Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- From: "kdt" <scarface_74@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:00:46 -0500
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9be5b09e-6560-4838-8b3c-a2dd46c78fbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You're right Edwin....no one ever expected for technology to improve and
features to be added.
3G networks existed before Apple made the inferior iPhone. This
isn't improved technology that's coming to iPhone next year, it's old
technology that Apple is finally using after gouging their customers
with EDGE phones.
Have 3G chipsets with low enough power consumption to meet the needs of the
iPhone existed?
Just like Apple waited until 2007 to release a 160GB
iPod when they could have release it in 2001.
Even if you could prove that is true, it would have nothing to do with
3G coming so late to the iPhone.
I was being sarcastic...
But for a phone + media player, getting good battery life is important and
not getting good battery life would have killed the iPhone.
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3036
The iPhone would have to be a bit thicker, wider or longer to accommodate
the same 3G UMTS interface that Samsung used in its Blackjack. Instead,
Apple went with Wi-Fi alongside GSM - the square in green shows the Marvell
802.11b/g WLAN controller needed to enable Wi-Fi.
So the integration argument checks out.....
Web pages loaded a lot faster, but the Blackjack's battery was drained at a
faster rate as well. With 3G enabled, the Blackjack lasted 2.75 hours and
with it disabled, over 3.5 hours. Neither time is particularly great, but
the impact of enabling 3G was significant: battery life was reduced by
almost 23%.
The situation with Wi-Fi vs. EDGE was completely different, while on Wi-Fi
the iPhone lasted longer than on EDGE. The improvement in battery life was
just under 25%, giving us an extra 85 minutes of usage on the iPhone. Note
that all of these tests were with excellent signal strength, and battery
life is negatively impacted by hopping between cell towers or working with
weak signals; regardless, the results here should apply regardless of the
situation.
At least based on these initial results, it would seem that Apple's Wi-Fi
implementation is a no-brainer: you get better performance and better
battery life. It definitely doesn't have the convenience of 3G, but if you
find yourself using your phone in areas where Wi-Fi is prevalent then it
makes a l.ot of sense.
----end quote
There are plenty of other tests on the page that show the battery life
benefits of Edge over 3G are significant and even 802.11g consumes less
battery life than the 3G chipset.
Engineering is all about tradeoffs.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- From: Mitch
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- References:
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- From: Edwin
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- From: kdt
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- From: Edwin
- Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- Prev by Date: Re: Be The First On Your Block To...
- Next by Date: Re: The Apple Store Cunts - I thought CompUSA was bad...
- Previous by thread: Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- Next by thread: Re: Get Ready To Shell Out Another $600
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
