Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

T-Mobile G1 Faster Than iPhone 3G

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:32 AM
from the couldn't-be-much-slower dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • somebody read it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alta (1263) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:37AM (#25571251) Homepage Journal

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:39AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by goombah99 (560566) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:50AM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

          by grahamsz (150076) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:03PM (#25571765) Homepage Journal

          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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by dnwq (910646) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:39AM (#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.

      • by dnwq (910646) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:46AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          For the love of the experimental method, why?

          they hosed up the experimental method right off the bat with the extremely limited scope of their test. 3 web pages?

        • by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@nOspAM.pennyonthesidewalk.com> on Thursday October 30 2008, @03:11PM (#25574551)
          Why? Until the average man on the street is able to use his iPhone 3G on another network, give me one reason it ISN'T a valid real world comparison. You're not going to be using your iPhone on T-mobile's network, you'll be using it on O2. End experience and perception. "Oh, it's not my iPhone, it's the network!"? Seems reasonable to me.
          • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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!

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:40AM (#25571305) Homepage

    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.

    • by multipart/mixed (163409) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:45AM (#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.

      • by Teilo (91279) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:11PM (#25571885) Homepage

        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.

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

  • T-Mobile in NYC (Score:4, Informative)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:53AM (#25571595) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Simply... awesome. (Score:5, Informative)

    by s13g3 (110658) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:02PM (#25571751) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:42PM (#25572373)

    Almost everybody here is comparing phones on different networks. The only way you can say anything useful about the phones is if they're using the SAME NETWORK.

    "3G" is not a bandwidth value. Neither is "Edge". For both of these, data transfer rate depends mainly on how far you are from the cell company's antenna, and how many walls and trees are between you and it.

    Unless those factors are identical for both phones, your comparison says nothing about the speed of the phones, and nothing useful about how the phones will behave for someone else. The only person here who's made a sensible comparison is dnwq, who said

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

  • by laoudji (1383755) on Thursday October 30 2008, @01:58PM (#25573527) Homepage
    Turns out it's an O2 network issue: From TA: "Update: A previously published version of this article concluded that the G1's browser and processor were able to render pages faster than the iPhone's. In response to reader comments regarding a Wi-Fi test, we have now run a set of tests and concluded that, indeed, both phones load pages at a similar speed over Wi-Fi. This means there's little difference in processor or browser performance. Clearly the G1 is a superior Web phone to the Omnia, but it seems to be O2's network that is holding the iPhone back."
  • by jobsagoodun (669748) on Thursday October 30 2008, @03:27PM (#25574785)

    I've tested the same web-site on wired & 3G tmobile connection, & tmobile reduces the (byte) size of all image files on the fly in their transparent proxy. Might improve performance a tad! A proper test would use https as this cannot be interfered with in this way.

    • by MikeDirnt69 (1105185) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:38AM (#25571261)
      I still believe iPhone is all marketing, the product itself is just average. But that's only my opinion...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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
        • by binarylarry (1338699) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:40PM (#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.

          • by esampson (223745) on Thursday October 30 2008, @02:21PM (#25573873) Homepage

            I agree that I would like a 3.5" jack but at the same time I also understand why there isn't one. This is sort of the elegance in design AshtangiMan likes in the iPhone. Everything is done through a single port on the G1 rather than having to place multiple ports on it. If you want to use earphones other than the ones provided or plug it into your car stereo you can get an adapter fairly inexpensively.

            I know that's not a perfect solution but then what is? It is six of one (single port with adapters) or half a dozen of the other (multiple ports).

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          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.

            • by Dog-Cow (21281) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:49PM (#25572497)

              You forgot what it is that Apple sells. You just listed a bunch of parts.

              Apple sells an integrated interface to as many digital devices as they've come up with components for. Music, video, TV, the computer, phone, and whatever else I'm not recalling.

              That's what people are paying for.

          • by 2nd Post! (213333) <`ten.llebcap' `ta' `raebdnug'> on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:11PM (#25571897) Homepage

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

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              five years ago?

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  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.

                  • by sjbe (173966) on Thursday October 30 2008, @01:36PM (#25573225)

                    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.

                    My primary phone these days is a Nokia E70 [wikipedia.org]. Nice phone overall and I like it. The features are roughly identical to my wife's iPhone 3G - but only if you are just doing a checkbox feature comparison. Technically it has the "same" stuff but not all of it is usable. In actual usability there is a pretty wide gap for most people. Why? The interface.

                    The interface on Nokia's S60 [wikipedia.org] phones just sucks in comparison. Yes, a geek like me (and presumably you) can make it work just fine but ONLY a geek like me would bother. Getting an iPhone configured is a breeze by comparison - not to mention using it. It took me hours of navigating obscure menus to get my E70 working "properly" and I've had a series of Nokia phones for 10 years so I'm plenty familiar with their interface. The physical keyboard is nice but the iPhones virtual one works adequately. Particularly galling were:

                    • the poorly considered default options
                    • the need for special headphone adapters to use the MP3 player
                    • the need for special Nokia specific cables
                    • the lack of attention to the interface in many of the applications including the MP3 player and the camera

                    By comparison, setting up my wife's iPhone took 30 minutes and I had never held one before hers. Is the iPhone perfect? Heck no, but I've spent quality time with plenty of S60, Blackberries and Treos and for 9/10 people I'd recommend the iPhone over any of them if they have a choice. It's just less hassle. Fortunately it seems to have gotten the handset manufacturers off their rear ends so we are seeing a nice wave of innovative new phones coming out.

                  • It's really nothing special, just more idiot-proof and much less flexible.

                    Flexibility in a mobile device is a two edged sword. It might give you capabilities but the designer isn't careful the cost is usually a degradation in usability. I have an S60 based phone and my wife has the iPhone 3G. I'm a geek with plenty of technical skill and if given the choice today I'd take the iPhone over my Nokia without a second thought. It's just easier to use for the stuff I actually use a smartphone for. All that "flexibility" bites Nokia in the ass when it comes time to actually use the

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            No, I mean it's resources/capabilities should be a lot better.
            Well, you're not really paying for resources and capabilities with an Apple product.
            Apple has become a design-oriented company. They try to make sure everything looks and feels consistent. They make things as intuitive as possible, even if that means sacrificing some functionality. They don't add unusable junk to their products just so they can have the largest feature count. They spend real money on good industrial designers who make prod
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Just for gits and shiggles, I decided to try the same tests on my Windows XP Laptop with Netscape 56k modem, and on my Commodore 64's 2400 "baud" text-only browser:

              >>>Our first test, timed by the venerable Rupert Goodwins, involved visiting eHam.net
              Commodore 64 == 40 seconds
              Netscape ISP == 5 seconds
              G1 = 13; 3G == 24 (CNET test)

              >>>this time visited CNET UK's sister site silicon.com
              Commodore 64 == 100 seconds
              Netscape ISP == 15 seconds
              G1 == 21; Omnia == 45 (CNET test)

              >>>we visited ba

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

    • by grahamsz (150076) on Thursday October 30 2008, @11:47AM (#25571477) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:04PM (#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.
        • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:11PM (#25571889) Homepage

          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Sure is. I have it on my iphone and have identified a couple of new (to me) bands that I'm very fond of that would have taken me forever to identify any other way. It's definitely one of the apps I don't want to be without, ever again.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              In the UK you can call 2580 for Shazam on any mobile phone. I've only ever called in nightclubs, so all I've ever done is wait until the call ends -- I don't know if they give instructions or something. The call ends after 30 seconds or so, and a few seconds after that you receive a text with the name of the song.

        • by grahamsz (150076) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:14PM (#25571937) Homepage Journal

          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.

    • by Stan Vassilev (939229) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:04PM (#25571793) Homepage

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      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

      • Re:Chrome vs Safari (Score:4, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:23PM (#25572079) Homepage Journal
        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.
    • by PeterChenoweth (603694) on Thursday October 30 2008, @12:24PM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      FYI, the most common 3G frequency is 2100MHz. Neither ATT or T-Mobile uses 2100MHz in the US market. ATT uses 850/1900 and T-Mobile uses 1700.

      Both the G1 and the iPhone 3G are capable of working at 2100MHz though, which means both phones can operate on the 3G network in most of the world.