People love the idea of potential. I'd still want the fastest Porsche I could afford even though I'd still have to drive it in Manhattan traffic. I know I couldn't go any faster than average or even slower cars, but I'd still think....Man, as soon as I get an opening in traffic, I'm gonna get this mean dawg to 180 mph.

Anyway, once you have a handset that can use the faster speeds, the bandwidth is there for ya. If the iPhone could have received the same battery time from a 3G chip as a 2.5 chip, then it would have had a 3G chip. The higher cost would have been neglible.
Constable Odo | 12.11.07 - 1:29 pm | #

So how do they compare when uploading and download video, music and pics? I would think 3G has the advantage there.
beanie | 12.11.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Hmm. No surprises. I also talked about this exact issue on my own personal blog (among many other iPhone topics)

Check it out and see if you agree, as I am sure you would...
rmtwrkr | Homepage | 12.12.07 - 7:40 am | #

The tyranny of irrelevant specs: how many "independant" commentators trashed the iPhone because of 2.5 G or the 2 megapixel camera? Not seeing the forest for the trees...
Tom B | 12.12.07 - 12:36 pm | #

Wonder why the iPhone Infoblog had to use the Nokia E61i, on a UMTS network only capable of 384 kbps d/l, not THAT different from EDGE. A fairer comparison might've been Nokia N95 on HSDPA (assuming thats available in Germany?). As with all things, this video - while being a shining example of how to make your not-so-universally-valid-point effectively - proves nothing about EDGE vs 3G. If you can get HSDPA, EDGE would suck. Other words, YMMV depending on where you are..
Naveen Koorakula | Homepage | 12.13.07 - 5:11 am | #