Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

iPhone Doesn't Surf Fast Enough for Jobs

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 29, 2007 08:29 AM
from the must-go-faster-must-go-fastr dept.
ElvaWSJ writes with a link to a Wall Street Journal interview with Steve Jobs and AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson. As you can imagine, they're pretty enthusiastic. Just the same, they address the possibility that the iPhone will slow internet access on Ma Bell's cell network. "Mr. Jobs acknowledged that the company's new iPhone won't surf the Internet as fast as he would like on the network, called "Edge," but added that the device's ability to connect to Wi-Fi hotspots would give consumers a speedier alternative for Web browsing. For his part, Mr. Stephenson said the iPhone represents a broader push by AT&T into Wi-Fi services, including, potentially, mobile Internet calling. The two men also discussed the iPod's "halo effect" and reflected on the origins of their corporate partnership."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: AT&T Gears Up for the iPhone 256 comments
ElvaWSJ writes "In preparation for its exclusive launch of the cellphone industry's most anticipated device, AT&T is pulling out all the stops. It is adding about 2,000 temporary employees to cope with the influx of shoppers in the first few months. And it is planning for enhanced security to control the potentially large crowds and avoid theft of the phones, which will go for a steep $499 or $599, depending on memory capacity. Some sales agents expect to see people camping outside the night before. 'Apple, which plans to start selling the phone in all of its 162 retail stores on June 29, did not disclose any plans around training or staffing for the launch. Apple will also start selling the phone online on the launch date, but AT&T will first launch only in its stores ... AT&T, which is requiring iPhone shoppers to sign up for a 2-year contract, has not yet revealed the service fees it will charge iPhone customers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Not much choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday June 29 2007, @08:34AM (#19688121)
    Since AT&T was supposedly the only provider who would agree to Apple's list of detailed demands, it's likely they had little choice but to accept their network. It's not like other providers were lining up for a chance at it.
    • AT&T has an HSDPA [wikipedia.org] (3G) network, but there are two issues with it. (1) It's not widely deployed (a few dozen cities, compared to EDGE, which is everywhere that AT&T offers cell service). (2) Although the network is quite fast, the chipsets that support it presently consume too much power. Apple apparently wants a lower power chipset so that battery life of the iPhone isn't adversely affected.
      • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:42AM (#19688917) Homepage
        Even if you use three times the power to transmit, if you can download the data three times faster, doesn't it come out the same in the end?

        I'd rather have more power consumption to download something in two seconds than less power consumption to download it in 10. The battery life may be somewhat less but if you can get the same amount of web browsing done in less time, what's the loss?

        Sorry, I prefer speed at the expense of battery life. That and no tethering makes the iPhone less than useful for me.
        • Even if you use three times the power to transmit, if you can download the data three times faster, doesn't it come out the same in the end?

          No it doesn't. I for one find it unacceptable to have to plug in my cell phone in the middle of the day. It's why I've opted for smart phones with fantastic battery life (Sony P800 and currently the Nokia e61). Until they announced the new battery life figures for the iPhone it was a non-starter for me, regardless of how cool it may be. There are plenty of times when I'm not near a power outlet, and since I'm on-call 24/7 there are also plenty of times when I don't want to be tethered to a power outlet. Long battery life means I can go where I want and do what I want without concern about the phone dying. I plug it in while I sleep and the next day it's ready to go all day again.

          I've been to trade shows with people running around looking for power outlets so they can charge their phones. Tethered to one place for an hour or two at a time. Sorry, I've got places to go and things to do.

          Is edge slow compared to 3G? Sure, it's what I had on the P800 and it's what I have on the e61 (T-Mobile doesn't do 3G). You know what? It's fast enough for email and web surfing is tolerable. I'm not downloading Gigabytes of data because IT'S A FREAKIN' PHONE! Is 3G faster? No doubt. But for email and web surfing edge is actually just fine. If I need faster access then most likely I also need the processing power in my laptop, not a phone. For those occasions I'm after a wi-fi hotspot anyway.

          Having said all that, if the iPhone was 3G would it be better? Of course. But is 3G the "requirement" every seems to think? Hardly. Of course I'm also a weirdo who thinks the lack of flash support in Safari on the iPhone is actually a blessing.

          • by kestasjk (933987) on Friday June 29 2007, @11:14AM (#19690063) Homepage
            The thing about the iPhone is that Jobs has already talked about getting 3G into the iPhone (in the Macworld 2007 keynote). I don't know who would buy a $499 phone with a 2 year $59/mo contract for a device that will be admittedly be superseded by something much better.

            For a device that is clearly going to be bandwidth hungry to be useful as more than a pretty phone it needs 3G. If Wifi is available and you want to stick around a hotspot you might as well take out your notebook, if you're not buying it for the internet capabilities why not just get a plain phone?
            • by Knara (9377) on Friday June 29 2007, @11:25AM (#19690219)

              The thing about the iPhone is that Jobs has already talked about getting 3G into the iPhone (in the Macworld 2007 keynote). I don't know who would buy a $499 phone with a 2 year $59/mo contract for a device that will be admittedly be superseded by something much better.
              MacFans essentially do this on a regular basis with Apple products anyway.
            • by BlueStraggler (765543) on Friday June 29 2007, @12:03PM (#19690727)

              I don't know who would buy a ... device that will be admittedly be superseded by something much better.

              Every single person you're talking to, for starters. Haven't you just described the whole freakin' tech industry?

            • by dr.badass (25287) on Friday June 29 2007, @12:50PM (#19691331) Homepage

              I don't know who would buy a $499 phone with a 2 year $59/mo contract for a device that will be admittedly be superseded by something much better.
              1.) Waiting for a 3G phone is pointless if you don't have 3G service available in your area.
              2.) Waiting for the next iPhone means waiting an unknown length of time. It could be years.
              3.) The contract doesn't say you have to use the same phone for two years. If a better one comes out, you can switch.
              4.) Many people are more interested with having constant access to things like email, which doesn't need 3G speeds.

              If Wifi is available and you want to stick around a hotspot you might as well take out your notebook.
              This assumes you're carrying your notebook around everywhere you go. In which case, why would you buy an internet-capable phone at all?
          • by norminator (784674) on Friday June 29 2007, @10:55AM (#19689787)

            I can't understand why they would 'ban' tethering from the iPhone, I mean if it is an unlimited plan, what difference is it if you go straight through the phone or a laptop while out and about on occasion?

            I think you just answered your own question... Really, the unlimited plan is limited by how much data you'd actually use on your phone, which is a lot less than you can with your laptop. The phone itself isn't going to transfer much data, because other than YouTube, it can't make use of large amounts of data (unless they start allowing people to buy from the iTunes store directly on the phone). Your laptop is where you could start downloading large files and doing a lot of other communication. That eases the strain on their network, but they still get to call your data plan unlimited.
  • Simply put: it ain't 3G. That's going to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for iPhone. It's one of the reasons why I won't be buying one, despite the fact that I drooled over the iPhone initially.
    • by arivanov (12034) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:43AM (#19688215) Homepage
      Agree. Though the problem is not that GPRS (with or without EDGE) is slow as a network. The problem is that the ubiquity of the Blackberry has largely driven it over capacity in the places where the demand for mobile computing is likely to be the highest - commuter routes and tourist areas.

      Here are some number from the UK Vodafone GPRS (non-Edge) network collected on a typical Cambridge to London Commute:

      1. Business commuter trains (starting time) 7:15-8:45 and 17:15-18:45 97% downlink packet loss, totally unuseable. Looks like the BB is actually prioritised versus any other traffic to ensure that the people who enjoy a vibrator up their crotch have an instant vibration regularly.

      2. Transition period: 8:45-9:15 and 16:15-17:15 - works in some areas depending on cell capacity

      3. Non-business commuter trains 9:15-15:45 and after 19:15 - works flawlessly except a couple of holes in coverage. Speed is not great, but quite tolerable. Definitely useable for some minor surfing, checking mail, working on a couple of documents.

      I would not expect ATT to be much different. In fact, it is likely to be worse. With or without Edge.
      • by illumin8 (148082) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:48AM (#19689007) Journal

        Here are some number from the UK Vodafone GPRS (non-Edge) network collected on a typical Cambridge to London Commute:
        Just because Vodafone oversold their GPRS network doesn't mean that AT&T has. I live in one of the most rail commuter heavy areas in the world (NYC area), and I see people on the train using all kinds of Blackberries, Treos, and other wireless devices. I get 160kbps downstream (tested using mobile speed test [dslreports.com]) consistently in this area, provided my train isn't going through a tunnel or underground. I use a Treo 650 GSM on Cingular/AT&T network.

        The reason I switched from T-Mobile to Cingular was the data speed. T-Mobile clocked in around 40kbps average, where Cingular/AT&T was 160kbps.
    • by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768.comcast@net> on Friday June 29 2007, @08:51AM (#19688319) Journal
      Your right it aint 3G which means the entire country can use it instead of roughly two dozen cities that have 3G support leaving the rest of the country out in the cold.

      Oh and the iPhone can last a day with normal consumption, not 45 minutes because 3G chipsets consumer insane amounts of power.

      Seriously this not 3G crap is getting old. Its not 3G because in the US 3G is NOT READY YET.

      • by Scyber (539694) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:11AM (#19688531)
        I thought most of cingular's 3G phones fall back to EDGE when not in a 3G coverage area. If that is the case, then the entire country could still use the iPhone if it was 3G.
      • Wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mr2001 (90979) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:25AM (#19688683) Homepage Journal
        EVDO is 3G, and it's available across the US [evdomaps.com]. And my EVDO phone's battery lasts a lot longer than 45 minutes.

        The US is 3G ready - it's Cingular/AT&T and T-Mobile who aren't.
          • by Flunitrazepam (664690) on Friday June 29 2007, @10:48AM (#19689683) Journal
            You're confusing 3G with W-CDMA. EDGE is a GSM "upgrade". A significant portion of US cell users are on CDMA networks (Verizon/Sprint/...). For 3G those users are using EVDO, which "degrades" to 1x. You can think of EDGE and 1xRTT as 2.5G, at least relative to data transfer rate.

            So the progression is something like this:

            2G -> 2.5G -> 3G -> 3.5G -> 4G
            GSM -> Edge -> W-CDMA(UMTS) -> HSPA -> LTE
            cdmaOne -> 1xRTT -> EVDO -> EVDO Rev A -> UMB/OFDMA/WiMAX

            Sprint has already rolled out EVDO Rev. A in some locations, which is "bitchin fast" for both download and upload.

            I've had an EVDO Rev. 0 card in my laptop for a few years, and while I wouldn't say it is quite as fast as WiFi, it is really great and I get 5 hours of battery life.

            In conclusion, your statement that the country is "EDGE ready, not 3G" is inaccurate in several ways. Not meaning to flame.
            • Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)

              by DECS (891519) on Friday June 29 2007, @01:29PM (#19691947) Homepage Journal
              Not having Flash is a feature.

              Apple yanked all of the Flash from its corporate website and redid it all in standard Ajax using scriptilicious and other plane jane tools, demonstrating that anyone can. It's even more interactive and functional (check out Apple.com search) and no proprietary plugin for Flash required.

              Adobe isn't happy about it, but do we really need to convert the web from open HTML into closed FLA? Apple even convinced Google to start putting all of its FLA On2 videos on YouTube into standard H.264. That makes is much easier to deliver standards-based hardware acceleration for mobile devices that optimizes YouTube type sites.

              With this kind of progress, the web is headed back into open territory after a long captivity in proprietary hell. That's good for Linux users, DIY site builders, and levels the playing field in hardware.

              The web shouldn't be hostage to anyone's plugin just to render pages, particularly a plugin tied to a proprietary and industrially uncommon video codec that doesn't appear to have any hardware acceleration features. Anyone can license H.264 or get cheap dedicated processors.

              Internet Explorer on the desktop PC doesn't make any attempt to support CSS3, and doesn't even try hard to do 2005-era CSS. The Pocket version is even further away from being remotely useful for the modern web.
  • by gravos (912628) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:34AM (#19688127) Homepage
    But 640kbps ought to be enough for anyone?
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by svendsen (1029716) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:40AM (#19688179)
    I was afraid we wouldn't see a single iPhone advertisement...I mean article today...my fears have been relived...
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:53AM (#19689051)
      I was afraid we wouldn't see a single iPhone advertisement...I mean article today...

      What better advertising for the iPhone could there be than Apple's CEO complaining that the data rate is too slow?

      my fears have been relived...

      I'm sorry you even had to live them once, much less twice.

  • WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU (810740) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:47AM (#19688277)
    I'm amazed AT&T or any cell company would allow a cell to enter their market that has built in wifi. Won't this cut into their profits? Since anyone can go to McD's and check their email instead of having to pay their provider for the online minutes.
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:48AM (#19688281) Homepage
    Why did not apple buck the whole system and offere the iPhone as a unlocked device only.

    that way you could get your choice of service, your phone is not held hostage by unscrupulous Service providers, and it would have forced a change in the way cellular companies abuse their customers.

    a win,win,win situation.

    • Because (Score:3, Informative)

      Some of it's voice mail features required the carrier to change it's network. If you just put it on the market as an open device, no carrir is going to botherto spend the millions to change their network.

      Of course, if the iPhone does become the next iPod, then other carriers will start to make changes to support those features. Then APple will open it to other carriers.

      This is very Jobs. Get his foot in the door, then eventually be the hippest cat in the whole room.
    • You've drunk the Kool-Aid.

      Apple is NOT your friend, and they are NOT trying to bring about a revolution for the little guy. They are trying to worm their way in to every possible aspect of getting your money. Why do you HAVE to go thru iTunes to set a ring tone? Why can't you just use an existing MP3 that you downloaded/copied over to the phone? Because Apple doesn't get a cut that way.

      The phone is not unlocked because Apple gets a cut of the service from AT&T. The phone will most likely only be unlocked when Apple negotiates a cut from the other GSM service providers.
  • What is up with Jobs selling nonexistent features?

    Ringtone business gets a tease:
    Mr. Jobs: One might imagine a lot of things down the road.
    Mr. Jobs: There's a lot of things you can imagine down the road.

    But you can forget 3G in revision one:
    Mr. Jobs: No, we just don't comment on future stuff.

    I also got a kick out of this:
    Mr. Jobs: There's often times a Wi-Fi network that you can join whether you're sitting in a coffee shop or even walking along the street piggybacking on somebody's home Wi-Fi network.

    Theft of service, it's the Apple way!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Don't want people to connect to your wi-fi? DOn't have your Wi-fi asking for connections.
  • by jshriverWVU (810740) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:50AM (#19688305)
    With all the hype over people getting sued and arrested for using someones open AP, I wonder if the iPhone autoconnects without user intervention or if it requires some manual selection. If auto this could cause legal problems as the user would be according to recent suits "stealing bandwith and computer fraud by illegally accessing an another persons network" I dont agree with it, but that appears to be the direction we're going.
  • by Brit_in_the_USA (936704) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:00AM (#19688391)
    Seems that there are credible reports coming in that in the last 24 hours AT+T have increased EDGE speeds to >200 k bits/s. This should be good news to all AT+T EDGE users:

    http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/28/atandt-customer s-seeing-sudden-boost-in-edge-speeds/ [engadget.com]

    As we know, increased means they probably removed some artificial cap....

    I wonder how many days will go by until the drop the speed again? I guess there will be a halo effect of new iPhone buyers showing their friends - "hey look at this I can browse the web" - just for the sake of it....
  • by packetmon (977047) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:09AM (#19688505) Homepage
    It will surf teh interweb, answer email, make calls, play MP3's, wash your car, clean your house, spank you off. FINELINE PRINT: Product may not work as advertised. In order to benefit from our huge technologically advanced vertically intergrated technologically advanced technology, users must first purchase an advanced proactive neurally intergrated vertically horizontal network card from our vertically implemented horizontally vectored service provider.
  • More bullshit from AT&T:

    Mr. Stephenson: If you think about wireless broadband networks, EDGE is the only ubiquitous nationwide broadband network deployed today. It's a 300-plus kilobit type service. We're selling in the tens of thousands every single month of smart phones that operate on nothing but EDGE. The service experience is really, really good and what you're going to see with the iPhone is the caching technology that Steve and the Apple guys have developed here makes the EDGE experience even better. Between the Wi-Fi and the EDGE coverage, this is a really good experience.

    High latency, low bandwidth broadband. Huzzah!

    Sprint's EVDO network is deployed as widely as AT&T's EDGE network (not even all of AT&T's GSM network is EDGE). Worse, Sprint's EVDO revA network is deployed in most metropolitan areas, nearly all interstate highways, and nearly all tourist areas.

    For AT&T, Edge is "all the speed you need", up until they deploy HSDPA, in which case that will be, "all the speed you need". Just like this: http://www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/03/30/att-proje ct-lightspeed-and-the-jedi-mind-trick/ [nyquistcapital.com]
    Mr.Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown 'no discernable difference' between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone.

    Ridiculous
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You had a commercially available computer before 1984 that had a mouse and a bit-map display and folders and icons? Or you got one in 1984 that wasn't from Apple?
        • by xeno-cat (147219) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:16AM (#19688579) Homepage
          So Jobs should have appended, "...except, of course, for the Xerox Star. We all remember the Xerox Star right?"

          There were several little incubator projects or outright commercial failures for GUI's in the early 80's. Macintosh was the one that brought it to the world. They are the ones that got it right. That gives them some pretty significant bragging rights.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And you stopped reading because?

      I won't make any apologies for Job's well known asshole tendencies (but supposedly those are much more subdued since NeXT, guess winning does fix everything?) but all he is doing here is stating what really happened. Were the primitives and direct inspiration for the Mac gui borrowed from Xerox? Damn straight. They borrowed from other places too, but they had the foresight to slap it all together and shove it out to the masses. This is how humanity works people, we build on
    • Re:Halo (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nbvb (32836) on Friday June 29 2007, @08:57AM (#19688371) Journal
      > If I were running an AT&T competitor right now I would be wondering why Jobs didn't approach me with this opportunity and what I could do to earn his approval. I wouldn't want to be left behind

      Unless, of course, you're Verizon who had the balls to stand up to Apple. Right decision in the end or not, at least they stood up for their business.

      If someone came to you and said:

      1) We want you to agree to sell our product, sight unseen.
      2) You have to cut all of your partners out of it.
      3) We will tell you whether the phone can be replaced if a customer has a problem.
      4) We want a percentage of service revenue.

      - does that sound like a good business decision to you? You're going to alienate all of your other partners (i.e. Best buy, Walmart, etc..) You're going to alienate your customers (Sorry, we'd love to replace your handset Mr. Big-Important-VIP-Customer, but Apple said no. Can't help you.), and worst of all, you open the door for *EVERYONE* to take a piece of your service revenue - why wouldn't Motorola/LG/Samsung/etc. ask for the same deal? (You did it for Apple - either split revenue with us, or no RAZR2 for you.)

      I agree - I think it would've kicked butt if VZW had the iPhone. A real 3G network (EV-DO) would complement iPhone wonderfully, as would a real voice network (GSM quality is crap. CDMA not only covers more area per tower, but it has a better vocoder as well.)

      But can you blame them for turning it down? I would have, given the way Apple approached them.

      http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-veriz on-iphone_x.htm [usatoday.com]
      • Re:Halo (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bemopolis (698691) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:54AM (#19689073)

        and worst of all, you open the door for *EVERYONE* to take a piece of your service revenue - why wouldn't Motorola/LG/Samsung/etc. ask for the same deal? (You did it for Apple - either split revenue with us, or no RAZR2 for you.)


        Oh noes!! Please don't withhold the RAZR2 from us!! Our customers will die -- all three of them!!

        Well OK, the RAZR sold more than three units. I assume. Anyway, the curent economic model between the cellphone manufacturers and service providers sucks. It leads to stupid shit like feature-blocking. I want my cellphone provider to provide service. And usable information about that service. My cable company didn't sell me a TV. My ISV didn't sell me my computer (and if they did I'll bet it wouldn't be one that I wanted.) Sure, I wish the iPhone was usable with all carriers, but it isn't. Yet. One step at a time.

        Oh, and P.S. When the RAZR came out it cost $500 as well WITH a service agreement; $800 without. Just saying.
      • Re:Halo (Score:4, Interesting)

        by The One and Only (691315) <phil@philwelch.net> on Friday June 29 2007, @12:02PM (#19690719) Homepage
        On the other hand, Verizon Wireless has horrible customer service, cripples their phones (to the extent that, for instance, you can't even get your pictures off of them and onto your computer without using some proprietary service), doesn't use GSM...
    • Re:Revolutionary? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LKM (227954) on Friday June 29 2007, @09:35AM (#19688811) Homepage
      What part of "revolutionary user interface" did you not understand? He isn't even talking about the "touchscreen capabilitites" or "playing music" or "viewing the web." He's talking about how the touchscreen is used, how your play music, and how you view the web.

      Yeah, my P990i does have a touchscreen, does view the web, does play music. That doesn't mean the iPhone's UI isn't revolutionary.