digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at macenstein.com

The 3G iPhone: Do we have it all wrong?

macenstein.com — Interesting but I think they are not thinking everything through.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nycdigginit, on 02/11/2008, -32/+4Cool
  • OSJunky, on 02/11/2008, -4/+48dude - good point on AT&T and Apple not doing 3G, but it isn't WiFi. It is more like WiMax or 4G or something else. WiFi implies 802.11A,B, G, N
    • fr3nch13, on 02/11/2008, -0/+15You're right. WiFi operates at 2.4GHz. How would the 700MHz spectrum use WiFi? Unless Apple planned ahead and slipped in a 700MHz radio I don't see this happening. Although, as an iPhone user it would be nice.
      • Phil13, on 02/11/2008, -7/+1I dunno about you but my wireless network is in the 5GHz range (802.11N). So I doubt wifi is limited to 2.4. They could easily make newer iPhones support 700MHz.
        • sgoogle, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4But the main basis of this argument is that the OLD iPhones would support this rather than 3G. If they could not, surely they would go with 3G rather than this 'WiFi'
    • mcmlxxii, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1I was quite interested in the idea of Apple helping to create a large scale wifi network. Then I saw Mac chick of the month *drool*
    • 0rcinus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1It can't even be WiMax nor 4G (LTE). Bandwidth is a function of frequency, as simple as that. Low frequency = low bandwidth; High frequency = high bandwidth.

      And BTW:
      WiMax = 10-66 GHz
      LTE/4G = 2.0-2.6 GHz

      Which means, this article iiiiiiis... *drum roll* ...that's right! Complete and utter shyte!
  • ParisSeth, on 02/11/2008, -10/+8yeah, also AT&T and Apple would have to be building all new equipment for the Cell Towers and training all kinds of people on it....not bloody likely
  • Ireland, on 02/11/2008, -26/+17Once again an American proves America is "the world", well at least to himself.

    Do we have it all wrong? No. I appreciate your point, but a 3G iPhone is coming this summer, it's that simple.
    • happyseamonster, on 02/11/2008, -21/+2Is this digg.ie?
      • Makaveli604, on 02/11/2008, -1/+13I wasn't aware .com = .us

        Edit: Just for clarification, I thought the proof of the original statement was obvious, but then I remembered the group discussed.
        • itsthebrod, on 02/11/2008, -6/+1Considering the USA invented the internet, I think it's safe to assume that a majority of .com websites are for American-based purposes. Deal with it.
          • wellyuk, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4That there are significant % of .com sites that aren't American means that it's not safe to assume .com = .us, majority or otherwise.
          • Tippis, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5...except that the WWW came out of the work of an English developer working in Switzerland. And you'd be surprised how many .com:s belong to international or even non-US national companies.
          • itsthebrod, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1If people on Digg took a reading comprehension test, they'd fail miserably just like Tippis and wellyuk did. I never said ALL .com sites are American-based, just a majority. Take into account that Digg IS an American-based website and you get people flipping out when someone writes an article as if the reader is also located in the same country. Boo hoo.
          • wellyuk, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4By (Digg being an) American-based website, do you mean the content is American, the servers are hosted in the States or what? Digg is an international site, whether the servers are hosted in the US and A or not, and whether Kevin Rose is from the US and A or not. So, in conclusion, you're wrong.
    • NJPENSO, on 02/11/2008, -8/+6Just another butthurt eurofag, nothing to see here.
  • happyseamonster, on 02/11/2008, -6/+5This would also zing the people who unlocked the iPhone by either not allowing activated iPhones or having a higher tier for non-at&t mobile customers, giving users another reason to choose at&t. Going 3G in the USA would also send more unlocked iPhones to t-mobile. It would also explain the ridiculous non-reason for not having 3G in there with EDGE from the start.
    • jonshipman, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3T-mo's 3G isn't compatible with AT&T's 3G
      • badjoke, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1God, you're cool for abbreviating "T-Mobile."
  • Sethwm2, on 02/11/2008, -11/+3Wow... this is a great opportunity for people at At&T and Apple to realize and take advantage of. Having the ability to have a WiFi connection for iPhone users would be a much greater advancement than just adding 3G. The sales of iPhones would stay steady rather than plummeting due to the 3G iPhone release date. The compatibility of WiFi and speed is much greater than that of 3G... This idea makes me all willy nilly inside :P
  • idannyb, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2See related article - http://idannyb.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/femtocells ...
    Interesting article ... I think Dr. Macenstein is a bit off track with his "no 3G iPhone" in the US notion
    But I do see a BIG future for iPod touch using nationwide Wifi. Piper Jaffary analyst Gene Muster and a few other have suggested that iPhone sales go vertical when the price point drops under $300 (or paraphrase to that effect). Perhaps it's the "nationwide wifi iPod touch" that goes ballistic? Expect the soon to be announced iPhone and iPod touch SDK to bring many new aps.
    • drunkenoaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Gene Munster? Why does his name crop up so much? He says something logical that any Apple consumer could come up with, and he gets talked about? Even better than that, he pulls random half-baked ideas-- out of his ass-- and people report those too. Why? Why!? Engaget need a quote for respectability? Who knows.
  • smacksaw, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4Interesting. Not original, but interesting.

    What is more likely is that Apple and/or AT&T have something completely different up their sleeves. If you can guess what it's going to be, they probably aren't doing it. But if it sounds pretty far-out or strange, that's probably it.

    It's probably something nuts like a partnership with Google on the Touch and they are just going to quit development on the iPhone's connectivity features altogether and just make it for AT&T and then tell us that iPhone was a promo for their real idea, the Touch replacement which is not a phone and that the word "phone" is now dirty etc.

    And it would ***** AT&T in the ass...because Apple is all about the lulz. It would be hilarious if they ended up making AT&T their bitches instead of being the bitch of some telco. Let AT&T have an exclusive iPhone. Apple probably gives two ***** about it anyway, especially considering how stung they got with the naming of it.
    • johnpaul191, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1The current iPod touch does not have a microphone, so there will be no overnight unlocking of some trojan horse, and it's not like the 700MHz stuff will be worked out for a while anyway.
      Even if Apple has some partnership with Google down the road, i am sure an iPhone will sell well for a while. People will be apprehensive about some cell replacement, the same way they have apprehension about VOIP. The hard work on the iPhone is done, and it's nearly a global product (not Japan etc since they use CDMA, right?). Any nationwide WiFi may not work around the world, and they have to account for that.
      With no inside info, i can buy the major assumptions about the lack of 3G. AT&T 3G network is spotty, and the iPhone is not big enough to include multiple chipsets. The 3G chipset still uses significantly more power than EDGE, and battery life is an issue. Except web browsing or google maps, the EDGE network is fast enough. Now i guess Apple/AT&T have some stats about how much time average users actually spend on Safari, so they know if that's a big deal.
      • skidooer, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2"The current iPod touch does not have a microphone"

        No, but it does support one through the dock connector. Apple could sell a case that implements the microphone and speaker. Not that I see it happening, but definitely possible.
      • groberts1980, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Except for web browsing and Google maps? Those are the two things I use the most (along with email). My personal opinion is that Edge is just not fast enough for the iPhone. Nationwide wifi or 3G needs to happen with this device.
  • 1jaxstate1, on 02/11/2008, -2/+12Damn idiots. Quit trying to make up excuses for the iPhone and add frickin' 3G...sheeesh!
    • nycmac247, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I have an iPhone and love it. Can you please point me to some people that really use their iPhone day in and day out that dislike it? I have not met any ... but I'm guessing they exist somewhere?
      • cr3ative, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3I've had an iPhone for about 4 months now, and use it for everything. As a commuter, I spend 4 hours a day on a train, so the iPhone is pretty much my entertainment / communications hub, when I'm not on the laptop (as I am now, on a train.)

        The speed of the mobile internet REALLY irks me. EDGE coverage is about 30% here in the UK, so most of the time, the browsing experience is piss-poor. On Wifi, it's joyous.

        Disclaimer: It is a business iPhone that I don't pay the contract for, so I'm fairly impartial. It's not like I actively sought an iPhone, but I wasn't going to turn one down. Nothing attracts girls like an iPhone user in the middle of a club. Try it some time.
  • auricomnet, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2Wait! AAPL to 200! haha jk...
  • akatsuki, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Given AT&T's big announced push into HSUPA speeds, there is definitely a 3G iPhone coming. Even if LTE/WiMax or whatever comes down the line, it will be several years minimum before it is ready to go, and Apple has rarely waited to replace their own product with something better (recognizing it is better to outcompete yourself than have someone else do it).
  • FoxFaction, on 02/11/2008, -4/+63G means it's 3 times as good as regular old G.
    • danbowden, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7and who wants to hang out with a regular G?

      Word up homes!
  • adie, on 02/11/2008, -0/+233G iPhones in 2008 have already been confirmed by the CEO of AT&T. On top of that, it would take years for AT&T to get the infrastructure in place to use the 700MHz spectrum for some sort of nationwide WiMax.

    Terrible article just speculating (and not even smart speculation) about the iPhone to get attention.
  • wearescience, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7Didn't Steve Jobs and the CEO of AT&T both say that there would be a 3G iPhone by the end of the year?
    I like the idea of nationwide WiFi, but the fact that 80 new cities in the US are getting 3G from AT&T seems to suggest they are still interested in bulking up that network.
  • xthroughmyeyesx, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3This is excellent, I never put two and two together. I couldn't care less about a 3G iPhone if this is true, to be completely honest.
  • ShuttleDisaster, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4jobs and ATT CEO have already confirmed 3g iphone in 08. What is the dispute? How ignorant can you get?
  • nastronomical, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Apple might use UMTS instead one of the other flavours purely because it eats less battery life! Lets be real here...do you really need more than u/d 384 Kbps? It makes no sense in having 1.5Mbps or 3.5Mbps if the batter life only lasts an hour or two.
    • wellyuk, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, let's be real! Who needs more than 384 Kbps? And who needs more than 640k,while we're at it.

      1980 just called, they want their backwards thinking back.
      • ChayD, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Damn you beat me to it! Although Gates claims that he never said this.
    • digithed, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1This whole argument about battery life doesn't hold water. Nokia and Sony Ericsson both already have phones capable of using UTMS and HSDPA with download speeds of up to 7.2Mbps and they already have battery life which is longer than that of the iPhone. This has always just been a lame excuse from Apple designed to hide the fact that they are not ready with a 3G design. It's not the battery life that is the problem so they must be having some other kind of problem that Nokia and Sony Ericsson have already solved.
      • 0rcinus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Not to mention the fact HSDPA really doesn't suck more juice than UMTS. In fact, it more or less has the exact same power requirements, because it IS the same standard.
  • digitallysick, on 02/11/2008, -3/+5I think it shipped with no 3G just as a way to annoy the consumer. If you notice, every smart phone seems to have 1 or 2 features, left out or missing. I think they do this on purpose
  • hudef, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I am one of those people who rarely buy leading edge products as they always have bugs, are very expensive and are soon obsoleted by newer leading edge products. Hell, I still just use my phone to make calls and my computer to do everything else. I am amazed by how many people upgrade their phones two or three times a year.
  • danbowden, on 02/11/2008, -2/+0It also gives slightly more weight to the whole Macbook Air and the "There's something in the Air" posters. This would be something that would blow everything else out of the water if it was done.

    It's all about speculation! Let the rumours without any grounding come rolling in :)!
  • dizilbdog, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1The more I have my iPhone the more I am interested in other phones.. It's strange I like the iphone I like how it sync's up to my Mac. Though I see what Nokia can do and what some Sony's can do. I"m thinking I may jump ship soon. I don't like how apple is holding me hostage with every update for something good, when I can go to Nokia's website and it is already there...
  • chambana, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5This kinda mindless speculation shows the worst of blogs and why professional media will continue to be needed if people ever want to learn about anything around them.
  • nunofgs, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Let's think that argument through, shall we?

    So, Apple would cooperate with AT&T over the next (imo) 3-5 years to deploy a MASSIVE nationwide Wi-Fi network (that can't be b/g/n because of the 700Mhz range so they'd have to use a different standard? dunno about this, just speculating). They would lose tons of money to r&d/hardware/testing/etc and still not cover the entire country.

    On the other hand, they can simply come out with a 3G phone THIS YEAR and not piss people off by making them wait 3-5 years for the nationwide-wifi phone.

    Sorry macinstein dude. It's gonna be a 3G phone.
  • stx666, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Well I don't regret getting the Nokia 8gb (free on contract), and when I upgrade in Jan next year I'll be able get the N96 gratis as well! Quids in. Got my 3G already.
    • fanboydcs, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1..and a crap browser which makes your browsing experience worse! its like having broadband internet access on a windows 3.11 computer. Pointless
      • ChayD, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Although there's nothing stopping you from putting Opera on there. Unlike certain other no-3rd-party-software-please type phones I could mention.
      • stx666, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0I don't mind I just like playing with the 3rd-party light saber app

        Because i can!
  • greganalytic, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7I'm confused, Wi-Fi doesn't use 700Mhz. Any ideas what they mean?
    • kuwan, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5No, the guy who wrote the article is an idiot, that's all. Nothing to see here. That almost no one else has pointed this out is somewhat troubling.
    • Butros, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5They wrote a technical article without a technical understanding
    • 0rcinus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0The amount of people not noticing that simple fact is downright scary...
      People claiming it doesn't matter because data can be transfered on any frequency are even scarier.

      I get really ashamed of being a mac user... :/
  • ardeay, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2tether tether tether tether ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh tether!

    .. tether
  • JoeyDeacon, on 02/11/2008, -1/+23G is the replacement for Edge not Wifi so this story may or may not be right from the point of view of Wifi coverage but it definitely wrong from the point of view of the mobile technology. The excuses about 3g sucking too much battery just don't hold any weight any more when you consider the performance of the 3g handsets on the market today and Wifi still sucks considerably more juice than even older 3G tech.
    A 3G phone is definitely coming and I'd guess the only thing holding it back is the backward state of US mobile infrastructure and the fact that Apple wouldn't be happy launching a more advanced phone in the rest of the world where 3g tech is everywhere before the USA.
  • timlopez, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2"For $20 a month, plus the ability to tether the touch to a laptop to gain mobile WiFi access, likely every college student and Mac business professional would snap one up."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't need to tether from your touch/iPhone because the same wifi capabilities are more than likely IN your laptop? Especially if you login to the service the same style you would tmobile's hot spot service.
  • streetstealth, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2"There are three main reasons I give this theory some weight. First, I want it to be true."

    Appeal to consequences. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
  • 2xAlex, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2I like iPhone because it's so sexy... :)
  • Skiboxing, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Let's hope the reality is something more like Apple introducing a 3G HSUPA phone based on the Moorestown platform (although this isn't as likely as them sticking with an ARM based core for the next round) and a nice little kicker for all of us "legacy" iPhone users in the form of EDGE Evolution which will bring us up to 1Mbit. I'm not sure if the current iPhone antenna would be capable of supporting Evolution as I believe it requires two antennas, however, it would be nice not to leave us out in the cold as they've already show with the 16GB iPhone that they will force users to re-up their contracts when upgrading to a new phone as they did to me.

    All-in-all, just having a 3G radio promising higher speeds in the phone doesn't mean much these days unless they fully upgrade their tower infrastructure to support the added speed. I switched from a Sprint EVDO WinMo phone and really haven't noticed that much difference in speed. I'd get about 400Kbps on the EVDO phone on the best of days (strong signal, holding my mouth right, etc) however, I seem to be getting much more consistency in my iPhone at around 230Kbps and the much more capable Safari browser makes it a superior experience all around. I'd also bet that any 3G offering will have a higher monthly cost than our current $20/m premium for EDGE access.

    As for the wish of embedded GPS, this might also be a pipe-dream as it still remains to be a battery-sucking proposition with all sorts of issues regarding time to first fix speeds, signal obstruction problems and the like. Maybe they will go for some sort of aGPS to get around some of these issues.

    We'll see what happens, but I'd expect something will be introduced at WWDC with a shipping time of Sept-Oct.
  • jabberwolf, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1so far I think this is correct. I havent heard of Apple deciding to release a 3g iphone in the USA. There is speculation. There "will be" a 3g iphone but so far not officially from Apple and they havent even began to release it in Europe where they are being laughed at because everyone else has 3g ! No word from the Apple in January about this either, just from everyone else hoping that it's true!

    Hope and propaganda, that's what Apple and Apple users live for.
  • ftx437, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Iphones suck and i would never by one.
    • MacParrot, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1As much as I hate spelling Nazis, your comment = fail
  • funguyom, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2This is probably accurate, especially since ATT just struck the deal with Starbucks to replace T-Mobile AND give away the first 2 hours of service. That's f*ing huge!


  • trouble916, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Is everyone else missing the obvious? AT&Ts 3G rollout has taken about 5 years to just cover major metropolitan areas.

    The new 700mhz spectrum is brand new and untested (and in my understanding probably can't even be truly tested until the old analog TVs are shutoff).

    You're at least 4-5 years from that point before a viable product based on the 700mhz spectrum will even be close to available.

    iPhone on 3G is likely a "this year" thing if only for Japan and other European markets, not to mention the [already announced] AT&T 3G buildout here. If not by the end of this year then definitely early next year.

    Anything else is wild-eyed speculation... and not particularly well thought-out.
  • skellener, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2> If AT&T were able to provide a nation-wide WiFi network,
    > many iPod touch users would jump at the chance to pay
    > them a monthly fee to be able to access it.

    100% inaccurate. People who purchased a Touch, didn't want to have anything to do with monthly fees. Besides, there's no mic or speaker on a Touch for even a Skype call. You might as well just get an iPhone if you want to make calls.
    • PhoenixUprising, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0wrong. I know plenty of people that would jump at that idea. There are tons of people who dont want to switch to ATT for their cell service or who are part of a family plan that could cost up to a $1000 to switch over all the lines. If it was cheap, like the $10 he suggested, then alot of those people who bought the Touch instead of iPhone (and theres alot) could then get online with their iPods. oh and the skype comment doesnt exactly hold true either, there are companies that sell microphones for iPods and you dont need speakers if you just use the head phones. If people really wanted to use skype, the technology is there to do it.
  • tdahlia, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Nice fantasy.
  • yabos, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah that'd be nice & everything but none of the current hardware would work with this. Changing frequencies requires new transceivers not just new software.
  • springo, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I don't see how Apple would make money from this, so I don't see how this can happen.
  • Ler224, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1LTE not wifi
    • 0rcinus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0I'm afraid LTE is still ages away :)
  • scoottie, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2would be better for them to do a 4g or better phone 3g will already be old
  • j0hnc0ry, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I can't believe nobody has mentioned that wifi runs @ 2.4 GHz. There is no way wifi devices will communicate over 700MHz. This is the dumbest "tech" article I have ever read.
    • pixelperfect, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1And that matters why? Data can be sent on any frequency, and the higher GHz (eg. 2.4GHz like current WiFi uses) are reflected (they bounce) on standard house walls, where as 700MHz goes through them...
      • 0rcinus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1You really aren't the sharpest pencil in the drawer, are you? You should go and do some homework before writing garbage, just like the author of the article should.

        Yes, data can be sent on any frequency, but:
        1. bandwidth is in direct correlation to frequency,
        2. all frequencies bounce and go through obstacles - the difference is what obstacles and how many of them, and we're talking about CITIES with BUILDINGS, not your typically american paper-and-wood-mache 'burb houses, and finally
        3. noticed any chip, antenna or base-station makers that make 700 MHz equipment lately?

        Gawd, people around here are dumb...
  • andrewpmk, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1This is complete BS. Wi-Fi is a short range protocol (the range is about 100m or so) so it is completely useless for creating a national broadband network. You'd need so many transmitters it would be uneconomical. And, it would not work indoors (the City of Toronto has a "municipal Wi-Fi system" downtown but it is almost impossible to get a signal indoors). The only viable protocols for long-range internet are the 3G protocols and WiMax.
  • rylo93, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Come on 3G iPhone! It's the only way we will get iPhones in Australia. They are closing down our CDMA network and other than GSM that's all we have. So I'm waiting for this eagerly.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.