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!

Nexus 4 Includes Support For LTE

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the also-supports-other-letters-of-the-alphabet dept.

Cellphones 83

slashchuck writes "One of the drawbacks of Google's Nexus 4 was its lack of support for 4G LTE. Now comes a report from AnandTech that it's possible to enable partial LTE support on the device. It seems that a simple software update can allow the Nexus 4 smartphone to run on LTE Band 4. All users have to do is dial *#*#4636#*#* (INFO) or launch the Phone Info app. After that, choosing to connect to AWS networks should allow the Nexus 4 to run on LTE networks on Band 4. The AnandTech report states explicitly that the LG Nexus 4 only works on LTE Band 4, on 1700/2100MHz frequencies, and supports bandwidths of 5,10, and 20MHz."

cancel ×

83 comments

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

If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (5, Funny)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#42084257)

Because maybe when Sprint gets it's 12th LTE tower up and running everyone else will be doing quantum teleportation.

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#42084267)

Hahaha, funny I know, but Sprint LTE is showing up in Miami, FL now. It's been in the Chicago area for a while. They ARE progressing! And may soon be the best option.

I might even switch.

--disillusioned AT&T customer

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084325)

Its been in Chicago for awhile, but it's not spreading. On the IL/WI SE border, we barely get 3G with Sprint.

AT&T has 4G everywhere around me, not going to switch yet. But soon, if Sprint doesn't get its act together.

What about the Nexus 7 ? (2)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about 2 years ago | (#42086141)

I suppose it's a stupid question but is there a chance such a hack exist for the Nexus 7 tablet ?
Is Nexus 7 a cheaper version of another tablet which would use LTE ?

Re:What about the Nexus 7 ? (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#42086655)

Re:What about the Nexus 7 ? (2)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about 2 years ago | (#42086683)

I was talking of the the Nexus 7 3G HSPA+ edition ...

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (3, Informative)

Tontoman (737489) | about 2 years ago | (#42084307)

Band 4. This will benefit T-Mobile and Cricket. Verison and Sprint are still out of luck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Wireless_Services [wikipedia.org]

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084335)

In Canada it's far more prevalent, and I have LTE working great on my Nexus 4. I didn't really care about the omission to be honest, but it's a nice bonus for sure.

Oh Canada! (0)

mrops (927562) | about 2 years ago | (#42084575)

Or everyone in Canada, all the 3 top players are on band 4. Rogers, Bell and Telus. Now I do regret not getting it.... argh

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084635)

Doesn't the Nexus 4 require a SIM card? Can you even use it on Sprint and Verizon?

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (4, Informative)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#42084761)

If you read the article, the answer is "No." Despite what the summary says, AnandTech was not able to actually connect to any cellular provider. They're just saying that the radio is there for LTE on Band 4.

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (1)

rhook (943951) | about 2 years ago | (#42084903)

Iirc AT&T too.

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (1)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#42084331)

Because maybe when Sprint gets it's 12th LTE tower up and running everyone else will be doing quantum teleportation.

Not all of us. My AT&T tower doesn't even do 3G yet. But since all other carriers provide only 0G at my house, I'm stuck with AT&T...

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (1)

nighthawk243 (2557486) | about 2 years ago | (#42089617)

And it'll maybe... just maybe be about ISDN speed.

Re:If you're a Sprint customer, it doesn't matter (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | about 2 years ago | (#42099453)

lol, it wasn't that long ago that ISDN was still considered bloody fast.

T-mobile (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42084311)

1700/2100 is T-Mobile USA's LTE, so does this get LTE on T-Mobile or not?

Re:T-mobile (4, Informative)

BinaryTB (1556521) | about 2 years ago | (#42084323)

It does, here's a quote from the article regarding T-Mobile and AT&T:

"For example, in the USA, AT&T previously discussed plans for LTE on Band 4 but has only rolled out LTE on Band 17 to date, and is rumored to be turning to refarming its PCS (1900 Band 2) and Cellular (850 Band 5) holdings for additional LTE capacity, perhaps in the stead of AWS. T-Mobile US however will use AWS for LTE."

Re:T-mobile (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#42084765)

They did not say that they are actually able to connect to T-Mobile. My understanding is that they were not able to.

Re:T-mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084343)

T-Mobile would need to have an LTE network first (coming in 2013).

Re:T-mobile (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#42084681)

T-Mobile would need to have an LTE network first (coming in 2013).

True, T-Mobile's 4G is really HSPA+, not LTE, though the frequency bands appear to be the same. Please excuse me if I'm as confused as everybody else with this alphabet soup of similar standards, spiced up with a liberal dose of creative marketing.

Re:T-mobile (1)

stevenh2 (1853442) | about 2 years ago | (#42084705)

They are refarming their HSPA+ AWS 3G bands for use with LTE. That's why you see iPhones with T-mobile 3G.

Re:T-mobile (5, Informative)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 2 years ago | (#42085289)

T-Mobile is deploying LTE, but in all honesty, the distinction between them is moot for probably 70-80% of their customers.

HSPA+, when it works properly, is basically as fast as LTE. The catch is, HSPA+ only gets its fastest rates if the user has solid connections to two or more towers, because it works the same way a dialup shotgun modem worked -- the phone independently connects to two or more towers, then splits the bitstream and sends part to each tower. Upstream, the bits are recombined into a single bitstream by T-Mobile's network.

Where LTE makes a difference is suburbia. Specifically, suburban locations where the user can only see one tower well, but has a rock-solid signal from that one tower. THEN, the user might get 16-20mbps from LTE, but only 4-6mbps from HSPA.

Here's the catch: if the user has a mediocre signal from two towers, but a strong signal from NONE, he might discover that T-Mobile's 1700MHz LTE doesn't work at all, and he's still limited to 10-12mbps HSPA+. If the user has a mediocre signal from ONE tower, he'll probably be lucky to see 1-2mbps, just like he does now, and LTE won't work either.

Why? LTE's throughput is kind of like 8-VSB TV transmissions. When it's strong enough, it's flawless and full-speed, even when other radio modes are degrading badly. But the moment your signal gets even a tiny bit weaker than the minimum (roughly 10dBm stronger than the minimum for viable HSPA), you fall off the cliff and lose it entirely. You don't get slower LTE... you have no LTE *whatsoever*.

So... one strong tower == LTE faster than HSPA(+)

Two mediocre towers == HSPA+ mostly works, LTE doesn't work reliably.

One mediocre tower == HSPA limps along, LTE doesn't work at all.

Two or more strong towers == LTE slightly faster than HSPA+ in theory, and might use less power, but looking at speed alone, you'd be hard-pressed to tell with any real certainty whether the user was using LTE or HSPA+. LTE has better latency (no need to demux, split, buffer, and recombine bitstreams, and the symbol rate itself is faster), but the difference isn't all that huge.

Re:T-mobile (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | about 2 years ago | (#42086545)

T-Mobile will be rolling out LTE-Advanced, which is a generation ahead of what AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint are offering. It supposedly has far better noise and signal tolerance for high-speed use. I think it was smart for T-Mobile to skip the LTE-lite and go straight into LTE-Advanced.

Re:T-mobile (1)

drougie (36782) | about 2 years ago | (#42089251)

Don't forget double the spectral efficiency over the HSDPA family... kind of a selling point for New Yorkers and sports fans and carriers.

Re:T-mobile (1)

rhook (943951) | about 2 years ago | (#42084913)

It will when T-Mobile rolls out LTE service next year. For now HSPA+ 42 is just fine on T-Mobile, in fact I get the same speeds on that as my friends who have Verizon LTE get. And I have unlimited data to boot.

Re:T-mobile (1)

fred911 (83970) | about 2 years ago | (#42084955)

And 2G speed when your "unlimited" data limits you.

Re:T-mobile (1)

Macrat (638047) | about 2 years ago | (#42084987)

I guess you aren't aware of T-Mobile's no cap data plan option.

Re:T-mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085015)

Given their competitors approach of sticking a red ball in your mouth while assfucking you, I appreciate hte option of getting cornholed and kissed after. Now, if they'd charge only 3g data against the 3g cap ...

Re:T-mobile (2)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | about 2 years ago | (#42086553)

New unlimited data plans are completely unlimited, no throttling. Try to keep up with current info. :-)

LTE is very old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084319)

I'm surprised the shift to LTE is still under discussion. I (and millions of others) have had Verizon LTE for nearly two years now using a Samsung phone. That is a dog's age in the tech world.

Re:LTE is very old news (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084351)

I'm surprised the shift to LTE is still under discussion. I (and millions of others) have had Verizon LTE for nearly two years now using a Samsung phone. That is a dog's age in the tech world.

The context is the price of the phone. I have a Galaxy Nexus and a Nexus 4. The 4 is a moderate (though certainly noticeable) improvement over the latter, but costs less than half what my Galaxy Nexus cost. In less than a year, the price dropping more than 50% for a BETTER product is pretty ridiculous. This "hack" gets around one of the bigger drawbacks that people were complaining about, albeit for a small segment of phone owners.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

shellbeach (610559) | about 2 years ago | (#42088355)

This "hack" gets around one of the bigger drawbacks that people were complaining about, albeit for a small segment of phone owners.

Personally, I wish people would keep on complaining about it -- that way I stand a better chance of getting one myself if it ever comes back into stock :( Given how quickly the phone sold out around the world, I'm not sure too many people cared about the LTE thing in the first place (well, either that or Google had ridiculously low stock levels ...)

Re:LTE is very old news (4, Interesting)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 2 years ago | (#42084645)

I understand why the plebs are so anxious for LTE, but I don't understand why nerds are. For a moderate speed boost in most cases (+/-5Mbps in real world) there's such a drastic (6+ hour) cut in battery life.

Does anyone really need to prove they're right about who did the original voice for Boba Fett that quickly?

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about 2 years ago | (#42084759)

I agree. also, if they make the next nexus device 2mm thicker but give all that space to battery I'd be happy too. Although the "charge it every" thing works ok overall, having to constantly worry about my battery if I've browsed heavily or whatnot is annoying more than an extra 2mm and 50gr of weight. That being said I have a galaxy nexus, and I own 2 spare batteries for it and I use those instead when I need to. not possible with the new nexus 4, though.

Re:LTE is very old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085285)

F**k that. Maybe if they give the next Nexus device removable storage. Their whinge that they're not sure how to do multiuser with (ex)FAT storage doesn't cut it when they're restricting multiuser to tablet devices. I understand they want to sell storage, but the same f**king phone is available with a micro SD slot.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#42084781)

In the real world, LTE rocks. I get faster connections on LTE than any wired connection I've ever had. Granted, they don't allow me outside of the dungeon much, so sharing the connection with the others in the cube farm doesn't give me much speed personally. When I'm on LTE, I get like 30 Mbps to myself.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#42092429)

In YOUR real world it rocks. LTE is such a beast that depends very heavily in the configuration of towers and the signal strengths you get from them. For me where I live LTE is painfully slow. HSDPA+ is rock solid and fast. Where I work it's exactly the opposite, but then having only one tower near I can't get HSDPA+ there.

LTE unfortunately is more flaky in consistently great coverage than HSDPA which doesn't bode well for the way many of our networks are rolled out.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

Relayman (1068986) | about 2 years ago | (#42095179)

Agreed. Sometimes I have a situation where my MiFi device connects to LTE but there is no Internet connection at the tower. Sometimes it can't decide whether it should choose LTE or 3G.

But most of the time, it just rocks.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | about 2 years ago | (#42084785)

My data speeds went from 1Mbps to around 16 Mbps when switching from 3G on Verizon. I top out around 22 Mbps. It makes a huge difference. Even a 5 Mbps jump is very significant when your starting point is about 1 Mbps, a pretty normal speed for me on 3G. LTE makes my phone a suitable backup for my landline and for traveling. 3G didn't cut it, too slow in comparison.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 2 years ago | (#42084799)

I guess that's probably the real issue, 3G saturation I mean. Where I am I get 7-10Mbps on 3G, the LTE phones I've seen are 12-15; 1 vs 6 is huge for sure, so I can see it being huge in very crowded markets; 10 vs 15 isn't so important when Instagramming or watching a YouTube video on the bus to justify the battery drain, in my eyes.

Re:LTE is very old news (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#42085037)

You're comparing 3G EVDO on Verizon (which was barely 3G) to LTE. The Nexus 4 supports 4G HSPA+ which is WAY faster than Verizon's 3G service (as is HSPA, which my 2 year old android phone has). LTE is a bit faster than HSPA+, but not by much.

LTE is important on Verizon as it is the only 4G service they offer, and their 3G service was fairly slow. This is due to the fact that Verizon rolled out EVDO ages ago, when it was new.

So, yes, if you're on Verizon not having LTE is a non-starter, but the Nexus 4 won't run on Verizon anyway - it is GSM only. On ATT HSPA(+) isn't quite as fast as on T-Mobile so LTE is helpful there. On T-Mobile there isn't LTE, but their HSPA+ service is about as fast as LTE is on the other networks.

Bottom line, in practice the lack of LTE doesn't matter much, any more than Verizon phones lacking HSPA+ matters.

Re:LTE is very old news (2)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 2 years ago | (#42085353)

Verizon and Sprint had no choice but to upgrade (to LTE or Wimax), because EVDO rev.A hits a brick wall at ~2mbps. They COULD have upgraded to EVDO.revB, but the capital cost would have been almost the same, and they would have ended up locked in to Qualcomm as a single-source vendor forever, and paid premium prices for everything they bought going forward.

For AT&T and T-Mobile, the benefits of LTE aren't nearly as big. They're real, and they exist, but they aren't earth-shaking for 80% or so of their real-world users -- the 80% for whom HSPA+ already gives 16-20mbps, or for whom 1700MHz LTE would be unusable anyway. Remember, real-world HSPA is ~4-6mbps, and most HSPA+ is 10-16mbps. LTE might start at 16mbps and creep up to 26-30mbps (limited mainly by backhaul fiber capacity), but LTE's brick wall is signal strength -- below a certain point that's ~10dBm higher than the minimum needed by HSPA(+), LTE doesn't work *at all*.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that in a moving vehicle on a freeway (or a train), HSPA+ through urban areas might even work better and more consistently than LTE, simply because the phone can (theoretically) maintain at least one active tower connection at all times while leapfrogging between alternating streams. So... you might have tower 1 and 2 actively connected, lose tower 2, connect to tower 3, lose tower 1, connect to tower 4, lose tower 3, connect to tower 5, and so on... falling to 4-6mbps, bursting to 10-12mbps, and repeating over and over again, but always remaining connected by at least one or the other. In contrast, with LTE, you'd have periods of time with no connection at all when it broke the current connection to establish a new one with the next tower.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

Boycott BMG (1147385) | about 2 years ago | (#42085245)

Besides bandwidth, LTE also has broadband-like latency. This is important for multiplayer gaming and real-time communication (i.e. skype, gtalk video chat).

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 2 years ago | (#42085333)

It's not so much the direct lack of LTE that's a problem for me, but the fact that not having LTE means it won't run on Verizon or Sprint's network. I was anxiously waiting for the new Android phones so that I could switch to Ting (which runs over Sprint).

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

kqs (1038910) | about 2 years ago | (#42085879)

No, the lack of CDMA is what keeps it from running on VerIzon and Sprint. When Verizon and Sprint finally send voice and provisioning over LTE like competent mobile providers, then you'll have a complaint, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Re:LTE is very old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42086109)

I understand why the plebs are so anxious for LTE, but I don't understand why nerds are. For a moderate speed boost in most cases (+/-5Mbps in real world) there's such a drastic (6+ hour) cut in battery life.

And all this time I thought it was the "nerds" who would be the ones to appreciate their ping times dropping from 180ms to 30ms, while the "plebs" would be the ones not seeing past the battery life.

Re:LTE is very old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42130625)

I'm probably atypical - but I get much more battery life using LTE only in my tiny community of 11k than I ever got off CDMA/3g on my Galaxy Nexus. I've always heard that it's such a massive power hog, but apparently not for my heavier than normal use. I only found this out by chances, as I enabled LTE when I was out of state - apparently Verizon had LTE in my little hamlet way before they "officially" announced it.

Re:LTE is very old news (1)

DaveGod (703167) | about 2 years ago | (#42087071)

Maybe where you are, but LTE comes with substantial infrastructure issues. The main issue is usually availability of the radio spectrum. Here it was being used for other things until recently, my understanding is that in North America it was not, leaving the much lesser but still significant matter of putting equipment on towers.

Cellphones require global economies of scale. Some have minor variants to adapt global models to national or even carrier-specific requirements, but the rest of the phone wouldn't be an option (at that price) if there wasn't global scale economics substantially involved. Hence there are relatively few phones with LTE and for nearly all of them it is effectively a variant of the main SKU. The Nexus is a niche handset sold directly without knowing the carrier.

I suspect some of your surprise with your being at the forefront is due to novelty. It so happens many places in North America were well positioned for the LTE infrastructure to roll out. When it comes to how far behind NA is compared to many other countries with broadband on the other hand, a two year gap suddenly seems rather brief.

So what's the catch? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084371)

I assume there is a reason Google does not enable this by default.
Are the patents licensed? Does their FCC certification cover LTE?
Maybe they just didn't think it was worth the potential confusion, given the limited frequency support. (Compare Apple's "4G" support in Australia. [guardian.co.uk] )

Re:So what's the catch? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084405)

There's a 1% chance the phone could explode. So... just don't hold it too close to your body.

Re:So what's the catch? (2)

osssmkatz (734824) | about 2 years ago | (#42084763)

It supports LTE, but not on any networks used in the US.

LTE Cheat Code (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084413)

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.

Re:LTE Cheat Code (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42084507)

This didn't work for me. Still no LTE - but 30 phones appeared out of nowhere.

Re:LTE Cheat Code (2)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#42084663)

All 30 are free and probably enough to get you to the end, but the draconian 2y contract keeps you from using spread, laser, or fire attacks. Also, the data caps mean you'll be fighting through to it in monochrome vector glory or with heavy sprite limits.

Do not try on older hardware (1)

CdBee (742846) | about 2 years ago | (#42086181)

I just typed this into a Sony-Ericsson Android 3G handset.

The backlight went out and the network branding now says "It is pitch black.You ar". I Think there's a max 24 character limit.

And there's something in the room with me. WTF?

Does it really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084813)

As far as I read from here it seems that it was just a cheap way to get better processing power but for the 3G network:
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/lg-confesses-reason-behind-4g-snub-in-nexus-4-11146117

YES! 74 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42084839)

of FrreBSD Usenet was at the same

Is the story correct? LG says no. (2)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 2 years ago | (#42084885)

Read this article: LG: LTE in the Nexus 4 is an evolutionary leftover [slashgear.com] .

Quoting:

"The modem contains 4G LTE capabilities but is only effective when combined with other essential hardware parts such as a signal amplifier and filter in order for it to work" the LG spokesperson explained. "It therefore cannot be upgraded to 4G LTE capability through software."

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

rhook (943951) | about 2 years ago | (#42084935)

Tell that to the Canadians who are using it without issue.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085129)

Tell that to the google fans who'll accept any old crap who are using it without issue.

glass back = apple = crap
no SD card = apple = crap
no removable battery = apple = crap
no LTE = apple = crap

glass back = google = wonderful
no SD card = google = forgiven
no removable battery = agoogle = minor niggle
crippled LTE = google = oh thank you google i love you, I've just come down my leg

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (3, Insightful)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 2 years ago | (#42085495)

Apple's cheapest phone is $650. Google's is $299. You'd have to be a fool to expect that they would be treated the same with that price delta. Also just how much is Apple paying for their goddamn radio that a 32GB iPod Touch is $299, but it's $650 for 16GB iPod Touch + Phone capabilities (iPhone)?

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42086083)

Except you can get a 4S for $99 same spec as Nexus 4

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone4s [apple.com]

glass backetc.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

hpoul (219387) | about 2 years ago | (#42086207)

i'm not sure what you are referring to, the cheapest price at your link is $549, or $99 + $2040 (i'm sure there are additional costs, i have no idea about US cellular plans, but i guess you have to pay the monthly rate... well monthly .. for the duration of the contract?).. but at least you have proven to your parent poster that the cheapest new iphone is $549, not $650

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088467)

Except you can get a 4S for $99 same spec as Nexus 4

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone4s [apple.com]

glass backetc.

Dumbass. $299 is the off contract price.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42085795)

no SD card = apple = crap no SD card = google = forgiven

There is a reason for the disappearance of SD cards on phones. That is the patent war Apple started and the FAT patent that Microsoft, Apple's partner in the war, is using to get leverage on electronics vendors. Apple is an ally of Microsoft and has full cross licensing with them. It is completely right to blame Apple for the lack of SD cards which they cased and at the same time, completely right to forgive Google who are victims of Apple and Microsoft just the same as the rest of us.

This is before we remember that Google phones allow you to put your own software on them, not just stuff from some walled garden, including scripts which allow automatic copying to and from your home systems over WiFi and so get rid of much of the need for SD cards anyway. The lack of an SD card on a Google phone is a minor annoyance. On the other walled garden phones it is a crippling misfeature.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085957)

I don't completely buy that they give up removable media because of FAT32. They could simply use ext4. Then windows users have to install some software, maybe a modified ext2fsd. I mean, so what? Aren't windows users used to installing some software before being able to use a device?

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42086201)

Think of the usability though. The user has a working SD card; they put some data on on Windows. They put it in the other device; it "doesn't work". Do they blame the card which works everywhere else or do they blame the device where the card doesn't work?

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088647)

I like the idea of removing patented features from the system and putting them in separate paid apps that cost exactly the license share. On the first run you could run a wizard that asked whether to format the sd card in a "more efficient" and "free" ext4 file system that only few other devices supported or the "legacy" fat32 which would work in most devices but required a payment of XX cent to Microsoft.

But it probably wouldn't be very practical.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42089135)

I like the idea of removing patented features from the system and putting them in separate paid apps that cost exactly the license share...

Ubuntu had/has something like this. E.g. some hardware and media features required paying. I think it's a pretty neat idea. I don't think it would work for Google directly; people hate having to pay extra to get something that should work. However I just had a thought. I know that in the US they use mail in rebates lots for making things cheaper for those that care. They could have a patent rebate where the features are there, get enabled when you want them, but you can decide you want the money instead and get a rebate to your credit card, in which case the features are disabled until you actually pay for them. Customers would then feel they are getting free money whilst learning about the dangers of patents and having a big motivation to work around it.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42103137)

I don't think it would work for Google directly; people hate having to pay extra to get something that should work.

Yes, but the people would directly see that it is Microsoft who wants licenses for things that should just work.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088747)

There is no real reason to remove the SD card from the phone ever, except to replace it or upgrade it. Those tiny micro-SD cards are inconvenient to use as a frequently-removed media device because of their size. I don't know of anyone who does.

The SD card contents can be presented to Windows (or any other computer) through MTP (via the phone's USB connection) without the need of filesystem drivers. This is how the internal SD card is presented to the OS (which is formatted ext4).

Using ext4 or some other OSS FS is a non-issue. The real reason why Google doesn't like SD cards is because they want to sell cloud storage services to users (Google Drive).

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | about 2 years ago | (#42114413)

NILFS2, ext2, JFS, UDF - manufacturers are stupid, windows users please install 300MB .net requiring driver, bitch!

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42086639)

I know this is a hard concept for iFags to understand, but it is in fact possible for different people who happen to like the same platform to have different opinions on things.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085477)

LG has to say no -- the alternative is to admit they released a terminal with an optional radio mode completely untested for regulatory compliance, failing their FCC certification until they retest it including LTE.

Re:Is the story correct? LG says no. (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | about 2 years ago | (#42086575)

But it DOES have a signal amplifier for AWS 1700/2100 MHz, for the T-Mobile system. Which, as we now know, will also work for the LTE Band 4 systems (like in Canada and the upcoming T-Mobile LTE-Advanced networks). So, yes, it CAN be upgraded to 4G LTE through software.

Nexus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085085)

I'm waiting for the Nexus 6 although I understand they'll have a limited lifespan.

What a load of b.s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42085413)

LTE requires a COMPLETELY different chipset than GSM. There is ZERO way LTE can be enabled via software.

Re:What a load of b.s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42088481)

LTE requires a COMPLETELY different chipset than GSM. There is ZERO way LTE can be enabled via software.

Your shit is obsolete. Eat a prune and expunge it. The only bullshit here is your ignorance on the matter. Educate yourself before looking like an ass again.

In the UK, it's $57 for 500 MB 4G data per month! (3, Interesting)

rklrkl (554527) | about 2 years ago | (#42086291)

Mobile data plans in the UK have always been a running joke with me (too little data for far too much), but Everything Everywhere in the UK have taken this to a new art form recently. They have a monopoly on 4G/LTE for a while and have decided to *start* their data plans at 36 pounds ($57) for 500 MB (yes, that's megabytes folks) per month. Yep, that's lower data and a much higher price than most 3G data plans.

So let me see, if say I get a 10Mbits/sec connection on 4G (and that's pretty conservative) and use it for a large download or a continuous stream at that rate, I will exhaust my expensive monthly 4G plan in under 7 minutes. Way to go, EE - let's make 4G utterly useless in the UK by underquotaing and overpricing it. Geniuses!

Re:In the UK, it's $57 for 500 MB 4G data per mont (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | about 2 years ago | (#42087811)

I try to tell my American compatriots this exact thing when they get on the american cellular providers suck bandwagon, but it usually goes in one ear and out the other. As much as I hate American Telco's I'd take them any day over many of the European ones.

Re:In the UK, it's $57 for 500 MB 4G data per mont (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 years ago | (#42089223)

The UK providers don't count as European. In that matter as in so many others, the UK prefers to look at what the European countries do and what the US does, and combine the bad things from each.

Ties in with what they were saying about it before (1)

AC-x (735297) | about 2 years ago | (#42086651)

Makes sense, analysis when the LTE capable chip was first found was that the chipset could support LTE but the phone lacked the required antennas for it, I guess band 4 is the one band that can be picked up by the 3G antenna?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?