Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

OTOH we also know that previously Apple has not used features that the chipsets would have allowed. In that sense I think we now know we won't be getting more than HSDPA. But it's all but guaranteed we'll get HSDPA.

I know where you're coming from, I don't see much reason for them to give less than HSDPA in this case (knowing that it's an HSDPA chip), since HSDPA is now the standard, and is already common in even lower end 3G phones. Aiming lower than HSDPA would be a major disappointment to both consumers and investors.

That said, battery life is still a bit of an issue... but mainly for talk time, not standby time. AFAIK, phones with both 3G and GSM generally have about the same standby times on both networks. However, talk time gets reduced by about half on 3G.

I wonder if it's possible to have it set up to default to using GSM for talk and 3G for data.

From 3G Chipset Reference in the SDK? Maybe... Maybe Not - Mac Rumors

While it's not unheard of to see references to unreleased chipsets buried in Apple's software, it seems the interpretation may be a touch optimistic.

First, people have been quick to presume the "SGOLD3" references the the SGOLD3H (PDF) chipset which is a HSDPA 3G chipset, but the actual SGOLD3 (PDF) chipset is not (can add a UMTS coprocessor, however).

Finally, there also appears to be a reference to SGOLD1 -- an older chipset that the iPhone presumably does not use. This could indicate the code is simply generic placeholder rather than referencing any specific plans.

Why? Is that just for voice or video chatting? Why the hell do I want a phone with half the talk time (that I always use) but faster internet (which I rarely use).

^ If that really is the case, then you can be absolutely *sure* that Apple asked themselves the same question, to which the sensible answer is, of course, "Um - make it EDGE, 'kay? We'll still sell enough for a first shot."

The battery life of chipsets in 2008 are apparently better than they were a year ago. However, that doesn't mean that 3G talk times are equivalent to 2G talk times currently.

I suspect that Apple's choice to use GSM/EDGE in the first iPhone may have been for three main reasons:

1) Battery life <-- Improved with 2008 chipsets
2) Implementation ease and time to market
3) Marketing <-- EDGE was "good enough" for a 1st model, and then they can resell the iPhone again in 2008 with a 3G updated model.



Personally I think EDGE is OK, but definitely not ideal. That's why I wouldn't be impressed with just going to 384 Kbps UMTS either. HSDPA is a big jump over both. I suspect one main reason a lot of people are reasonably happy with their EDGE iPhones is because a lot of the time they're on WiFi. However, having 3.5G HSDPA, EDGE, and WiFi all in the same unit is really quite a nice bonus of course.

I haven't confirmed whether or not this is true, but I can believe it; nevertheless, the improved audio quality of 3G makes any sacrifice in talk time worthwhile.

I respectfully disagree. I think the real reason Apple left 3G out of the 1st gen iPhone was to prevent AT&T's network from being swamped. 3G on most cell phones is poorly utilized by end users, mostly because of unintuitive interfaces and crappy content. In many ways, 2.5G on the iPhone is being more effectively utilized by end users than the 3G on most competitor phones. I'm sure Apple and AT&T anticipated this possibility and decided to stick with a "governed" 2.5G chipset to prevent users from overloading AT&T's network.

^ What's irritating about all of this is that iPhone users still have to pay the same price for service as 3G subscribers, but aren't provided the same network benefits (i.e., 3G). I guess the point is moot, though, since until recently competing 3G devices were barely usable teenage wetdreams of complexity. Who programs these phones anyway, high school dropouts who think adding flame decals on their cars is rad?

No, whole committees of high school dropouts wearing suits who believe that *kids* think that adding flame decals on their cars is rad.

O2 says 128Kb/s is all its 3G customers need | Register Hardware

O2 has admitted its 3G customers are limited to 128Kb/s connections, with business users being automatically upgraded to 384Kb/s if they are deemed to warrant it.

3G connection speeds are highly variable, so establishing that the network has imposed a speed limit isn't as easy as it might appear, even though O2 users have long suspected they are being restricted.

384Kb/s is the technical limit of 3G technology, without resorting to HSPDA, but topping out at 128Kb/s is something of an embarrassment for a 3G network. Not that using HSDPA will help the O2 customer, depending on the "profile" O2 has decided to assign to them they might still find themselves allocated only 128Kb/sec.

Well, that's stupid. It basically negates the point of even low end 3G, since even EDGE (at least around here) is faster than that.

This was from 1.5 years ago.

Rogers unveils new wireless network - High Speed Downlink Packet Access

A new network aimed at business and high-end personal users is being rolled out today by Rogers Wireless. The new network, called High Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA), is transferring data at 1 megabit per second (Mbps), a speed that is expected to increase to a maximum of 14.4 Mbps, Rogers chief technology officer Bob Berner said Thursday. In contrast, the current high-speed data access offered by Rogers, called EDGE, runs at 120 kilobits per second (Kbps).

EDGE: 120 Kbps
HSDPA: 1 Mbps (at launch)

That's a pretty significant difference.

However, I do know that some people now are (rarely) getting real-world speeds over 5 Mbps (!) on HSDPA. I'd be happy as long as it's over about 0.5 Mbps. Apparently, most people get over about 0.8 Mbps.

On EDGE, people are getting around 0.16ish Mbps real world.

Whatever I get with edge it feels faster than dial-up and unless I load a huge as website or watch youtube I rarely even notice the speed.

Of course, but that's not saying much.

Well, that's the point. HSDPA essentially removes the significant remaining bottlenecks for surfing. With HSDPA you should be able to load those huge ass websites and watch YouTube much more smoothly.

You're not going to want to throw away your cable modem or optical fiber, but yes HSDPA does make the browsing experience much more useful. There are a lot of websites that'll simply time-out with regards to slow connections, rendering those websites all but useless, so more speed will definitely equal more usability.

If you will ever have to tether your laptop to your future 3G iPhone, then you'll really be able to appreciate the extra speed.

UMC to fabricate 3G iPhone baseband chip, says paper

United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) will be the foundry to produce Infineon Technoloiges' 3G baseband chip, which will be used in the new Apple iPhone that supports 3G, according to a Chinese-language Economic Daily News (EDN) report.

X-GOLD 608 - PMB 8878 - Infineon Technologies

I don't think too many cell providers are going to offer 3G tethering as tons of people will use it full time as their main internet connection.

I don't believe the new 3G iPhone will support the higher upload speed...however it will support the 7.2mbps according to what's been written already.

http://www.3GiPhoneInfo.com

I've been tethering to AT&T Wireless / Cingular / AT&T Wireless II for years, and currently tether to AT&T wireless 3G. What you don't think is going to be offered has in fact been available for years.

For all practical purposes, there's almost no way AT&T can discern between tethered versus non-tethered use, so AT&T rarely enforces its own "do not tether" rule. 3G is still no replacement for a hardwire connection, however, as wireless connections can be flakey, latency tends to be high, and bandwidth is still significantly lower than that of the faster broadband connections, so I doubt people with the option of broadband are going to opt for 3G instead.