esp. HSDPA which is a must if the iPhone is to go that route).
3. Bottom line: my iPhone, whilst easily the best phone I've come across, would really benefit from a much better data connection. So roll on HSDPA support.