- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
ATandT, Verizon, Sprint unleash 4G LTE Android phones, tablets
|
|
|
Comments (7)
My advice is don't get any of these LTE phones, until they improved the hardware and battery life. If you take a look at the XDA development sections, these LTE phones has less developers and interests compared to its international "GSM/HSPA" version. When these phones come to America, they're released later because they need that much time to make bloat changes and add Carrier IQ or their own data mining system.
Even the Galaxy Nexus has been agreed by many is lackluster phone in term of hardware (for its cost). The public overlooked that fact due it to having Ice Cream Sandwich and a 720p screen. It uses the same GPU as the the Galaxy S 4G which is 2 years old, despite clocked higher.
The ATT Skyrocket should be clearly avoided, still using the Qualcomm S3 which is much weaker than the Exynos 1.2ghz available the standard Galaxy S II version.
The problem is getting the international version of these phones usually means very high cost and generally no warranty, unless you buy third party warranty. Still, for now I advice to look for a phone with Exynos cpu and Mali-400 MP gpu, as they are the best performing combination with battery life.
ATT HSPA network is lackluster actually in terms of outright speed, but 6Mbps average is not bad. T-Mobile HSPA can be very fast if you are in coverage area (I've gotten up to 24Mbps with phones that support dual HSPA antenna (42Mbps), the average speed seems higher than ATT from my personal experiences (if you are in good coverage area). For now you will need to deal with the Qualcomm chips with you go with either, but I still feel is more economical than getting an LTE phone, which might has less coverage areas, delivers less battery life (and sometimes a chunkier phone). As for Sprint, its just depressing because their 3G speed is very poor, and while you might get something with LTE, after your contract ended, you can't unlock the phone since its not GSM, the phone lose its value similar to Verizon.
Samsung is already working on an Exynos chip that will support LTE, but having problems getting HSPA to working together on it.
gsmarena.com has good info and reviews, btw.
Even the Galaxy Nexus has been agreed by many is lackluster phone in term of hardware (for its cost). The public overlooked that fact due it to having Ice Cream Sandwich and a 720p screen. It uses the same GPU as the the Galaxy S 4G which is 2 years old, despite clocked higher.
The ATT Skyrocket should be clearly avoided, still using the Qualcomm S3 which is much weaker than the Exynos 1.2ghz available the standard Galaxy S II version.
The problem is getting the international version of these phones usually means very high cost and generally no warranty, unless you buy third party warranty. Still, for now I advice to look for a phone with Exynos cpu and Mali-400 MP gpu, as they are the best performing combination with battery life.
ATT HSPA network is lackluster actually in terms of outright speed, but 6Mbps average is not bad. T-Mobile HSPA can be very fast if you are in coverage area (I've gotten up to 24Mbps with phones that support dual HSPA antenna (42Mbps), the average speed seems higher than ATT from my personal experiences (if you are in good coverage area). For now you will need to deal with the Qualcomm chips with you go with either, but I still feel is more economical than getting an LTE phone, which might has less coverage areas, delivers less battery life (and sometimes a chunkier phone). As for Sprint, its just depressing because their 3G speed is very poor, and while you might get something with LTE, after your contract ended, you can't unlock the phone since its not GSM, the phone lose its value similar to Verizon.
Samsung is already working on an Exynos chip that will support LTE, but having problems getting HSPA to working together on it.
gsmarena.com has good info and reviews, btw.
I think you missed the point of my post and link.
None of these "LTE" devices meet the "4G" specifications. Thus 4G is false advertising.
~Jeff
None of these "LTE" devices meet the "4G" specifications. Thus 4G is false advertising.
~Jeff
I understand that, I'm only adding to the discussion. Also I do not care about the specifications. It only matters if its fast enough for me. Which a very good HSPA+ network can delivers.
Quoting:None of these "LTE" devices meet the "4G" specifications. Thus 4G is false advertising.Have 4G specs even been finalized yet? From what I understand there isn't even such a thing as a true 4G network in the U.S. as of yet.
"4G" has been reduced to a marketing term. As such, it's meaningless.
Yes indeed. I didn't have a clue, until I saw the ad about two guys (buddies? co-workers?) on the train, and one complains that his connection has dropped "down to 2G -- again", so the other (after realizing hte complainer is serious) brags that his service is "always 4G or better". Unlucky doofus with only 2G available to his device on the train borrows his buddy's. I could smell the [strike] con [/strike] marketing spin over the airwaves -- it made my eyes water.
PS: any chance of getting strike-through tags added to the LXer parser?)
PS: any chance of getting strike-through tags added to the LXer parser?)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
:-/
Really wish we had truth in advertising.
~Jeff