The Apple iPhone Thread (3 Viewers)

[SomeGuyNamedDavid]

So does iPhone 4 have speech to text like Android?

How well does that work? Can you read your voicemails?I know the iPhone has Google Voice, I'm not sure what technology Android uses, but I would assume it would be the same: Google.

I don't have either phone, I was just asking. I know from the other thread that it's a feature of Android and I didn't see it listed on Apple's website.

 

[toshiba]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

I can't get good AT&T coverage in my travel areas in the east coast. I needed Verizon to accomplish this.

 

[California]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho :(

 

[One]

My take of the iP4:

pros: Screen, better resolution and higher pixel density all while not draining the battery (which was a big problem to predecessors w/ high res screens like the Fuze). IMO it was the #1 draw back to the device in the 3G and 3Gs models and they did a good job upgrading their major weakness

cons: It's still Apple, if their customers have an iPad even though with technology they could easily make the iP4 a hotspot to more easily make the wifi iPad's more versatile they refuse to. There's still a lot of control (too much IMO) over their devices that does not stop at the software level, just something I am not a big fan of.

99% sure this came down from ATT, not Apple. ATT is limiting bandwidth demand on their pipes. They refused to allow iPhone tethering for the past year even though the iPhone had the capability and it was enabled everywhere outside of the U.S. ATT also stands to gain way more than Apple from this. Apple gets at best an one time extra $100-200 with the up-sell from iPad WiFi to 3G. ATT on the other hand gets $20 every month for the lifetime of the device through the extra 3G usage.There are reasons to dislike Apple, but this just isn't one of them, IMO.

Please stop with this, Apple didn't have to choose ATT but they did and knew ATT sucked and the weakest carriers. Curious but if you owned a business say a restaurant and the company that delivers food was less than stellar but you knew this would you then not claim any responsibility if the product was shoddy?

I guess you also applaud ATT for allowing the Iphone to run on their network, right?

ATT > Sprint in most of the country. HTH

Says who?Many ratings I have seen has Sprint right behind Verizon.

Seems like it varies greatly from city to city. I can't get Sprint in my own house. AT&T & Verizon work great.

 

[sho nuff]

Seems like it varies greatly from city to city. I can't get Sprint in my own house. AT&T & Verizon work great.

Agreed there.I just don't think that saying ATT>Sprint is really that true of a statement on coverage.The reviews mentioned and the article above get to what is better at ATT...their service and phone offerings have beaten Sprint for a while. Coverage wise I don't see it...not based on other coverage reviews I have seen over the years...and not based on my own experience at least in and around Nashville and across Tennessee (from Knoxville to Memphis where I have traveled to visit the in-laws) and up through KY, IL, and into Wisconsin where I have traveled to visit family.

 

[Billy Bats]

What's the date of the new OS?

June 21st.

 

[hxperson]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

Did you mean to say their 4G network isn't LTE, it's WiMax? If not, what do you mean?Also, while there certainly is spin being quoted in the article, it is not a Sprint press release. and I would think this quote certainly means something:

"As far as network improvements go, independent analysis largely confirms that Sprint's investments have paid off. PC World in July found that Sprint had the most reliable 3G network in 13 test cities, measured by detecting and reaching a signal and sustaining an uninterrupted connection. Mobile data tracker Root Wireless found in December that Sprint had the best 3G signal strength in seven test cities."

 

[goonsquad]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing megabits per second (mbps or Mbps) and megabytes per second (MBps). Big difference. In data transfer, megabits are the unit of measurement. There are 8 bits in 1 byte, so 1 mbps = 0.125 MBps. For WiFi connections, 802.11g maxes out at 54 mbps (megabits/sec), which equals 6.75 MBps (megabytes/sec). 802.11n tops out at 540 mbps, or 67.5 MBps. This is a very real difference and one that does pose a browsing problem as broadband connections commonly exceed 6.75 MBps download speeds. Comcast, for example, starts at 12 MBps and sells upgraded packages of 16 MBps and 22 MBps. Granted real world connections are rarely as fast as advertised, exceeding 6.75 MBps is not out of the ordinary for broadband connections.

 

[California]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing megabits per second (mbps or Mbps) and megabytes per second (MBps). Big difference. In data transfer, megabits are the unit of measurement. There are 8 bits in 1 byte, so 1 mbps = 0.125 MBps. For WiFi connections, 802.11g maxes out at 54 mbps (megabits/sec), which equals 6.75 MBps (megabytes/sec). 802.11n tops out at 540 mbps, or 67.5 MBps. This is a very real difference and one that does pose a browsing problem as broadband connections commonly exceed 6.75 MBps download speeds. Comcast, for example, starts at 12 MBps and sells upgraded packages of 16 MBps and 22 MBps. Granted real world connections are rarely as fast as advertised, exceeding 6.75 MBps is not out of the ordinary for broadband connections.

Yep, your explanation of mbps and MBps is correct. Are you sure on your Comcast example? Every internet provider I know of advertises in mbps, not MBps. I don't have Comcast (I have 24mbps Uverse = 3MBps) but their website shows their standard offering at 12Mbps. If it is MBps, that would equal 12x8 = 96mbps, for $20/month. I'll cancel ATT and sign up with Comcast right now then.

The "average" high speed internet connection in the USA is around 1.5-3mbps. The average in South Korea is around 50mbps. Is Comcast really offering 96mbps to 176mpbs service?

I still believe wireless G (54mbps) will not be our bottleneck for awhile to come, but I could be wrong.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing megabits per second (mbps or Mbps) and megabytes per second (MBps). Big difference. In data transfer, megabits are the unit of measurement. There are 8 bits in 1 byte, so 1 mbps = 0.125 MBps. For WiFi connections, 802.11g maxes out at 54 mbps (megabits/sec), which equals 6.75 MBps (megabytes/sec). 802.11n tops out at 540 mbps, or 67.5 MBps. This is a very real difference and one that does pose a browsing problem as broadband connections commonly exceed 6.75 MBps download speeds. Comcast, for example, starts at 12 MBps and sells upgraded packages of 16 MBps and 22 MBps. Granted real world connections are rarely as fast as advertised, exceeding 6.75 MBps is not out of the ordinary for broadband connections.

Yep, your explanation of mbps and MBps is correct. Are you sure on your Comcast example? Every internet provider I know of advertises in mbps, not MBps. I don't have Comcast (I have 24mbps Uverse = 3MBps) but their website shows their standard offering at 12Mbps. If it is MBps, that would equal 12x8 = 96mbps, for $20/month. I'll cancel ATT and sign up with Comcast right now then.

The "average" high speed internet connection in the USA is around 1.5-3mbps. The average in South Korea is around 50mbps. Is Comcast really offering 96mbps to 176mpbs service?

I still believe wireless G (54mbps) will not be our bottleneck for awhile to come, but I could be wrong.

No ####. The "Premier" internet package from my provider tops out at 30mbps.

 

[Nate]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

The big difference for many would have been if the iPhone supported 5Ghz 802.11n. Get out of the cluster**** 2.4Ghz range and you can get some real speed out of your home network. Guess I'll have to get a dual-band...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing megabits per second (mbps or Mbps) and megabytes per second (MBps). Big difference. In data transfer, megabits are the unit of measurement. There are 8 bits in 1 byte, so 1 mbps = 0.125 MBps. For WiFi connections, 802.11g maxes out at 54 mbps (megabits/sec), which equals 6.75 MBps (megabytes/sec). 802.11n tops out at 540 mbps, or 67.5 MBps. This is a very real difference and one that does pose a browsing problem as broadband connections commonly exceed 6.75 MBps download speeds. Comcast, for example, starts at 12 MBps and sells upgraded packages of 16 MBps and 22 MBps. Granted real world connections are rarely as fast as advertised, exceeding 6.75 MBps is not out of the ordinary for broadband connections.

Yep, your explanation of mbps and MBps is correct. Are you sure on your Comcast example? Every internet provider I know of advertises in mbps, not MBps. I don't have Comcast (I have 24mbps Uverse = 3MBps) but their website shows their standard offering at 12Mbps. If it is MBps, that would equal 12x8 = 96mbps, for $20/month. I'll cancel ATT and sign up with Comcast right now then.

The "average" high speed internet connection in the USA is around 1.5-3mbps. The average in South Korea is around 50mbps. Is Comcast really offering 96mbps to 176mpbs service?

I still believe wireless G (54mbps) will not be our bottleneck for awhile to come, but I could be wrong.

No ####. The "Premier" internet package from my provider tops out at 30mbps.

I just got something in the mail yesterday from Time Warner: DOWN: up to 50Mbps

UP: up to 5Mbps

for $249/month

still seems like way too much money

 

[California]

Just to clarify wireless N since there's some misinformation in this thread. Unless your internet speeds are higher than 54mbps, this will not let you browse/download/upload to YouTube faster.

If you have a wireless N router, this will let you transfer files faster between computers on your network, theoretically. I say theoretically because as of now, all file transfers to and from your iphone have to be done through itunes, through a usb cable, making wireless N pretty useless on an iDevice.

I did read about an app that will allow wireless syncing through itunes tho? In this case it should come in handy. In general tho, wireless N on phones (include android) is something that looks good on paper, but kinda meh in practice. Your max storage on your phone is going to be between 8-32gb so you can't really transfer large files. N shines when you're streaming 15gb HD files from your server to your media player tho

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing megabits per second (mbps or Mbps) and megabytes per second (MBps). Big difference. In data transfer, megabits are the unit of measurement. There are 8 bits in 1 byte, so 1 mbps = 0.125 MBps. For WiFi connections, 802.11g maxes out at 54 mbps (megabits/sec), which equals 6.75 MBps (megabytes/sec). 802.11n tops out at 540 mbps, or 67.5 MBps. This is a very real difference and one that does pose a browsing problem as broadband connections commonly exceed 6.75 MBps download speeds. Comcast, for example, starts at 12 MBps and sells upgraded packages of 16 MBps and 22 MBps. Granted real world connections are rarely as fast as advertised, exceeding 6.75 MBps is not out of the ordinary for broadband connections.

Yep, your explanation of mbps and MBps is correct. Are you sure on your Comcast example? Every internet provider I know of advertises in mbps, not MBps. I don't have Comcast (I have 24mbps Uverse = 3MBps) but their website shows their standard offering at 12Mbps. If it is MBps, that would equal 12x8 = 96mbps, for $20/month. I'll cancel ATT and sign up with Comcast right now then.

The "average" high speed internet connection in the USA is around 1.5-3mbps. The average in South Korea is around 50mbps. Is Comcast really offering 96mbps to 176mpbs service?

I still believe wireless G (54mbps) will not be our bottleneck for awhile to come, but I could be wrong.

No ####. The "Premier" internet package from my provider tops out at 30mbps.

I just got something in the mail yesterday from Time Warner: DOWN: up to 50Mbps

UP: up to 5Mbps

for $249/month

still seems like way too much money

Wow, that is expensive. 24Mbps down, 3Mbps up is $65/month from ATT and I'd consider this expensive. I need the upload bandwidth for work tho otherwise I'd drop down to 12.On a side note, we just moved into a new house that was Uverse eligible. Our old house was on the fringe of Verizon service (right on the border between Verizon and ATT zones). Had to pay $50 month for 1.5mpbs/128kbps. It was hell trying to upload files to our work server. I offered to pay whatever I needed to get a faster speed but it just wasn't possible based on our distance from the Verizon CO.

I never thought a fast internet connection could make me so happy

 

[goonsquad]

Yep, your explanation of mbps and MBps is correct. Are you sure on your Comcast example? Every internet provider I know of advertises in mbps, not MBps. I don't have Comcast (I have 24mbps Uverse = 3MBps) but their website shows their standard offering at 12Mbps. If it is MBps, that would equal 12x8 = 96mbps, for $20/month. I'll cancel ATT and sign up with Comcast right now then.The "average" high speed internet connection in the USA is around 1.5-3mbps. The average in South Korea is around 50mbps. Is Comcast really offering 96mbps to 176mpbs service?I still believe wireless G (54mbps) will not be our bottleneck for awhile to come, but I could be wrong.

Nope, not sure about Comcast, just did a quick search as a reference when I posted. If Comcast is listing megabits, then their packages are: 1.5 MB/s, 2 MB/s, 2.75 MB/s, and 6.25 MB/s. I'm guessing that's the case and I was wrong in my first post. I think I've been misreading "Mbps" before this discussion. From their site:

High-Speed InternetTiers of service(download/upload speeds) Performance: 12 Mbps/ 2 Mbps(up to 15 Mbps/3 Mbps with PowerBoost) Blast!®: 16 Mbps/ 2 Mbps(up to 20 Mbps/4 Mbps with PowerBoost) Ultra: 22 Mbps/ 5 Mbps(up to 30 Mbps/7 Mbps with PowerBoost) Extreme 50: 50 Mbps/ 10 Mbps

 

[Green94]

White 32 GB iP4 please.

I know, I'm thinking White as well. Went with the Black 3G and I'm ready for a change!

 

[Green94]

WiFi: EVO only supports 802.11b/g while iPhone supports 802.11b/g/n, allowing for much faster WiFi speeds (up to 600Mbps vs. 54Mbps). Huge Advantage iPhone 4.

Can you expound on this a bit? It would be a 15 minute mod in code to get "n" added to the android platform if the need was there. What you are saying above would be similar to a hater pointing out that EVO is equipped to run on "4G" out of the box but iPhone isn't. It would be a slight mod in both cases to gain that capability. Throw in the prevalence of "n" networks, and I don't see how you are getting here. What am I missing?

This isn't something a software hack can change.

 

[Agent 47]

I just got something in the mail yesterday from Time Warner: DOWN: up to 50Mbps UP: up to 5Mbpsfor $249/monthstill seems like way too much money

Wow, that is expensive. 24Mbps down, 3Mbps up is $65/month from ATT and I'd consider this expensive. I need the upload bandwidth for work tho otherwise I'd drop down to 12.On a side note, we just moved into a new house that was Uverse eligible. Our old house was on the fringe of Verizon service (right on the border between Verizon and ATT zones). Had to pay $50 month for 1.5mpbs/128kbps. It was hell trying to upload files to our work server. I offered to pay whatever I needed to get a faster speed but it just wasn't possible based on our distance from the Verizon CO.I never thought a fast internet connection could make me so happy

Uh yeah, way too much.I get Down: 30 Up: 5 and I pay about 165/month, and that includes cable, HBO, HD and a phone

 

[Finless]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

Did you mean to say their 4G network isn't LTE, it's WiMax? If not, what do you mean?Also, while there certainly is spin being quoted in the article, it is not a Sprint press release. and I would think this quote certainly means something:

"As far as network improvements go, independent analysis largely confirms that Sprint's investments have paid off. PC World in July found that Sprint had the most reliable 3G network in 13 test cities, measured by detecting and reaching a signal and sustaining an uninterrupted connection. Mobile data tracker Root Wireless found in December that Sprint had the best 3G signal strength in seven test cities."

[icon] Are you seriously pimping AT&T's network?

 

[[icon]]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

Did you mean to say their 4G network isn't LTE, it's WiMax? If not, what do you mean?Also, while there certainly is spin being quoted in the article, it is not a Sprint press release. and I would think this quote certainly means something:

"As far as network improvements go, independent analysis largely confirms that Sprint's investments have paid off. PC World in July found that Sprint had the most reliable 3G network in 13 test cities, measured by detecting and reaching a signal and sustaining an uninterrupted connection. Mobile data tracker Root Wireless found in December that Sprint had the best 3G signal strength in seven test cities."

I'm failing to see where you've countered anything I've said

 

[[icon]]

Are you seriously pimping AT&T's network?

Compared to Sprint? outside major metropolitan areas? Yes. I am.

 

[Green94]

Ok, so can I pre-order the phone online (on the 15th) or do I have to pre-order in the store? I've been hearing mixed things about this.

 

[Finless]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

Did you mean to say their 4G network isn't LTE, it's WiMax? If not, what do you mean?Also, while there certainly is spin being quoted in the article, it is not a Sprint press release. and I would think this quote certainly means something:

"As far as network improvements go, independent analysis largely confirms that Sprint's investments have paid off. PC World in July found that Sprint had the most reliable 3G network in 13 test cities, measured by detecting and reaching a signal and sustaining an uninterrupted connection. Mobile data tracker Root Wireless found in December that Sprint had the best 3G signal strength in seven test cities."

I'm failing to see where you've countered anything I've said

You're acting like you've recently done a side by side comparison of the different networks all over the country in all areas. Then you try to discredit non-biased companies that do this for a living. NO ONE PIMPS AT&T's network!

 

[Balance]

Edit to add: I do LOVE the kickstand feature on the EVO. Very nice.

Though it doesn't tilt, I saw on one of the iP4 videos that the iPhone stands straight up on it's own.

Stands on its side?... AWESOME NEW FEATURE!

WOW!!!!!(yes, this is my new schtick for the thread)

get your own schtick.

 

[duece2626]

Ok, so can I pre-order the phone online (on the 15th) or do I have to pre-order in the store? I've been hearing mixed things about this.

Don't see why you can't pre order online.

 

[The Commish]

{icon]'s good people too. I cleared this up shortly after the posts...I was thinking of the incredible. Do the incredible and evo have the same radio?

Not sure. I have not seen a tear down of the incredible so am unsure what chips it uses.

Well, crap....if the Evo does indeed use the Broadcom BCM4329, it is 'n' capable. icon...not sure if either of us knows if we are coming or going at this point Link

I still have no idea how the "n" part would be restricted, so it could very well be a hack into the hardware regardless of what CS and green want to believe. Have to dig some more.

 

[goonsquad]

Edit to add: I do LOVE the kickstand feature on the EVO. Very nice.

Though it doesn't tilt, I saw on one of the iP4 videos that the iPhone stands straight up on it's own.

Stands on its side?... AWESOME NEW FEATURE! :X

WOW!!!!!(yes, this is my new schtick for the thread)

get your own schtick.

In a BP Oil thread? Not sure that counts... this will have to go to the schtick judges.

 

[goonsquad]

{icon]'s good people too. I cleared this up shortly after the posts...I was thinking of the incredible. Do the incredible and evo have the same radio?

Not sure. I have not seen a tear down of the incredible so am unsure what chips it uses.

Well, crap....if the Evo does indeed use the Broadcom BCM4329, it is 'n' capable. icon...not sure if either of us knows if we are coming or going at this point :X Link

I still have no idea how the "n" part would be restricted, so it could very well be a hack into the hardware regardless of what CS and green want to believe. Have to dig some more.

Captain Picard is gonna be pissed if they mess up the Space Time continuum again.

Supports 802.11n performance and range features, such as Space Time Block Coding (STBC), Short Gual Interval (SGI), A-MPDU aggregation, Block Ack, Greenfield, RIFS

 

[Green94]

Ok, so can I pre-order the phone online (on the 15th) or do I have to pre-order in the store? I've been hearing mixed things about this.

Don't see why you can't pre order online.

That's what I figured, haven't bought a 3GS or iPad, so I'm not quite sure how it works. But with talking to a guy at work today, he mentioned that you still have to go into the store to pre-order the phone. Didn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

 

[Billy Bats]

Guess I don't spend enough every month. Bought the 3GS 6/22/09 (first time ATT customer) and "may qualify on 11/23/2010".

Though I'm not sure I would have paid the $200 anyway...

Just sell your 3gs on eBay, that's what I plan on doing. Tonight I seen a used 16g going for $300 bucks, even if I get $200 for mine, it's a wash and I get the upgraded phone.

 

[hxperson]

In coverage? Or in overall? Overall...I could agree...Sprint has had some bad customer service and that is one of the things they are behind ATT in on toptenreviews.com...and in selection of phones...the Evo could change that a bit and drive them closer, but the iPhone4 should easily equal out any bump the Evo might give Sprint).

But I have yet to see someone rank coverage of ATT better than Sprint on those sites or others.

CNN article on sprint in Feb

I used to write Press Releases for a living. The spin is clear as day in this one.

According to recent third-party studies, Sprint's (S, Fortune 500) network quality is improving faster than its competitors, its 3G network is the most reliable and it has the best 3G signal strength in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Sprint is also the only wireless provider that has an up-and-running 4G network, and its rates are mostly favorable to its biggest rivals, Verizon Wireless (VZ, Fortune 500) and AT&T (T, Fortune 500).

"Improving faster than competitors" = still haven't caught up to competition but making strides

"Best signal in major metro areas" = No mention of outside major cities, where most of the criticism lies.

Their 4G network isn't true 4G.

Point is... if you live in a major city and rarely travel then Sprint has great coverage. IF you live on the outskirts or travel outside major metro areas, then Sprint sucks. AT&T May have trouble with capacity due to data useage from the iPhone, but they've got "more bars in more places" than Sprint.

Did you mean to say their 4G network isn't LTE, it's WiMax? If not, what do you mean?Also, while there certainly is spin being quoted in the article, it is not a Sprint press release. and I would think this quote certainly means something:

"As far as network improvements go, independent analysis largely confirms that Sprint's investments have paid off. PC World in July found that Sprint had the most reliable 3G network in 13 test cities, measured by detecting and reaching a signal and sustaining an uninterrupted connection. Mobile data tracker Root Wireless found in December that Sprint had the best 3G signal strength in seven test cities."

I'm failing to see where you've countered anything I've said

1. Nothing in my post was meant to mock you. Just making a point that I felt the article wasn't all spin (while admitting there is some), as you are saying, and using that quote as an example. I really don't care about your point about Sprint in lesser markets. 2. You never answered my question, which was what do you mean when you say "Their 4G network isn't true 4G."?

 

[belljr]

So does iPhone 4 have speech to text like Android?

How well does that work? Can you read your voicemails?I know the iPhone has Google Voice, I'm not sure what technology Android uses, but I would assume it would be the same: Google.

Wroks pretty well. When I text something now I just speak it. Of course it screws up time to time. I didn't pay for the Voicemail option, don't get that many calls to justify the $$. I think it's only like $2 a month or something but you can have your messages read

 

[belljr]

extra $20/mo. on ATT for the iPhone and $30/mo. on Sprint for EVO.

Wow, nevermind. Wasn't that interested and definitely not paying that.

Not sure about the iPhone but the droid market has an app that will do it for free (I believe sprint wants it disabled on their phone to get people to pay the $30/mo though (at least as far as I have read).

Android market several free apps that allow free tethering - Easy Tether and PDA Lite are the most popular. Google has said they want free tethering on all their phones. They definitely dont see eye to eye with the carriers on this but it seems like Google is winning out (for the time being)

I don't understand why you should have to pay more for tethering. Aren't you already paying for the data package?

Tethering uses more bandwith supposedly, that is their argument. We have tethered and Android phone to an Ipad at work and it works pretty well. If you stay below I think 4 GB then the carriers won't notice. i agree with you that if you pay for the plan it should be unlimited but they are trying to make money selling the adapters.I think Verizon still locks it down.

 

[Ned]

Guess I don't spend enough every month. Bought the 3GS 6/22/09 (first time ATT customer) and "may qualify on 11/23/2010".

Though I'm not sure I would have paid the $200 anyway...

Just sell your 3gs on eBay, that's what I plan on doing. Tonight I seen a used 16g going for $300 bucks, even if I get $200 for mine, it's a wash and I get the upgraded phone.

Why in the world are the selling for so much when you can get brand new for cheaper?

 

[Billy Bats]

Guess I don't spend enough every month. Bought the 3GS 6/22/09 (first time ATT customer) and "may qualify on 11/23/2010".

Though I'm not sure I would have paid the $200 anyway...

Just sell your 3gs on eBay, that's what I plan on doing. Tonight I seen a used 16g going for $300 bucks, even if I get $200 for mine, it's a wash and I get the upgraded phone.

Why in the world are the selling for so much when you can get brand new for cheaper?

Because a new iPhone goes for 6-700 without a contract with AT&T. People who don't want a contract or want the phone to jailbreak it are still getting a deal by buying it used.

 

[Ned]

Guess I don't spend enough every month. Bought the 3GS 6/22/09 (first time ATT customer) and "may qualify on 11/23/2010".

Though I'm not sure I would have paid the $200 anyway...

Just sell your 3gs on eBay, that's what I plan on doing. Tonight I seen a used 16g going for $300 bucks, even if I get $200 for mine, it's a wash and I get the upgraded phone.

Why in the world are the selling for so much when you can get brand new for cheaper?

Because a new iPhone goes for 6-700 without a contract with AT&T. People who don't want a contract or want the phone to jailbreak it are still getting a deal by buying it used.

oh it's on.

 

[The Commish]

2. You never answered my question, which was what do you mean when you say "Their 4G network isn't true 4G."?

There isn't a mobile network on the face of this earth close to true 4G at this point. True 4G is 100MBps. These companies are using "4G' as a marketing tool. That's about it.

 

[Billy Bats]

Guess I don't spend enough every month. Bought the 3GS 6/22/09 (first time ATT customer) and "may qualify on 11/23/2010".

Though I'm not sure I would have paid the $200 anyway...

Just sell your 3gs on eBay, that's what I plan on doing. Tonight I seen a used 16g going for $300 bucks, even if I get $200 for mine, it's a wash and I get the upgraded phone.

Why in the world are the selling for so much when you can get brand new for cheaper?

Because a new iPhone goes for 6-700 without a contract with AT&T. People who don't want a contract or want the phone to jailbreak it are still getting a deal by buying it used.

oh it's on.

Here ya go, keep an eye on this one, already at $200 with plenty of time to go...http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Iphone-3Gs-16-GB...2c#ht_686wt_920

 

[Card Trader]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp

Interesting article, will be interesting to see it up close and compare it to the N1 and Droid.

 

[[icon]]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp

Interesting article, will be interesting to see it up close and compare it to the N1 and Droid.

really? Come on. It's a nerd nitpicking on silly details. Retina display is a marketing term. It's damn close to the point where the eye can't see pixels. I rarely hold my phone closer than 12" and frequently it's at that 18" mark. I'm sure most folks are the same (unless you've got terrible vision, in which case your retina likely can't discern pixels at that distance regardless.

It's a silly jab at a marketing term that takes nothing away from the actual fact that the screen presents images at the announced 300+ ppi.

 

[The Commish]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp

Interesting article, will be interesting to see it up close and compare it to the N1 and Droid.

"It's a great display, most likely the best mobile display in production (and I can't wait to test it) but this is another example of spec exaggeration," Soneira concluded.

And this is the crap that "haters" focus on....the unnecessary exaggerations. Let the product speak for itself. I really don't understand why they insist on doing this.

 

[Statorama]

Email data compromised

 

[Card Trader]

Email data compromised

EDIT: Not the iPad thread so I won't go there, but suffice to say, security risks were brought up and scoffed at in that thread.

 

[goonsquad]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp

Interesting article, will be interesting to see it up close and compare it to the N1 and Droid.

"It's a great display, most likely the best mobile display in production (and I can't wait to test it) but this is another example of spec exaggeration," Soneira concluded.

And this is the crap that "haters" focus on....the unnecessary exaggerations. Let the product speak for itself. I really don't understand why they insist on doing this.

Oh come on. The article even stated that at an 18" viewing distance the display surpasses his calculations for a "retina display". Grab a ruler; 12" not very far, I would bet 18" is a more common useable distance than 12" for a phone. It's silly nitpicking anyway, if the display exceeds specifications at a comfortable user distance than it can be called a retina display, IMO.

 

[Statorama]

Email data compromised

EDIT: Not the iPad thread so I won't go there, but suffice to say, security risks were brought up and scoffed at in that thread.

Dang, thanks. Oversight on my part.Too many "iSomthings" out there.

 

[goonsquad]

Email data compromised

A smear piece from Gawker Media, the owners of Gizmodo and subject of a criminal inquiry from Apple. Surprise.

 

[The Commish]

Email data compromised

Ouch...if only there was a way to secure an iPad on an unsecure network

 

[The Commish]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2364871,00.asp

Interesting article, will be interesting to see it up close and compare it to the N1 and Droid.

"It's a great display, most likely the best mobile display in production (and I can't wait to test it) but this is another example of spec exaggeration," Soneira concluded.

And this is the crap that "haters" focus on....the unnecessary exaggerations. Let the product speak for itself. I really don't understand why they insist on doing this.

Oh come on. The article even stated that at an 18" viewing distance the display surpasses his calculations for a "retina display". Grab a ruler; 12" not very far, I would bet 18" is a more common useable distance than 12" for a phone. It's silly nitpicking anyway, if the display exceeds specifications at a comfortable user distance than it can be called a retina display, IMO.

What? It's exactly what they focus on. It's insignificant, but Apple opens themselves up to stuff like this by over exaggeration. How could this possibly have come to this if Apple hadn't made the claim in the first place? There is nothing here for you to defend...it was stupid...don't get yourself sucked into it.

 

[Card Trader]

Email data compromised

Ouch...if only there was a way to secure an iPad on an unsecure network

CERTIFICATES!!!11!!!!1!SECURITY!!1!!!

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Email data compromised

Ouch...if only there was a way to secure an iPad on an unsecure network

CERTIFICATES!!!11!!!!1!SECURITY!!1!!!

 

[One]

Email data compromised

Great, now how is this Apple's fault?