You have no understanding of perspective. Sprint's viewpoint of what's good for them has nothing to do with whats good for the consumer. All sprint says is that the iphone is a lighter load on their network than an android phone. Thats good for them because they get the most bang for their buck. How is it good for consumers or you? I have heard several complaints that the iphone speed on the sprint network is worse than other phones. Gee, you think that maybe that has something to do with Sprints happiness that the iphone is a lighter load to their network?Really? You think I didn't understand the article?
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.
Sprint CEO Says iPhone Extends Ability to Offer Unlimited Data
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
maybe you didn't undersatnd the article....it clearly states "the iPhone may offer 50% more network efficiency than Android handsets"
----------
actually "Android" is mentioned in the article
Based on the OPINION of an exec for Sprint. And network efficiency for Sprint translates more likely to slower on their network, not better performance on an iphone, or better experience for the consumer.
Really? You think I didn't understand the article?
He actually said that iPhone users typically use 50% less data than Android device users.
This is partly due to Apple restricting what iOS Apps can do.
Want to stream music at higher than 160kbps over the cellular network?
Not allowed on iOS
Totally possible on Android.
This combines with iOS' better handling of Wi-Fi to result in iOS users using less cellular network data.
Dan Hesse said:
Last edited:
No, I actually understand it this way: Sprint has a problem with speed in certain areas. If you have an Android, your apps need 50% longer to respond (download needed info) than iPhone apps do. Simply because the garbage seems to be limited by conformity to Apple's rules. I have yet to find an app which is similar or the same on both phones which runs better on the Android. Keeping clean coding in mind, others responded already how that actually results in better battery life etc. But that is another can of worms.
Also, out of customer's perspective, if I wouldn't have an unlimited plan, e.g. AT&T or Verizon, I would pay more in fees if I cross my tier limit.
How can I not see that out of a customer's side of view.
Then, if my fellow network users have potentially more iPhones instead of Androids, I can surf faster because the network runs smoother - or do you really think that investments into the infrastructure in always in correlation to the need of customers? I am not that naive.
Unlimited will end at either the next iPhone or the following
With new networks, the big companies will want everyone off unlimited and using their ridiculously low-capped tiers.
They will frame it as users using their "new 4g network!" and that consumers now need "4g plans"
I am LOVING my Sprint iPhone 4s! I can make calls, send texts, Pandora, Youtube, without having to worry about it. Not once has it dropped a call, not once has it stalled on 3G (used to happen A LOT on my AT&T coverage).
Three networks, three flavours, three sets of different coveraegs and needs. To each their own, and I think I found mine.
Three networks, three flavours, three sets of different coveraegs and needs. To each their own, and I think I found mine.
I have lived in 4 different major US cities in the last 18 months (I travel a lot) and I can't remember my iPhone 4 ever getting anywhere else to 4mb down....mostly around 3mb on GREAT days. Now that I have the 4s? I still am getting just about the same speeds.
I keep hearing these people talk about 5mb or 14mb and I am wondering....when exactly are other parts of the US going to get these speeds?
Man, you still don't get it. Efficiency from the perspective of a company is different from efficiency from the perspective of consumers. Efficient for them means less use of their network, and slower speed on their network. If you never use their network and are on wifi all the time. Thats 100% efficiency to them. I don't know whey you're equating it to phone performance.No, I actually understand it this way: Sprint has a problem with speed in certain areas. If you have an Android, your apps need 50% longer to respond (download needed info) than iPhone apps do. Simply because the garbage seems to be limited by conformity to Apple's rules. I have yet to find an app which is similar or the same on both phones which runs better on the Android. Keeping clean coding in mind, others responded already how that actually results in better battery life etc. But that is another can of worms.
Also, out of customer's perspective, if I wouldn't have an unlimited plan, e.g. AT&T or Verizon, I would pay more in fees if I cross my tier limit.
How can I not see that out of a customer's side of view.
Then, if my fellow network users have potentially more iPhones instead of Androids, I can surf faster because the network runs smoother - or do you really think that investments into the infrastructure in always in correlation to the need of customers? I am not that naive.
A CD has 150kbps. So that is digital stereo. Does your Android play surround sound? If not, it is unnecessary and would only clog up the network. Besides: Which headphones are so precise that you would be able to tell a difference and are portable enough and connect to your phone? I know that there are Bang&Olufsen Sound Systems in cars which can play surround sound etc, but the tenth of a promille being able to use that on their phone has other problems than having a restriction to 160bkps - like the financial crisis in Greece.
A CD has 150kbps. So that is digital stereo. Does your Android play surround sound? If not, it is unnecessary and would only clog up the network. Besides: Which headphones are so precise that you would be able to tell a difference and are portable enough and connect to your phone? I know that there are Bang&Olufsen Sound Systems in cars which can play surround sound etc, but the tenth of a promille being able to use that on their phone has other problems than having a restriction to 160bkps - like the financial crisis in Greece.
It's a common enough complaint on the App Store reviews of Apps that have to obey Apple's limits.
It is frustrating for App developers that they can't give their users what they want because Apple has caved in to the Carriers.
With any other platform, as long as the user is willing to pay for it, they can use any amount of data that they want.
If my carrier doesn't want me to download Apps bigger than 20MB then they should put that in the contract. It shouldn't be forced on me (and every other user in the world) by Apple because of some ancient agreement with AT&T.
How is slower speeds more effective? You loose customers over that - that is lost revenue. Lost revenue is not effective. Everything else is neutral to customers until other customers are using the bandwidth you want to use. Then it becomes your problem and you'd wish these other customers' phones would use less data specifically if it is only due to waste of code etc.
How is slower speeds more effective? You loose customers over that - that is lost revenue. Lost revenue is not effective. Everything else is neutral to customers until other customers are using the bandwidth you want to use. Then it becomes your problem and you'd wish these other customers' phones would use less data specifically if it is only due to waste of code etc.
If you offer "unlimited data" and you have customer A using 100MB a month and customer B using 5GB per month then you are losing more money on customer B - it's simple.
From the carrier's perspective, it is better for you to pay them a lot to be able to use something, but for the user to then NOT use it.
If phones are slower on their network, more phones can stay on their network without them having to improve their network. They still get the same amount of money, just less bandwidth use. So thats their idea of efficiency.How is slower speeds more effective? You loose customers over that - that is lost revenue. Lost revenue is not effective. Everything else is neutral to customers until other customers are using the bandwidth you want to use. Then it becomes your problem and you'd wish these other customers' phones would use less data specifically if it is only due to waste of code etc.
You seem to think that the efficiency they're talking about applies to the performance of the phone which it doesn't.
ive actually found this to be true so far. with my android, wifi was horrible and i only used sprints 3g; now i use wifi 95% of the time with my 4S
Now, you finally pointed at the problem: The carriers. It is their rules. Despite that, digital stereo is 150bps uncompressed. With stereo headphones or the mono speaker of a cell phone, there is virtually no way of hearing the difference. Therefore, no matter what people want, it won't change their experience. Not that I am against that people should get what they want, out of the other customer's perspective who has to share a tower with them, I am interested in having my share of bandwidth though, so it makes sense to put on restrictions on bandwidth especially when it comes to streaming. I oppose that 20MB limit as well though. That is ridiculous.
----------
And how does that relate to what I wrote (since you quote me)?
No. The restrictions are Apple's policies. If they released an update or changed the App Store approval process then carriers would not be able to do anything about it.
The reality is that Apple wants to keep the carriers "sweet", so they pander to their whims.
If the policies were the carrier's policies, then they would apply to Android and all other Operating Systems and this whole thread would not exist.
I assume you mean 150kbps (not 150bps!), but you are still wrong. "Digital Stereo" doesn't mean anything specific (simply two channels of digitally encoded audio) and anything at 150kbps is not going to be "uncompressed".
You didn't understand the point YOU were quoting. Carriers do not care about "efficiency", they just want people to use as little of their allowance as possible. It's very simple business sense.
wrong...he's the CEO...I'm pretty sure he has a staff that keeps him informed...and he specifically said the iPhone is more efficient on their network 50% more so
I must have missed that...I'm commenting on the "network efficiency" statement...he said iPhone is "50% more efficient"...it's in quotation marks
OBVIOUSLY... By saying something positive about the iPhone, he implied that Android and its apps are inefficient and sloppily coded
The actual quote says:
Sprint said:
He does not explain why they have reached this conclusion, but what you're seeing is many news outlets speculating why that is.
Android isn't actually mentioned anywhere in reference to the iPhone either.
a) yes
b) absolutely not
You are mistaking ability for efficiency. An iOS app that I work on (that has been in the store for well over a year now) pulls down many gigabytes of data in a single session. Apple's rules have nothing to do with pushing and pulling large amounts of data. It has to do with pushing and pulling data intelligently. Poorly concocted client-server designs that waste huge amounts of bandwidth get denied, and for good reason. They aren't Doing it Right in the first place.
That's not a typical app though. Apple has no restrictions on data usage except in certain situations, where there are very specific limits.
If you want to stream a 256kbps audio file, there isn't any way to make that more efficient is there? It's still blocked on the iOS App Store.
There's no data limit on streaming video. Why not?
It just highlights how flawed the policies are. You can download a 100mb file through Dropbox, but you can't download a 21MB App. You can stream a 50MB Podcast but you can't download it.
I have no problem with efficiency, but there is only so far that be pushed.
Last edited:
As someone with a stock Android phone on Sprint (i.e. no App Store installed apps), occasional but typically light email use and web lookup, yet still went through nearly 1GB of data per month, I can believe it.
What the hell data was it sending back to the Googleplex?
By the way, my iPhone 4S on Sprint seems lightening fast compared to my HTC Hero running Eclair.
What the hell data was it sending back to the Googleplex?
By the way, my iPhone 4S on Sprint seems lightening fast compared to my HTC Hero running Eclair.