Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone XS Max Why do you need 5G?
- Thread starter Sledneck52
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So for those naysayers about 5G, can I ask...
Do you not log on to a McDonalds / Starbucks wifi when you go in there? Do you don’t use hotel wifi if staying away? Maybe you don‘t even logon to your home wifi with your phone when at home?
The point being, wifi hotspots have patchy coverage and aren’t available everywhere, but many of us will quickly search for them the moment we enter a premises as they offer one thing more than anything else.....speed.
Certainly for the moment, this is about ‘Want’ more than ‘Need’, but none of us actually need half the tech we already own. Of course coverage will improve, prices will come down etc, but the demand is there and will continue to grow.
Do you not log on to a McDonalds / Starbucks wifi when you go in there? Do you don’t use hotel wifi if staying away? Maybe you don‘t even logon to your home wifi with your phone when at home?
The point being, wifi hotspots have patchy coverage and aren’t available everywhere, but many of us will quickly search for them the moment we enter a premises as they offer one thing more than anything else.....speed.
Certainly for the moment, this is about ‘Want’ more than ‘Need’, but none of us actually need half the tech we already own. Of course coverage will improve, prices will come down etc, but the demand is there and will continue to grow.
I am in a similar situation. There is only one internet provider in my county, unless you are willing to count Hughes Satellite which has a lot of limitations and not many advantages. But for me 5G on my phone when at home is a “what if” type of question. I’m lucky to get 4G now, although if I go 5 miles south it’s consistently available. But I would like something to break the monopoly that the current internet provider has, and has had for decades, in my area.
I would far rather the networks were extended to cover the whole country with 4G before thinking about 5G.
Nothing I do with the phone would benefit from 5G.
Nothing I do with the phone would benefit from 5G.
Why did we need more than a 56k modem? Can you not want progress for the sake of progress?
Because my 5 bar LTE ranges from 0Mbps-120 (Depending on tourist load). When you have 5 bars of LTE and can't load a webpage the world seems cruel.
5G ? It is like carrying a radioactive material on you or constantly running microwave. No, thank you. Let's look into motivation. Why somebody's would develop this technology, spending substantial funds in the middle, and then push into civil population? Is just to allow a marginal niche groups to do something arguably faster? Thank you, no, thank you
Uh, except the gap between 3G and LTE was a high usability gap. There are very few things the phone can do that LTE can't support.
I tested my S20 Ultra with 5G disabled and then enabled. 5G gets me coverage in places 4G LTE doesn't, like elevators, basements, and even some known dead zones. The speeds are pretty similar to 4G LTE, just slightly higher with less latency.
Now millimeter wave 5G, is much more scattered. I've only experienced mmwave in certain areas in Manhattan, Bklyn, and Queens in NYC. And in multiple major airports across the globe. I'm sure in less dense places, mmwave is even more rare. The highest speed I got was around 980 download. I usually get around 500-700 download.
Now millimeter wave 5G, is much more scattered. I've only experienced mmwave in certain areas in Manhattan, Bklyn, and Queens in NYC. And in multiple major airports across the globe. I'm sure in less dense places, mmwave is even more rare. The highest speed I got was around 980 download. I usually get around 500-700 download.
I can't see my little patch of the planet getting 5G for a very long time.
But what I really do want is 100% coverage by at least something, say a minimum of 3G. In a world almost entirely without public telephones, the lack of any signal in many nearby parts is dire. Not for playing - but for anything that requires urgent communication. Accidents. Illnesses. Breakdowns.
As this is a coastal area, coverage should be mandated out a fair distance to ensure people trapped by tides, having boat problems, even blown away on a lilo, should be able to call for help. For themselves or for others. Yet, even with emergency calls supposedly working across carriers, there is not always a signal available.
If I knew 5G were not coming, I'd be happy enough with a 4G model (were one available). As someone who keeps my phones for a long time, five years is hard to predict. So 5G just might be useful, at some point, or when on a trip.
Had 2400 baud at one time. But the PC itself was the worse part. AOL would take longer to load than to connect once I could enter login info
What's funny is our 56k was better than once we got one way cable. Everything was so badly out of sync since uploads were still phone lines but downloads were cable.
Yea even the 5 LTE is funky on some carriers. Data might work but VOLTE isn't always supported
As with all technological transitions, things will be messy in the beginning and eventually ubiquitous. In the meantime, the question over the past couple of product cycles has been, should I choose a device based on 5G? For most use cases, the answer has been an emphatic no. For the current/upcoming product cycle, the answer will be more of a definite maybe. By this time next year, it will no longer be a question, as it will be standard issue on nearly all new models. You'll get 5G whether you want it or not.
For the most part, the 5G networks still have massive holes, and for the devices themselves the 5G modem has been a power drain.
And to add to the confusion, there are multiple flavors of 5G service, each of which has differing levels of improvement over 4G LTE. The hype over 5G largely centers on the mmWave variant. That type of 5G is blazing fast and a huge uptick by multiples over the lastest LTE service. Great! Problem is that mmWave requires a much higher tower density, and is more susceptible to interference from buildings, land masses, and other large objects. Rural and many suburban locations need not apply.
Verizon has so far deployed only mmWave for its 5G service. That's why they can advertise that they have the fastest 5G service (by a wide margin). But, good luck getting a 5G signal outside of the densest areas of large cities.
Which leaves the lower frequency sub-6 5G service, which is vast majority of "5G" service. The sub-6 service builds on LTE, but you can't really call it LTE+ since it requires a 5G modem. Because it uses lower frequencies, the low band and mid band 5G service has longer range and is less susceptible to interference from buildings and large objects. But, it's also way slower than mmWave 5G, and recent tests done by both PCMag and the Washington Post found that low band and mid band 5G service is only a modest improvement over existing LTE service, and in some cases is actually slower than LTE.
www.pcmag.com
www.washingtonpost.com
Further confusing things, AT&T has gone as far as labeling their LTE-A service as "5G Evolution". This is reminiscent of how some carriers called HSPA+ service as "4G" while detractors said that HSPA+ was really an extension of 3G. This is inevitable during a transition, so buyer beware.
If you're looking to get one of the upcoming iPhone 12 models, it will come with 5G. To some extent, it will futureproof the device as 5G becomes more commonplace in the upcoming years. However, if the rumors that only the top of the line iPhone 12 will support mmWave 5G turn out to be true, then that means the majority of the iPhone 12 models will be limited to the gimped 5G and won't ever support the fastest 5G speeds. That all adds up to compromises now, and a shorter shelf life over the long run.
Inevitably, the 5G modems will get better, cost less, and likely use less battery than what's currently available. This is the problem anytime you adopt a new standard during the early transitional period -- you'll pay a lot for something that will be more expensive and less futureproof than something that will become available in a relatively short time.
For the most part, the 5G networks still have massive holes, and for the devices themselves the 5G modem has been a power drain.
And to add to the confusion, there are multiple flavors of 5G service, each of which has differing levels of improvement over 4G LTE. The hype over 5G largely centers on the mmWave variant. That type of 5G is blazing fast and a huge uptick by multiples over the lastest LTE service. Great! Problem is that mmWave requires a much higher tower density, and is more susceptible to interference from buildings, land masses, and other large objects. Rural and many suburban locations need not apply.
Verizon has so far deployed only mmWave for its 5G service. That's why they can advertise that they have the fastest 5G service (by a wide margin). But, good luck getting a 5G signal outside of the densest areas of large cities.
Which leaves the lower frequency sub-6 5G service, which is vast majority of "5G" service. The sub-6 service builds on LTE, but you can't really call it LTE+ since it requires a 5G modem. Because it uses lower frequencies, the low band and mid band 5G service has longer range and is less susceptible to interference from buildings and large objects. But, it's also way slower than mmWave 5G, and recent tests done by both PCMag and the Washington Post found that low band and mid band 5G service is only a modest improvement over existing LTE service, and in some cases is actually slower than LTE.
Fastest Mobile Networks 2020
After a decade of testing 3G and 4G wireless networks, this year we drove around 26 US cities amidst a pandemic to determine whether 5G is ready for prime time. Find out which carrier's network is fastest where you live, and whether it's time to upgrade.
Review | The 5G lie: The network of the future is still slow
We speed tested 5G phones against 4G ones. America’s new nationwide 5G networks weren’t much faster — and in some places they were slower.
www.washingtonpost.com
Further confusing things, AT&T has gone as far as labeling their LTE-A service as "5G Evolution". This is reminiscent of how some carriers called HSPA+ service as "4G" while detractors said that HSPA+ was really an extension of 3G. This is inevitable during a transition, so buyer beware.
If you're looking to get one of the upcoming iPhone 12 models, it will come with 5G. To some extent, it will futureproof the device as 5G becomes more commonplace in the upcoming years. However, if the rumors that only the top of the line iPhone 12 will support mmWave 5G turn out to be true, then that means the majority of the iPhone 12 models will be limited to the gimped 5G and won't ever support the fastest 5G speeds. That all adds up to compromises now, and a shorter shelf life over the long run.
Inevitably, the 5G modems will get better, cost less, and likely use less battery than what's currently available. This is the problem anytime you adopt a new standard during the early transitional period -- you'll pay a lot for something that will be more expensive and less futureproof than something that will become available in a relatively short time.
To be honest, I'm not really expecting any future proofing with the iPhone 12. The notch means I'd likely upgrade whenever that's reduced or eliminated. I'll also upgrade for improvements in display technology to reduce eye strain. New 5G bands as well for whatever carrier I'll have at the time.
On the upside, depending on location, there's also the possibility of getting really good speeds until the 5G gets congested as well.
Last edited:
The main benefit of 5G is not the speed. It's in the system latency and the AI in the network. If you just watch Netflix, then latency of a couple of seconds is not an issue. Who cares if the video takes a couple of seconds to load? But if you want to use it to connect cars for autonomous driving or conduct remote surgery, then a couple of seconds of latency is not good enough. 5G will deliver milliseconds of latency, and that's what's needed. In terms of network AT, just imagine that a football stadium full of fans (yes, that's pre-pandemic) simultaneously responds to an ad or a request to visit a URL, then a 4G system is overloaded, and no one can load the requested URL. A 5G system deploys virtual cell towers and off-loads the requested content. Result: all users get the content without noticeable delay.
5G is not about speed, it's about latency and AI.
I’d actually disagree with that. The reason I and a lot of other people connect to wifi is to save data. Not everyone is on unlimited plans. Unless I’m getting poor reception, 4G speed is fine. I am hoping 5G will improve reception at work though. Currently I average 2 bars.