[dandbj13]

What major handset on a major American carrier has a higher upstream than the iPhone?

[DanielDecker]

@Glenn_Fleishman
Didn't notice you were the author. Way to treat a customer! I have been coming to this site likely longer than you have been employed at Macworld.
I am heartbroken and disappointed in your lack of professionalism. I consider the staff of Macworld to be brothers in arms, and you attack me. Real. Nice.
I made no remarks about the content of the article. It presented facts, and discussion ensued. I choose to participate in the discussion and you, the author lambaste me.

[NONfinis]

To be fair, Daniel, you did end your original comment by inferring that everyone who thought the 384Kbps upload were "ninny little cry babies," which would come off as insulting to those who disagree with you.

I doubt you were being a troll though. Also, I tend to agree with your point. I probably wouldn't notice the speed difference myself, and I would MUCH rather have a phone's battery last longer than get to upload my "super neat" videos that much quicker. I could always wait till I had an available WiFi connection if speed was that much of a concern. Would I like faster speeds? Sure, who wouldn't. But I'll take better battery life for the moment.

And I think the author mentioned that none of the smartphones they tested had HSUPA anyway, so it's still a level playing field (in the upload speed department).

[pminich]

DanielDecker said:

Are you all effing serious? Do you plan on running web servers or bit torrents off of the iPhone?

384 Kbps upstream is more than adequate to make http requests and send email.

Just like at home, downstream is where the money is at. It takes relatively little bandwidth to make a network request, signifigantly more (most often) to accept those requests.

File this under "non-issue", right behind "ninny little cry babies"

P.S.
It would not adversely affect tethering. A full sized computer does not make bigger http requests. It might make more, and more frequently, but I doubt anyone would ever really notice.

I have to agree with this. Just because someone wants faster upload speeds doesn't mean that this is or should be the standard. The article says that they could not find any GSM smartphones that had faster upload speed capabilities, so this is Apple's fault?

I appreciate that people may want to ditch their aircards in favor or tethering. I certainly want to, but you can't do that yet and before I do I will make sure that the hardware etc. can meet my needs. A lot of these posts sound like whining over a problem that just doesn't exist yet. The iPhone doesn't support live video streaming, so it doesn't require the bandwidth to do it. If this is mission critical to your work then get something that supports it.

[DanielDecker]

Fair enough. But what else describes the ideology behind the knee-jerk response of "someone should sue"?

[cseeman]

DanielDecker said:

Are you all effing serious? Do you plan on running web servers or bit torrents off of the iPhone?
File this under "non-issue", right behind "ninny little cry babies

Your language and attitude are the problem = troll.

Because YOU have limited use (apparently other limitations too) you can't see professionals also have uses.
You can speak for your own needs but to claim others shouldn't have more demanding needs because you say so is truly childish. In my area, consumers can get 5000-15000kbps Upstream at home and this is in the USA.

Both Ustream and Qik provide streaming support for iPhones and support for 500-700kbps streams is the norm for such services which allow FREE accounts. You apparently have no idea where the industry is headed with mobile streaming and the demands of professionals. Cell Phone streaming is becoming more common in ENG situations where a video camera would put a crew at risk. Many live news events are unanticipated, no crew is available. Cell phone streaming allows a reporter sans crew to deliver video live. The technology is there for higher speeds. Maybe you should actually read the article.

[cv]

DanielDecker wrote:

"Fact of the matter is, 384 Kbps upstream is fairly common for home access as well."

(sigh)

I see you did not read my first comment. Again, many schools and corporations have far faster Internet connections. Again, my piddly local mom-and-pop coffee shop's free wifi is 1.5Mbps each direction.

And I guess I'll repeat myself. 386Kbps is pitifully slow for many broadband users around this planet. Here in America, the consumers suffer from perhaps the worst broadband value equations on the planet. We pay far too much for our broadband access. There are countries where the consumer is getting 5-10x speeds at something like $25-30/month.

Heck, the average college kid's on-campus Internet connection makes 384Kbps look completely embarrasing.

Just because you cannot take advantage of speeds faster than 384Kbps upstream doesn't mean that much of this planet cannot.

End of discussion.

[DanielDecker]

My attitude was directed at those who want to cry lawsuit at the first sign of not getting their way.

[DanielDecker]

By me posting a reply, I negate your "End of Discussion".

That's the great thing about open forums.

I DID read your first reply. I'm happy for you and your cafe. I have some of the same joys where I live, in the USA.

I am fully aware that many schools, businesses, coffee shops and even residential areas have higher upstream speeds. Lat I checked, this article was about cellular data upstream rates though, so...

No one should feel slighted. No one was promised a speed that is suddenly not being delivered.

The iPhone is capable of 7.2Mbps down, but no one in the US is going to get that. Should we riot, file a lawsuit?

That was more my point.

[cseeman]

DanielDecker said:

My attitude was directed at those who want to cry lawsuit at the first sign of not getting their way.

You could have been a little more clear about that. While I'm unhappy with that upload speed AT&T nor Apple make any specific upload speed claims. Not worthy of a lawsuit. It is worthy of free market pressure from us would be customers but that's it.

[cseeman]

We should apply consumer pressure. In a competitive cell phone environment some carriers will make their upstream speed a selling point to those interested. Unfortunately this is another area of weakness to one niche for Apple/AT&T.

Certainly carriers selling EVDO offer higher upstream speeds.

[cv]

@DanielDecker:

I give up.

You make no sense. You say that you are referring to cellular speeds, yet you quote the 384Kbps upload speeds on home-based broadband Internet? And then you say the iPhone is capable of 7.2Mbps downstream and say no one in the USA is going to get that, but ignore the rest of the world. Huh?

[usajag21]

I have to agree with Daniel. 384 Kbps upstream is a good speed for a CONSUMER device. I don't think it is fair to compare 3G capabilities with WIFI or corporate networks. It's an apples to oranges comparison. The 3GS was designed to upload photos and short videos to MobileMe or youtube. It does that well.

[that1guy]

@CV.

Stop trying to pick a fight. Daniel made a couple of valid points, and quite frankly i'm astonished that Glenn responded in the way he did. Regarding the cellular speed - home based networking speeds, that Daniel used to make his point, yes you can get 5000-15000kbps upstream, if you either a: want to pay through the nose b: live in one of the limited coverage areas that have such speeds available

Trying to argue against his point by talking about schools, corporations and coffee shops is just plain silly. The iPhone is a consumer device that runs on a consumer network. Plus, if you were in the vicinity of a school, corporation, or coffee shop you could just use the wifi connection available to you - which would make your whole argument mute.