Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

T-Mobile G1 Faster Than iPhone 3G

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the couldn't-be-much-slower dept.

Cellphones 304

An anonymous reader writes "CNET UK have run some very simple in-house tests comparing the T-Mobile G1's 3G connection against the iPhone 3G's. Result? The G1 loaded Web pages almost twice as fast as the iPhone's. Of course, the test only applies to the CNET UK offices if you're being scientific about it, as stated, but it's still impressive nevertheless."

cancel ×

304 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The thing is still ugly (1, Insightful)

FatJuggles (1206940) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571233)

I'd buy it if not for that awkward looking track ball

Re:The thing is still ugly (4, Insightful)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571261)

I still believe iPhone is all marketing, the product itself is just average. But that's only my opinion...

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571413)

By average you mean the rest of the market is a sea of similar phones?

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571685)

No, I mean it's resources/capabilities should be a lot better.

Re:The thing is still ugly (4, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571897)

Better than what? The average phone is the RAZR, so in THAT standpoint the iPhone is better than the average.

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571999)

five years ago?

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572029)

you would think that £150 for a handset and an extra £15 a month would get you something more than looks though.

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572085)

What, GPS, WiFi, web browsing, email, maps, chat, video, music, YouTube, and the lightsaber app don't count as more than looks?

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Insightful)

dyefade (735994) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572363)

Other than the lightsaber app, that's pretty standard on most high-end phones. I pay a lot less for my Nokia N95 8GB, and on features alone it beats the iPhone. Naturally, it can't compete on interface, but it's not as bad as people tend to report. In some ways I prefer the interface even - buttons have their advantages.

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571983)

Its userinterface looks awesome. It's not worth the insane price asked though.

But yeah, unless it's open for all kinds of applications it still sucks.

I'd prefer G1/openmoko over any phone, but G1 isn't released here :/

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571639)

I would be tempted to say that about most Apple products. They do have some good ones, and they have some overpriced hyped ones that really aren't that amazing... although, with some (like the iPhone) there wasn't much competition for a while.

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Interesting)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571883)

I remember when the iPod first came out its competition was (IMO) pretty worthless.

Apple seems to be a good innovator, but they are (again, IMO) not able to compete with the products that imitate them. A lot of Apple's competitors release decent products inspired by Apple's products, but in a (much) lower price range.

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572055)

I will be moderated troll/flamebait as always in this kind of threads but I don't care.

So, could you tell me which ones are the good non-overpriced ones?

Imho:

Nano - non-good.
Classic - non-good.
Touch - somewhat good, but there are better and more price worthy players out there.
iPhone - insane price.
Mac mini - are you kidding?
Macbook - somewhat good but over-priced.
Macbook Pro - Good but really over-priced.
iMac - Good and decent price at release for 24" ones, only product worth it's price if you're not an übergamer and actually need the screen.
Mac Pro - Over-priced (don't give me this "omg just compare it to another machine of similar spec"-bullshit. I don't give a shit, I would never configure a machine that bad. I could get much better performance for less.)
Airport Express - Rather cool if it could play audio even outside iTunes, but I don't think it can so overpriced.
Airport Extreme - Very overpriced.
AppleTV - Why?

Re:The thing is still ugly (1, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572073)

Forgot the Air, good for its purpose but really really way to much overpriced.

All the LCDs are way to overpriced as well, buy one from Dell instead. WFP2807 or something like that is MVA I think.

Re:The thing is still ugly (-1, Troll)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572241)

Finally.

I thought I had some kind of colour-blindness that prevented me from seeing why Macs are so cool. I couldn't figure out why people were spending 2-3 times for a product that does less just because it has a little apple silkscreened on the side.

Thank you.

Nice Steve Jobs sig, by the way, Mr. Mac Hater. ;)

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Interesting)

koutbo6 (1134545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571657)

Marketing gets the product noticed, it doesn't ensure that people will come back and buy the 2nd generation of a product.

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

EdipisReks (770738) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571935)

I still believe iPhone is all marketing, the product itself is just average. But that's only my opinion...

have you used or owned one? as an owner of an iPhone 3G, and having used many other smartphones on the marked, i'd have to say that ya-ya-ya-ya-you're on crack.

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Insightful)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571977)

In terms of hardware capabilities I agree. But the iPhone is a really great design, which the G1 has not matched. The trackball, moving screen, tilted bottom piece, lack of standard 1/8th" audio jack of the G1 are awkward in the end. I would like to see something with the simplicity of the iPhone with an open architecture and cutting edge hardware. Disclaimer, i realize that there are drawbacks to the iPhone design, battery service comes to mind, but that is a sacrifice I would make due to the elegance of the rest.

Re:The thing is still ugly (5, Interesting)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572347)

I've had a G1 for about a week and I don't think your comments make much sense.

The trackball is very convenient, it gives you mouse-like control over the screen. On the G1 and the iPhone, the touchscreen is good but it's no replacement for a mouse. The iPhone would be better with a trackball. The moving screen is handy, because there are so many good apps for Android already, you'll run out of room. The titled bottom piece causes absolutely no issues whatsoever. The only complaint I'd give credit to is the audio jack thing. They should have included a regular 3.5mm jack.

I've used both the G1 and the iPhone and I like the G1 a lot more so far.

It has a nice smooth interface, in the same ballpark as the iPhone. It has an easy to use app store, which is nicer than Apple's because it already has apps that you'd have to jailbreak the iPhone for. It uses standard mechanisms for thinks like uploading music, etc. Instead of locking you into their stupid iTunes product. As a developer, you get to develop on any platform you want and the dev kit is free.

So, honestly, the iPhone is a decent product, but it's been bested by Android already IMO. It will be interesting to see just how awesome Android becomes on future products.

Re:The thing is still ugly (2, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571283)

Yeah, I hear you. I'd buy a car if weren't those ugly wheels.

I actually quite like the trackball (5, Informative)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571477)

I didn't think i would, but it's a nice touch.

Still by the time it's got a keyboard, a touch screen, some buttons and a trackball... it feels like it's perhaps over doing it.

Do you think it's ugly in person? Like my last HTC device, it's much nicer in your hand than in pictures.

The integration between the phone and third party apps is wonderful.

When a call comes in that isn't in my phone book, the whitepages app does a reverse number lookup and shows that on screen.

I can use shazam to identify music and then go straight to youtube or the amazon mp3 store to buy or listen to it.

I can scan the barcode of a book, compare the prices at online stores and it'll tell me which local booksellers have it and give me driving directions to the store (although it only seems to work for b&n)

Of course that's all mostly android and not the device.

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (4, Informative)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571787)

You've just given more useful information about the phone than I've found in all the billions of hypefest articles on the 'net. It actually sounds really appealing now.

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571823)

I can use shazam to identify music and then go straight to youtube or the amazon mp3 store to buy or listen to it

I don't get it - where does the music you're identifying come from? And why do you "buy" MP3s when you can sample the top 40 from the radio and legally download indie music for free?

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (3, Informative)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571889)

The music comes from wherever you are - watching TV, on a bus, sitting next to some guy in his car who is playing his stereo too loudly, whatever. Shazam identifies music in your environment that you record. Pretty neat, really.

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (4, Informative)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571937)

It records it from whatever radio station, coffee shop or party that it's being played at. It then analyzes the audio and identifies the band.

However rather than leaving you with a song id, you can buy it on amazon and download straight to your phones music library or you can hop over to youtube and find the video for that song.

I get my music from a mix of sources, sorry for not towing the slashdot corporate boycott line.

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (0, Offtopic)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571947)

Hey man,

Thanks for the info you shared. It's got more "meat and potatoes" than any press release or Luser admission I've read so far.

Really, it does barcode recognition? I know an ENTIRE company that would purchase them based upon that in and of itself (they use barcode on the manufacturing floor, and have to replace barcode scanners all the time due to shitty equipment / shitty employees sitting on them / losing them).

Again, thanks.

--Toll_Free

Re:I actually quite like the trackball (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571993)

It does it with the Camera and it's not great. It's fine if you've got a second or two to hold it steady and let the image focus, but it's nowhere even close to the performance of a proper barcode scanner.

I've done a lot of work for a manufacturing facility on the .Net compact framework and Symbols MC3900 platform. It's been absolutely rock solid and a dream to work with. The devices aren't cheap, but I'm impressed by them

Re:The thing is still ugly (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571827)

The track ball I can ignore. I wouldn't buy it because I have never met a happy HTC owner.

Plus, 90% of the time I own such a phone I will (want to) have it plugged into my laptop at work. So far no one is exactly embracing this usage model.

Re:The thing is still ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25572209)

the trackball rocks. kicks the shit out of trying to click on a link in a tight cluster of links with your big fat finger, having to zoom all the way in to click links on my ipod touch is tedious at best. but if you are buying your smartphone based on how it looks, that might be irrelevant to you.

Buy the Service plan. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571249)

Buy because of the service plan; not because of "cool" technology.

Re:Buy the Service plan. (0, Offtopic)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571679)

I think you are on the wrong site

My bad, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25572051)

I forgot this is "early adopter" central.

somebody read it (2, Interesting)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571251)

and tell me if it's because of:
1. Faster Network access of the device
2. Faster network the device is connected to
3. Faster processor
4. faster browser.

Re:somebody read it (5, Informative)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571289)

3 and 4, per the conclusions of the author.

Don't worry, though, I'm sure some apple fan will be along shortly to debunk it.

Re:somebody read it (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571543)

The author tries to conclude it was not the network (offering no reasons) ans was the browser's "page load speed".

But this is mentally ill. The page load too 1.5 minutes versus 30 seconds. SO is he trying to say it took the apple iphone 1 minute to render the page?

this is absolutely illogial. Of course it's the network. They did not even check to see if the iphone was on a 2G or 3G network.

retards.

Re:somebody read it (4, Informative)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571765)

o2 has 3g coverage for 80% of the country. I find it very hard to believe that the skipped "London" when they were doing that.

T-Mobile UK is delivering a 7.2Mbps connection whereas O2 are still at 3.6Mbps - either way i find it hard to believe that download speed is a major issue.

Quite why they didn't use wifi - i dont know

Re:somebody read it (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572151)

Why didn't they just unlock either phone and tested it on the same network?

Can the iPhone 3G be unlocked yet?

Re:somebody read it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25572239)

Maybe they can test with another browser like opera in the iphone to confirm the crappy safari performance, if is not immoral, illegal or antiamerican to do so.

Re:somebody read it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571743)

Well, it is enough to RTFA. The iPhone was using O2, and the faster phone T-Mobile...

Re:somebody read it (4, Informative)

dnwq (910646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571291)

From TFA:

Taking into account that we tested it against another 3G phone with a T-Mobile SIM in it, we believe that it's not a network factor, it's the G1's browser and processor being able to render pages much faster. So if you're looking for a fast Web experience on the go, we strongly recommend checking out the T-Mobile G1.

Re:somebody read it (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571435)

That justifies the conclusion faster than the Omnia. But I see no indication that the iPhone was on the T-Mobile network. iPhones in the US are tied to AT&T/Cingular; what network are they tied to in the UK?

Re:somebody read it (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572043)

O2 I do believe, unless they are unlocked.

Re:somebody read it (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572117)

IIRC they are tied to O2 here. but because apple used to run the browser as root many are jail broken.

Re:somebody read it (5, Insightful)

dnwq (910646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571461)

Gah! I read it again and what they actually did was run a T-Mobile Samsung Omnia against the T-Mobile G1 on silicon.com and barackobama.com. The G1 wins... And then they run the (O2-locked) iPhone against the T-Mobile G1 on eHam.net, and the G1 wins.

Great for the G1 and all... but seriously? CNET, you fail at comparisons. Different sites? For the love of the experimental method, why?

And there's absolutely no way to conclude that the G1's processor or browser beats the iPhone's on this test alone... maybe O2 just really, really sucks? Who knows?

If you really want to do a comparison... just unlock the damned thing and put in SIM cards from the same network!

Re:somebody read it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571697)

If they think it's the proc/browser speed why not just test over the same wifi network?

Re:somebody read it (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572261)

because the ability to get a page fast over a low bandwidth connection is important to most perspective buyers (ability to deal with compressed pages, pipelining etc) and at the end of the day if you live in the UK you will get iphones & G1s on their respective connections.

No it's faster because: (-1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571335)

Tmobiles 3g network is teeny tiny in the US. SO in the few places it exists it's not very popular. Hence the network is less subscribed than AT&T. So for now when you can get service, it may be faster service.

Re:No it's faster because: (4, Funny)

b96miata (620163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571421)

I can see how that would come into play at the CNET UK offices.

Re:No it's faster because: (2, Informative)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571433)

Too bad the tests were done in the UK...

(It's even in the summary for crying out loud...)

Re:No it's faster because: (1)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571909)

(It's even in the summary for crying out loud...)

Twice...

Re:No it's faster because: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571453)

Tmobiles 3g network is teeny tiny in the US.

this was the UK. But even so your point still holds. Faster depends on where you are sitting. No one gives a crap about marginal peak speeds when its the typical speed you care about. Until 3G is everywhere this test is meaningless.

Re:No it's faster because: (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572301)

Until 3G is everywhere this test is meaningless.

this was the UK

We have pretty good 3g coverage, hell its probably just the 1 satellite up there anyway.

Re:No it's faster because: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571575)

What part of CNET UK do you have trouble understanding?

Re:No it's faster because: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571839)

Additional generic insult about the story being in the UK!

Seriously dotters, read the fucking previous comments first.

Re:somebody read it (2, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571341)

You can't really tell. The iPhone 3g and the G1 comparison were on different networks. They also compared against a Windows Mobile phone on the same network as the G1; and the G1 turned out faster.

That doesn't stop them concluding

we believe that it's not a network factor, it's the G1's browser and processor being able to render pages much faster.

Re:somebody read it (2, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572353)

The massive irony here is that both phones use WebKit to render pages, so unless there's a *major* version difference, the rendering engine is essentially the same!

Re:somebody read it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571379)

TFA doesn't state, but I'd venture to guess that it's as much about RF performance than anything. CDMA technology (which 3G is based) has drastic penalties for poor RF performance, which can translate directly into data rates.

Re:somebody read it (1)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571649)

From the story, it sounds like the article doesn't even bother to consider a scientific method and all comparisons are apples to oranges (wow, multilevel pun)
Glad I didn't waste my time.

Re:somebody read it (1)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571985)

Or, website built to load faster on the Android browser.

Simple to skew these results.... Give markup language or use a language the IPhone will have troubles with.

I'd MUCH rather see how they stacked up with a computer tethered to them, to see total BPS throughput.

Oh, what's that, the IPhone won't tether?

Thank GOD I don't believe hype. I have an HTC based phone and LOVE it.

--Toll_Free

Chrome vs Safari (1)

ekimd (968058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571271)

Is it any wonder given the speed difference between the two?

Re:Chrome vs Safari (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571805)

You do realize that they're both based on WebKit, right? The same core rendering engine? The dramatic differences between Chrome and Safari are the shell (Chrome really scores here on Windows) and the JavaScript engine. Neither are likely to be relevant on the mobile platform.

Back to the desktop: sure V8 is faster than the engine used by Safari 3.1, but if you're comparing products that aren't yet complete you might want to look at a Safari nightly build. The SquirrelFish Extreme engine is even faster than the Chrome V8 engine in the Chrome beta.

Re:Chrome vs Safari (1)

berwiki (989827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572019)

You do realize that they're both based on WebKit, right?

Sure I do, they each have their own implenetations of Webkit. Much like how sorting an array can be done with Bubble Sort or QuickSort.

Apple = Bubble Sort in this case.

Re:Chrome vs Safari (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572079)

They're both based on WebKit, but there are some huge differences between the two WebKit branches. They have different JavaScript implementations, and they have completely different code in the platform-dependent layer. This layer is responsible for, among other things, network connections, URL parsing / handling, text glyph loading, and drawing.

Of course it's fast, no one is using it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571299)

Try putting all the current iphone users on their network and see how fast it is then.

Re:Of course it's fast, no one is using it (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572357)

really nobody in the uk is on T-mobile? quick somebody tell me as ive been using them for years.

How would it fare elsewhere? (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571305)

The first time I saw an iPhone in person was in rural Virginia. It wasn't fast, but it actually worked out there. T-Mobile doesn't even really have any service out there, so I guess it really is just a moot point for a lot of people.

Re:How would it fare elsewhere? (3, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571431)

Look in the top left-hand corner(ish). If it says "3G", you have a 3G connection. If it says "E", you have Edge. Edge is roughly dialup. It works, but it's slower'n'piss.

I have a Rogers iPhone, I live in a rural area, and get 3G on one side of my house and Edge on the other. The difference is astounding.

Re:How would it fare elsewhere? (3, Informative)

Teilo (91279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571885)

Edge is roughly dialup.

BZZZZT! Wrong.

GPRS (2G) is roughly dialup. EDGE (2.5G) is more like slow DSL, in the 128K to 230K range. GPRS can actually do better than dial-up. It maxes out at 59K.

The G1 does all three, and it distinguishes between them on the display. Perhaps your iPhone doesn't.

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571329)

Results likely to be invalid as CNET's offices are outside of the reality distortion field.

phone or network (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571369)

but does this determine the quality of the phone or the network?

Re:phone or network (1)

Praxx (918463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571399)

but does this determine the quality of the phone or the network?

They test the phone against another T-Mobile phone too, with the same results (the G1 is faster).

Re:phone or network (1)

jcwynholds (765111) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571647)

From the article:

{article snip}

Taking into account that we tested it against another 3G phone with a T-Mobile SIM in it, we believe that it's not a network factor, it's the G1's browser and processor being able to render pages much faster.

{/article snip}

I love my G1. It feels very fast. When 3g is up, it's almost as fast as a fat client on broadband. I'm glad someone did some tests.

T-Mobile's 3g network is still in the rollout phase, I've heard that most of it will be up (at least here in Cali) by the beginning of the year. That was from T-Mobile salesman, so some salt should be taken with that information.

The phone is really why I bought it, but I must give props to T-Mobile for not making people pay through the nose for the service. AT&T seems to want to fleece the iPhone buyers. Thanks to T-Mobile for at least trying to sell their service at a more decent price.

Re:phone or network (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571981)

The iphones browser does have speed issues, probably down to the processor. It seem to pause for a few seconds whilst loading pages, so for example I can bring up the bbc.co.uk page in under a second on this network in firefox, on the iphone over the same wifi it takes 15 seconds - I can't believe the data rate of the iphone is that poor (I expect it can't do a full 54g but I'm only on a 10meg connection anyway) so that leaves the processor.

If the M1 has a faster processor it's going to be faster.. there isn't much to argue about. Whether it's a better phone is subjective - I don't choose my phones based on browser speed :p

Re:phone or network (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571747)

Does it really matter? You can only buy the iPhone on 1 network in the UK, and only buy the G1 on 1 network in the UK. There's no way of having a different experience.

WOOHOO! (-1, Flamebait)

EncryptedSoldier (1278816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571465)

Yay! Google is one step closer to taking over the world. I wonder when they will start their own Google Army beta to finish the job?

Re:WOOHOO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571573)

They already have. Please remain where you are, citizen.

Re:WOOHOO! (1)

EncryptedSoldier (1278816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572251)

who actually modded me down 2 for that as flamebait? I like google, it was a joke, jeezzzzzzzzz

Which does not help us in the states (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571559)

In the states, T-Mobile has almost no 3G coverage outside of several major cities. And data coverage itself, which is often sparse west of the Mississippi, all but disappears when one gets to the middle United states.

All reports indicates that Google has built a very good smart phone OS. Now that it is open sourced we are likely to see a great number of smart phones of varying quality, some which will be very fast and put the propriety guys to shame on certain benchmarks, and with features the proprietary guys would never include. But until we see these phone, on all the networks, I do not see the G1 as anything as an experimental device on a small network. To see if Android really works, we have to see in work in the mass marketplace on a top tier network.

one key iphone advantage (0, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571587)

Apps written expressly for the iphone run faster than the java apps on the G1.

I can't really afford either phone right now which is just as well because I don't know which one I like more. The iPhone is slick, has nice integration but Apple also locks down 3rd party apps. The G1 represents more freedom but is newer than the iPhone and so has more kinks to work out by the time they get to the G2.

My biggest hope is not just that competition between these phones improves hardware features and functionality, they can also do something to break the backs of the mobile carrier monopoly. The profit-sharing for the iPhone store is as revolutionary as the phone itself, not to mention it's a far friendlier platform to develop for versus previous phones. But damn, the monthly bills on these phones is disgusting.

Re:one key iphone advantage (5, Interesting)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571793)

Apps written expressly for the iphone run faster than the java apps on the G1.

Where's your benchmark to prove it? The truth is Java runs "on hardware" in most mobile devices. There's a chip which translates the Java opcodes to native ARM intructions without any delay or slowdown whatsoever. Naturally nothing less could be expected on a device so strained for power and speed.

Re:one key iphone advantage (2, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571959)

Actually, the Dalvik VM doesn't JIT (yet).

Re:one key iphone advantage (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25572235)

Not really. Jazelle (the hardware ARM Java bytecode accelerator) is heavily restricted by license. I doubt they could use it in the open-source Dalvik VM, and furthermore it's not particularly portable since not all ARM chips support it (and definitely not non-ARM chips).

Now the Sun J2ME/CLDC family of VMs used in many phones does support JIT translation, but Google's going with Dalvik, which as 0xdeadbeef pointed out, doesn't have a JIT yet. I'd also imagine that Android apps are a lot more demanding than your typical cell phone app.

Re:one key iphone advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571857)

But damn, the monthly bills on these phones is disgusting.

This will never change as long as people keep paying for it. They don't have the patience, the will, or the imagination to make the carriers improve. They are consumers; suckers through and through.

Re:one key iphone advantage (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571881)

Apps written expressly for the iphone run faster than the java apps on the G1.

Prove it.

Re:one key iphone advantage (2, Informative)

Teilo (91279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572211)

I love generalizations.

In the first place, Android apps are not Java apps. They are compiled to a different byte-code and run on a different VM, which is Android-specific.

Yours is the typical VM FUD. If it's a VM, it MUST be slower, right guys? Please. Look what native code has gotten the iPhone: no multi-tasking for custom apps, no garbage collection, developers saddled to an antiquated language (ObjectiveC). These things can be worked around, and there are lots of great iPhone apps, but native-code is not everything it's cracked up to be.

VM's are a GOOD thing, and the Android implementation is excellent. The system-wide event model is outstanding, allowing one to write apps that stay running, and do things, say, when you change locations (your physical location), flip the phone upside down, run too fast, receive a phone call, etc. The VM has made all of this much easier to accomplish, because the code is managed.

Not sure about the US... (2, Informative)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571591)

But I actually called AT&T and talked to the apple rep and BEGGED for an option to turn off 3G, it's beyond a joke. I'd rather have EDGE only, the 3G is so bad it actually causes my phone to take 3 or 4 times as long as my 1st gen EDGE iPhone to load a web page. Thats because the signal is next to worthless in podunk areas like DOWNTOWN FREAKIN SF and I have to wait for the phone to decide... "ohhh... this take too long... me switch to edge and retry"

I hope someone brings about a class action against AT&T for their shitty 3G network and against Apple for deceptive advertising. It's not twice as fast, if anything, it's twice as slow.

Re:Not sure about the US... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571871)

If you are having problems with the 3G network and want EDGE only - go into the network settings and switched off the 3G.

I thought this was /.!

Re:Not sure about the US... (3, Informative)

PeterChenoweth (603694) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572091)

Why did you call AT&T? In an attempt to get the old $20/month data plan? Because it's trivial to disable 3G on the 3G iPhone....

Settings->General->Network

Where it says, "Enable 3G" slide the switch to "Off"

Problem solved.

T-Mobile in NYC (3, Informative)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571595)

I've been with T-Mobile since they were Voice Stream back in 2000 when I was living in Dallas. In Dallas they were great, but I've been in NYC since early 2005 and their service sucks in this area. Most of the time my Internet access doesn't work at all.

O2 vs T Mobile 3G in one office? (1)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571681)

Can't we use the same network and compare? At least that way we could rule out the network. Android is open source, or.... try Wifi? Not a very scientific article.

And the reason is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571717)

drumroll please! ...nobody has one yet!

compare it again when there are millions of these bogging down the network.

Cue Fanboys (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571727)

Here's your opportunity to ignore Occam's Razor and instead blame everything else.

Dubious results (1)

amasiancrasian (1132031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571749)

I'm a little bit dubious. The 3G used in T-Mobile USA operates on an odd band that only T-Mobile USA uses. Most of the world operate on the standard bands, so it's still difficult to say if this is an apples to apples test. The iPhone is compatible with most of the GSM/UMTS networks around the world, while the T-Mobile phone 3G features are more likely to only function in the US. Somebody needs to investigate this.

Re:Dubious results (1)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572009)

The test was done in the UK.

Somebody DID investigate. You didn't comprehend TFA.

--Toll_Free

Simply... awesome. (4, Informative)

s13g3 (110658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571751)

My room mate, a senior T-Mobile Engineer, did a test just last night of his new G1 on T-Mo's 3G network versus his iPhone on AT&T's network and saw a full 150kbps difference between the two, with advantage going to the G1. On a later test they ran the G1 against the iPhone with both on T-Mobile's network and saw between a 50 - 75kbps difference between the two, again, advantage G1.

So far I'm rather impressed with the device. The trackball is very functional, easy to use, and seems well made. The device is fast and responsive, and while the screen may not be quit as big or pretty as the iPhone's, it's still plenty nice enough. Ok, it doesn't have multi-touch (as far as I can ascertain), but it's fast, very functional and I really really want one now. Web-browsing was a wonderful experience (first time I can say that about a phone), and did I say it was fast? Also the native console and SSH functionality was awesome, and I was very surprised by how well it represented my SSH sessions, including irssi - I must have one.

It really does look better in the hand than it does on photos. Ok, not quite as slick as the iPhone, but I'm also not one of those people who will shell out an extra $X just to get a pretty PC case when all I want is functionality - I don't need my mobile device to be sexy in an artistic way, I want it to be sexy in a functional, useful and powerful way. The teenage emo girls on 4chan can have the iPhone, it's G1 for me.

Don't forget open standards for the phone too, and the fact that with the time and effort you can make it do anything you want to, and not have to be beholden to what Apple thinks you should be able to do, or a glorified pager that is the Blackberry.

Re:Simply... awesome. (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571903)

Quite. I want to be able to write emails or text messages quicker than I can now. I've tried the iPhone and instantly hated the touch keyboard.

Some people may be happy to self-justify how good the iPhone is to be part of the herd/have a pretty phone, but I won't.

Re:Simply... awesome. (3, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25571961)

My room mate, a senior T-Mobile Engineer, did a test just last night of his new G1 on T-Mo's 3G network versus his iPhone

Now THERE'S an unbiased test!

Re:Simply... awesome. (4, Funny)

Teilo (91279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25572319)

Yeah, because, as we know, T-Mobile employees have special SIM chips that enable secret Traffic Shaping protocols for T-Mobile branded phones.

Please.

uhhh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25571803)

I can name about 100 phones faster than a 3G iphone.....

G1 + WiFi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25572101)

Here's what I want to know: How much of the neat whiz-bang functionality of the G1 works just fine without a cellular data plan? It's got WiFi, there's wireless everywhere, why bother paying all that cash for a data plan you're unlikely to really need all that often?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>