MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I just wish more people would keep their wi-fi networks unlocked... Ha..

What "spec sheet people" don't realize is:
1) In big cities where 3G is available, EDGE is actually reasonably fast
2) Where 3G is common, Wi-Fi tends to be common also
3) In more rural areas where EDGE is really slow and there is no Wi-Fi for miles, 3G isn't available anyway.

3G - an improvement for some users, some of the time.

Surprise surprise - Apple knew what they were doing!

This does not surprise me, Apple knew about the 3G power consumption and made the right decision.

To be honest, 3g is totally overated anyway. Until the 3g networks are better 3g isnt worth using regularly.

In the UK, Carriers charge a premium for 3g services and I havent really come across anyone who actually uses it to its full capacity anyway.

For 3g to be viable in the iphone battery technology and efficency must improve.

Afterall, who wants a phone with no battery life to make calls on it?

My battery only lasts till noon. Then it's gotta get back on the wire. Kinda sucks, not to mention the phone service coverage is the worst I've ever had. I can hold the iPhone out in front of me and watch it go from 5 bars to No Service in the course of a minute or two. It's a shame since the the WiFi side and the rest of the device is awesome. ATT has some work to do!

MDM: account as in, I wish I could transfer my account to a different carrier.

To be honest, 3g is totally overated anyway. Until the 3g networks are better 3g isnt worth using regularly.

---------------------

Hmmm, I disagree.. I understand the reasons that Apple chose to go with EDGE. But that being said, in OC California I tested my iPhone connection speed with EDGE from home and got 119K, while my partner tested his Motorola Q with Verizon's 3G and got 556K.

That's a huge difference in real world usability.

What I'm saying is that my experience with EDGE is so pathetically slow, that I'd be willing to trade off battery performance for 3G as long as I had the ability to turn it off when I wasn't using it.

Hmmm, I disagree.. I understand the reasons that Apple chose to go with EDGE. But that being said, in OC California I tested my iPhone connection speed with EDGE from home and got 119K, while my partner tested his Motorola Q with Verizon's 3G and got 556K.

That's a huge difference in real world usability.

I hesitate to call any experience in California "world"....

So, 25% reduction in battery life--from 6 hours to 4.5. Web pages load 9 times faster--from 100Kbps to 900+Kbps.

Not sure I'd make the same trade-off.

That said, the effect on talk time is surprising and, if that would extend to the iPhone, I could definitely see 3G being a big problem.

Still...I think I'll wait for 3G. If that means waiting a year, so be it.

"... in OC California I tested my iPhone connection speed with EDGE from home and got 119K, while my partner tested his Motorola Q with Verizon's 3G and got 556K."

Did you compare these to Wi-Fi? Just curious? Wannabe's comments seemed pretty rational.

Dunno what happened there, but that should have been:

"I hesitate to call any experience in California "real world"..."

Besides the enhanced "edge" that AT&T;is using is rated as a G3 service anyway - call it the best of both worlds!

For the life of me, I can't understand why every one is making this G3 thing such a big deal in the first place...

Unless your in the middle of Kansas - your iPhone is going to naturally home in on the nearest WiFi connection anyway and that's a hell of a lot fast than the G3 service or even G4 service...

I don't think 3g is overated. However, 3 hours of talk time is NOT acceptable.

"What I'm saying is that my experience with EDGE is so pathetically slow, that I'd be willing to trade off battery performance for 3G as long as I had the ability to turn it off when I wasn't using it."

I wouldn't--and I'm waiting for 3G.

One of the great things about Apple products is that they "just work." The idea that I would have to turn on and off 3G is a non-starter--it definitely destroys the whole experience because whatever state I'm currently in is bound to be the wrong one.

I pull out my iPhone and bring up Google maps to see where the seafood restaurant is. But first I have to tell the iPhone whether or not to use 3G? Worst yet, I then have to tell the iPhone to stop using the 3G when I'm done? Yuck!

The problem with this is that it always leads to regret. "Why is Google maps going so slow? Oops! Forgot to turn on 3G!" followed by going to make a call and, "Hey! What happened to my battery?! Oops! Forgot to turn off 3G!"

What other cellphone companies do is offload these tasks to the user--"Well, it's your fault! You forgot to turn on/off 3G!" Battery life too low? "Well, go buy another battery!"

So I appreciate what Apple does, even though I don't always agree with the the tradeoffs. Yeah, for 25% less battery life, I'd still rather have 3G. But if Apple can't "get it right" due to technological limitations, I'd rather they don't do it than offload it onto me.

"...Did you compare these to Wi-Fi? Just curious? Wannabe's comments seemed pretty rational."

-----------------

No, I don't even think his Q has wi-fi.. Does it?

Anyway, my tests with my home wi-fi network is around 800k on iPhone, while my PowerMac and MacBook get around 1.5 mbps.

The problem with wi-fi is that the networks the iPhone always finds are locked (other than home or office.) But when I'm at home or at the office, I'm using my computers for internet. It's when I'm in the car or on the weekends when I use my iPhone for internet, and in those cases I rarely find an open wi-fi network..

"....But first I have to tell the iPhone whether or not to use 3G? Worst yet, I then have to tell the iPhone to stop using the 3G when I'm done? "

---------

I understand your point, but honestly, I'm already doing this with bluetooth to conserve battery when I'm not using it.. If I could save myself 5 minutes while navigating through a couple of links on a web page in my car by turning on/off 3G, it would be well worth it IMO.

But no point in beating a dead horse, the reality is that iPhone doesn't have 3G and i still love it. But for me EDGE really does suck for the web... Maps are fine.

A note about Google Maps - they're fast. Very fast, in my experience (unless you're looking at a lot of satellite photos). I have no problem getting a traffic report on EDGE in the Seattle area, and it comes up faster than any web page. Not a problem.
As stated above - "Just Works" trumps "Install It Because We Can" with Apple, so hence no 3G manual setting.
But if I were to pick a "turn-it-on-manually-battery-waster" feature, it would not be 3G, it would be GPS.

If Apple does add 3g the iphone will be able to detect the network and switch to edge or wifi without even the user realising.

There will be no manual changing from 3g to other networks.

I believe this is the 3g solution that Apple is working on, in a way similar to the edge and wifi currently built in to the iPhone that is available now..

Geez, folks, I switched from Sprint to get an iPhone, and I actually think the EDGE service is a bit faster than Sprint's data service. Now that might be skewed a bit because I can actually see and use the web pages I download, but surely EDGE is, at the very least, in the same range as Sprint's service was. I am not disappointed at all, especially considering that I use WiFi most of the time I'm not actually on the road.

I don't see what the big deal is about 3G. I have been using Edge and while it's slower than wifi, it's still quite useable.

There is NO WAY I'd give up battery life for a 3G connection at this point. I get by just fine on my iphone with Edge.

When 3G is more prevalent and the technology is better, I'll be interested.

@Boshuda "....I don't see what the big deal is about 3G."

---------------

Yeah ummm, like I said, in Southern California, my iPhone speed with EDGE from home is 119K, my partner's Motorola Q with Verizon's 3G is 556K.

The "big deal" is about 5x faster performance.

The 3G item is a big deal! I'm glad to hear that there is a good reason the iPhone doesn't have 3G, but that doesn't mean that users don't miss it any less.

I must say, though: it is very nice to be able to use my Sprint phone as a near-broadband, wireless (Bluetooth) modem for my laptop. Shame the iPhone can't do the same.

Geez. Shut up about what the iPhone isn't already. No-one cares that you think it sucks because it doesn't have this, that, or the other thing. You're comparing your own geek porn fantasies in your mind to a real world device. So the only question becomes "Is this real device worth using?"

I love the iPhone, but I just will always hate AT&T;and their lousy service. At some point in the (perhaps distant) future, someone else other than AT&T;will eventually provide iPhone service, and that's the day I'll switch.

"Yeah ummm, like I said, in Southern California, my iPhone speed with EDGE from home is 119K, my partner's Motorola Q with Verizon's 3G is 556K."

Perhaps, but the browser sucks so bad on the Q that you don't realize most of that 3G speed advantage in the end. I've actually seen web pages load just as quickly on the iPhone under EDGE as they do on a Q running on a 3G network. There are also YouTube videos out there that show the same thing.

@SJR "...Perhaps, but the browser sucks so bad on the Q that you don't realize most of that 3G speed advantage in the end"

---------------

Perhaps, but I'm not defending the Q or it's browser. I'm simply stating the difference in 3G vs. Edge speeds at the very same location. My home.

"But if I were to pick a "turn-it-on-manually-battery-waster" feature, it would not be 3G, it would be GPS."

Actually, I'd love to see AT&T;'s TDOA(?) used in place of a GPS for Google maps. While the accuracy of TDOA is not as good as a GPS, it would at least be able to tell that I'm in New York instead of Los Angeles and give me appropriate traffic information without me having to tell the stupid phone that I'm somewhere else.

This is the thing that always annoys me when I travel with laptops.

Edge is slow in Chicago where I live, but it's not unusable by any means.

Edge, in a small town I went to over the weekend called Harbert, Michigan, was dog-ass slow. Terrible. F.

Has AT&T;already pushed Edge as far as it will go? Can they tweak it a bit more?

I belive that there is a country in Europe, that happens to have the second highest number of phones per capita in the world (or something in that ballpark) that has GSM and NO EDGE (none of the 3 mobile providers has EDGE) this is a country where many of the phones are sold without a contract and those that are locked to a certain network can now be legally unlocked.

In this country a Nokia N95 can cost over $1000 and there are quite a few going around. So I think that the cost of the iPhone would no be a problem.

But then how is the iPhone going to be an internet device in that country without 3G? So I think that Apple will have to have 3G (that I think is highly overrated) for the introduction of the iPhone in Europe.

Unless of course they are thinking of Europe has UK, France and Germany. Come to think of it, that wouldn't be the first time.

MW: physical. As in, there is a physical need for the iPhone to have 3G in most of Europe.

Europe is not getting 3g the first time around.

When I have a need to do any heavy browsing on my iPhone, I am in a wifi spot almost 80% of the time. The rest of the time, EDGE is good enough.

I think Apple was smart not to jump on the "latest and greatest" too fast as I don't think the HSDPA chipset is quite ready for prime time yet.

Edge is good enough? Since when does Apple deliver products that are "good enough."

iPhone is brilliant, but the EDGE network is antiquated and extremely slow, IT IS NOT "good enough" for a $600 device.

As far as Wi-Fi, yes, it's great, but I've yet to find a usable hotspot while in my car (parked of course.)

Tre's above post said is best, that Wi-Fi may be in the home or office, but we have computers in those situations. What we really need is iPhone to deliver a fast connection when we are on the go, on the road, at the beach, at a restaurant, at the doctors office, at the supermarket etc. etc...

"Surprise surprise - Apple knew what they were doing!"

They knew exactly what they were doing, launching a phone with last decade's cellular technology knowing fanboys would find a way to justify it as being a good thing.

all very nice and pretty... but that's in the US which is far from advanced in mobile networks. In Europe 3g coverage is much better than in the US. Speaking from the country with the most mobiles per capita, I can guarantee that there is much more 3g coverage than there is wifi. Sure, they'll sell a bunch, but I'd venture to say they'd sell 30% more with 3g. All 3 networks here have widespread 3g.

"In Europe 3g coverage is much better than in the US"

In the US AT&T;'s 3G network reaches most major cities, I'd guess the majority of iPhone customers are in a 3g coverage area.

And even for those who travel in and out of 3g coverage, at least you'll have 3G speeds where it exists.

There is no logical reason that the iPhone isn't 3G other than this phone has been in development for a long time for a cellphone, and Apple just couldnt get it done and meet the launch schedule.

To tout WiFi as an alternative is a joke. This is a Mobile phone, , intended to be used on the move and where ever you are, not only within 100ft of WiFi hotspots.

@SJR you are correct. HAd a Q with verizon service. Windows mobile explorer was so pokey and you were luck if a page rendered correctly so that it was even usable.

EDGE is slow. True.

My battery life is fine, but 25-50% less battery life would be vexing.

Fortunately, nearly everywhere I go there is a WiFi network. On the occassions that I have used the web via EDGE, it was slow, but fast enough that I was not looking for an alternative means. Even in rural Florida, EDGE was fine for mapping my way the fuck out of dodge.