To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
As for battery life, I believe that from a theoretical point of view, 4G chips should be able to eat up less battery than 3G chips when offering equivalent performance. That's because to qualify as "4G" under the requirements of the UIT, tech like LTE Advance is supposed to use an all-IP network, in which even voice and texts go through the data connection of the phone, unlike 3G tech which has to maintain two simultaneous cellular connexions, one for voice and texts and one for data.
Of course, this is again purely theoretical, and I am sure that current 4G phones will manage to waste even more power than 3G ones in spite of this. Besides, low nework coverage has never been a good thing for battery life.
I believe a problem with the early 4G handsets was battery life. This may be a reason of the Android phones with big screens: they're big anyway because of the battery to support 4G so you might as well put a screen on it. Of course in the IT world time flies and things improve fast.
Somewhere I still have a Dell Axim X3i PocketPC. If you turn WiFi on you can almost see the battery run out of the room.
What people forget is that there is still no VoLTE with seamless downgrade available in phones(switching from packet 4G to switched 3G/2G).
Up until then I doubt that VoLTE will be used much. Mobile broadband is a better option, where all practical LTE deployments in EU have been to date.
I imagine the distinction is mostly logical on the handset level & not making much of a difference for the radio modem (work of which uses most power, I guess); relevant mostly for backbone-level (and there already are networks, among more recently deployed 3G ones, using an all-IP architecture on that level - at least some from Huawei, with the benefit of straightforward upgrade to LTE).
Either way, using a mobile phone with data-only SIM card doesn't seem to make a difference... (OK, so maybe the control/SMS channel is still active; but, it's active all the time, even when idle - and in that state, even the most advanced mobile phones can last quite a while, so I'd guess its share of battery use is marginal)
It's not so simple ...I mean, the primary change is that people are using mobile data more and more. Hence, we demand for networks to be upgraded anyway - and it would be quite possibly more pricey when sticking to older tech (if there would even be enough spectrum for the required capacity).
You could probably give quite comfortable experience to everybody using just EDGE, but it'd likely take at least an order of magnitude more spectrum allocations than we use for mobile phones now (hence requiring new equipment, anyway; NVM blocking other usages, that could be costly too)
Spectrum is just an inherently scarce resource, new communication standards are our way around that...





Member since:
2011-05-12
Any change is always bound to increase prices for us. LTE has a theoretical speed most if not all people will never get anyway.
Rumor has it the new iPhone's battery has only a slightly larger capacity. Unless they have some new generation LTE chips it may cut its operation time shorter than the iPhone 4/4S. I'd prefer it to be a bit longer.
In a way it's a kind of disgrace these cell phones, Apple and others, barely make it to the end of the day on their battery charge. I'd say make it 2 days and even that's crap. You can't use your phone without any power outlets nearby.