5G - is it worth the premium?
-
I'm going to be replacing my iPhone 8 this year, probably. Though it's perfectly functional, I want it to become my "car" phone (because it has enough storage for storing music locally without streaming), and I want to get the better camera that the upcoming iPhone 12 is supposed to have.
I've read that the 5G option, if it's an option, is pricey, adding as much as $150 to the cost of the phone. I don't use cellular data all that much, so the speed of 5G is not worth the extra expense - I'm just fine with 4G, even when using my phone as a hotspot when we travel and there's no WiFi.
Considering the short range of 5G, I'm thinking it's not worth it, and I'd be fine with a 4G phone with 64 gigs of storage.
Thoughts?
-
It'll be more worth it after the infrastructure is closer to ubiquitous. Not now, though.
Please love yourself.
-
My phone, an iPhone 7, is crippled. You cannot hear anyone when they call. I either must use my headphones or put the person on speaker to carry on a conversation. That might sound like a pain - but I don't get that many calls. I too am planning on getting the iPhone 12 when released. I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
-
My phone, an iPhone 7, is crippled. You cannot hear anyone when they call. I either must use my headphones or put the person on speaker to carry on a conversation. That might sound like a pain - but I don't get that many calls. I too am planning on getting the iPhone 12 when released. I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
-
It'll be more worth it after the infrastructure is closer to ubiquitous. Not now, though.
@Aqua-Letifer said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
It'll be more worth it after the infrastructure is closer to ubiquitous. Not now, though.
All it offers is more speed, right?
For me, that's not an issue.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
It'll be more worth it after the infrastructure is closer to ubiquitous. Not now, though.
All it offers is more speed, right?
For me, that's not an issue.
@George-K said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
It'll be more worth it after the infrastructure is closer to ubiquitous. Not now, though.
All it offers is more speed, right?
For me, that's not an issue.
Pretty much, yeah.
-
If you still live in a big city, you will be more likely to be able to benefit from real 5G speeds sooner (e.g., Verizon already has mmWave 5G infrastructure in Chicago). But the further away you are from big cities, the longer you will have to wait to get real 5G service. It will take a while for true 5G to reach most of the nation.
AT&T's "5GE" is merely a marketing label for a revision of 4G/LTE that Verizon and T-Mobile also have. T-Mobile's advertising claim about its 5G signals going miles and miles is also misleading in that by the time the signals go the distance you can no longer sustain the higher 5G speeds and have to tall back to 4G/LTE speeds anyway. Verizon's mmWave 5G will use very high frequencies that require different antenna module/design, and it will also be rather limited in range; but when it works, the speed will be very fast. I suspect it's this mmWave stuff that's requiring extra/different hardware that add substantial costs to the baseline iPhone.
-
I dont know much about it, but it does seem to be just a internet speed thing. So, if you not going to be streaming movies, downloading huge files, etc while using your data phone, it does not seem like it would be worth the extra money
-
If I had to spend an extra $100 for a feature it would be
- Better camera
- Bettter (larger) display
- More storage
- Faster speed
In that order. With #4 being far, far down the list. I'm on "WiFi calling" at least 90% of the time for phone calls, and it's really becoming rare to not find a WiFi network that I can connect to.
Thanks, everyone, for confirming my biases.
-
My phone, an iPhone 7, is crippled. You cannot hear anyone when they call. I either must use my headphones or put the person on speaker to carry on a conversation. That might sound like a pain - but I don't get that many calls. I too am planning on getting the iPhone 12 when released. I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
-
@kluurs said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
Have Horace put in a good word for you?
@jon-nyc said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@kluurs said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
I'm curious if there's a best strategy to be at the front of the line for procuring one.
Have Horace put in a good word for you?
-
If you still live in a big city, you will be more likely to be able to benefit from real 5G speeds sooner (e.g., Verizon already has mmWave 5G infrastructure in Chicago). But the further away you are from big cities, the longer you will have to wait to get real 5G service. It will take a while for true 5G to reach most of the nation.
AT&T's "5GE" is merely a marketing label for a revision of 4G/LTE that Verizon and T-Mobile also have. T-Mobile's advertising claim about its 5G signals going miles and miles is also misleading in that by the time the signals go the distance you can no longer sustain the higher 5G speeds and have to tall back to 4G/LTE speeds anyway. Verizon's mmWave 5G will use very high frequencies that require different antenna module/design, and it will also be rather limited in range; but when it works, the speed will be very fast. I suspect it's this mmWave stuff that's requiring extra/different hardware that add substantial costs to the baseline iPhone.
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
-
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
@Klaus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
Generally (at least in theory), there can be one order of magnitude's reduction in latency going from 4G to 5G air interface. In practice, apart from air interface technology, there are a lot in the wired parts of the overall network that contribute to latency. So how the service provider architect the overall network will significantly impact the latency actually experienced by the end users.
As a matter of design, antenna dimension is always influenced by wavelengths. So yes, the significantly shorter wavelengths will allow designs that would not have been as effective for the longer wavelengths. Directional antenna is also a useful concept. Though I don't think mechanically rotated antennae will be in the cards inside consumer cellphones. Most likely it will be limited to DSP shaped "rotation" a la "beam forming" rather than mechanical rotation of the physical antennae.
-
@Klaus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus any improvements in latency with 5G?
I also wonder whether the extremely short wave lengths (millimeters) enable new forms of antennas. I imagine that highly directional antennas, together with a rotation mechanism for the antenna, might be possible within a cell phone body. That could in part offset the shorter ranges of mm waves.
Generally (at least in theory), there can be one order of magnitude's reduction in latency going from 4G to 5G air interface. In practice, apart from air interface technology, there are a lot in the wired parts of the overall network that contribute to latency. So how the service provider architect the overall network will significantly impact the latency actually experienced by the end users.
As a matter of design, antenna dimension is always influenced by wavelengths. So yes, the significantly shorter wavelengths will allow designs that would not have been as effective for the longer wavelengths. Directional antenna is also a useful concept. Though I don't think mechanically rotated antennae will be in the cards inside consumer cellphones. Most likely it will be limited to DSP shaped "rotation" a la "beam forming" rather than mechanical rotation of the physical antennae.
@Axtremus thanks. I know a little about radio waves (former ham radio operator). Wouldn't even the smallest barriers, such as walls, block mm waves?
If phones could hook into external antennas, it would be cool to consider long wave communication, too. It would be nice if a cell phone would still work inside a submarine underwater.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Yes, shorter waves are more easily blocked, then you have to resort to reflections, which adds distance (further path loss) and multi path complications. Many transmittal disadvantages to short waves. The advantage is that there is typically more bandwidth with short waves.
Suppose you say let’s cap the frequencies you use to below the 1 MHz, then the bandwidth you get to exploit will also be no more than 1 MHz.
Take Wi-Fi, for example, in the 2.4GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to take advantage of up to 40 MHz bandwidth for a channel. At the 5GHz band, Wi-Fi is allowed to use up to 160MHz for a channel — all without crowding out TV/radio broadcasting or cellular communications.
Cellular 5G’s mmWave specifications go beyond 6GHz, more room to play with wider channels to allow higher bandwidth. The trade offs are shorter distance and weaker penetration. Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax extends also to 6GHz and faces similar tradeoffs as a matter of physics. 802.11ad/ay pushes Wi-Fi into the 60GHz territory with 2GHz channel bandwidth. The speed vs. range tradeoffs there will be even more acute.
-
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
@George-K said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
@Axtremus said in 5G - is it worth the premium?:
Wi-Fi’s 802.11ax
You just made that up, didn't you?
Marketed as “Wi-Fi 6”, 802.11ax is already present in the latest iPad Pro, and you can buy “W-Fi 6” routers from the typical consumer electronics outlets today. Your new iPhone and future new Macs will have it too. There is no escaping it, 802.11ax will take over the world.
