Newsflash! Firmware 2.0 hints suggest Apple might be working on a 3G iPhone

You'll never believe this, but it looks like Cupertino might be getting ready to drop a bomb this summer -- a 3G bomb, in fact! The latest beta release of firmware 2.0 for the iPhone has apparently revealed a preference screen that allows users of the new model to disable the 3G radio and fall back to GPRS / EDGE because the faster service "decreases battery life." Gotta pay to play, as they say. The ability to disable 3G service in favor of improved standby performance is a pretty common one in modern phones, so we're not surprised to see it here -- just a little disappointed that Apple hasn't incorporated enough fairy dust to magically make the problem go away.

[iB3nji @ May 10th 2008 8:08PM]

i just emailed this in. For more info: http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/05/10/3g-iphone-preference-found-in-beta-5-firmware/

[tron @ May 10th 2008 10:57PM]

Word, no love to macrumors in this post.

[JohnPQ @ May 10th 2008 11:33PM]

Meh. Macrumors = AppleInsider hand-me-downs. 8 out 10 of their posts start "AppleInsider reports".

[Tom Oliveri @ May 11th 2008 1:15AM]

i guess it was inevitable that it would get a 2g/3g switch but its only now i realise how cool that really is.. myne will sit on 2g untill i need teh intarwebz then 3g for like.. an hour and back to 2g

someone's gonna need to write a program - as soon as safari starts we get 3g lovin

[Surur @ May 11th 2008 4:50AM]

Wait, does this mean the 3G iPhone will run exactly the same software as the 2G iPhone? Nothing new or surprising? Just the same boring weather, stocks, safari and Itunes?

Why should a EDGE user upgrade to 3G then?

And doesn't this make a joke of the excuse Jobs made last year about not putting in a 3G chip due to battery life issues, and people who said he could just put a preference in where shouted down?

[fontendet24 @ May 11th 2008 8:12AM]

I think that function of disable 3G is also was made for the regions where 3G networks are absent at this time.
Apple won't sell old iPhone in one countries and offer NEW iPhone only in US and Europe. Old ones will lose their marketshare when the Nokia and other presented new devices there with better functions, camera and etc.

[Nick M. @ May 11th 2008 12:37PM]

@ Tom

maybe just have it be a preference for safari that you can set. "check the box if you'd like to enable 3G data connection when Safari is initiated."

[Chris in CA @ May 12th 2008 11:14AM]

Is there a switch to enable/disable copy and paste? If they left 3G out because of shortened battery life, imagine the unholy bottomless pit of energy sucking doom that copy and paste must place on the poor iPhone

[Victor Shamanovsky @ May 10th 2008 8:10PM]

just buy HTC Diamond

[Mam00th @ May 10th 2008 8:33PM]

You don't seem to understand that Apple fanboy are everywhere ready to do everything to help their god. I bet there is one on its way to your house right now. I heard they also sacrifice virgins in the name of Steve jobs

[clak @ May 10th 2008 8:34PM]

Yes, buy an HTC Diamond and you will have flawless sync with iTunes, which enables you to have access to all your music, movies, TV shows, podcasts, audiobooks, playlists, and the wide range of applications soon to be offered by Apple's new App Store.

Wait a second, no you won't.


You have an inferiority complex and it's completely justified

[zomg0t @ May 10th 2008 9:06PM]

lol, flawless...

[Erik @ May 10th 2008 11:03PM]

Or, using any one of a number of vastly less restrictive and draconian applications, you can put all your music and videos on the HTC diamond as you please.

That, and I don't think HTC will brick your phone if you put anything third party on it. :P

[rawhead @ May 10th 2008 11:17PM]

@Erik

The "brick" card is so last year it's not even funny.

[Steffen Jobbs @ May 10th 2008 11:25PM]

Not to mention being stuck using Windows Mobile 6.1, not having .Mac sync and not having OSX iChat. You will have a user-replaceable battery, so you can content yourself with carrying a spare battery around.

[N30 G30 @ May 11th 2008 1:36AM]

Steffen Jobbs,

How about when the battery dies and you need a phone as quickly as possible? How about charging two batteries at the same time so you're not stuck having to wait just to use your cell phone? Sometimes it's just easier taking a spare battery than a charger.

How about having the choice to let me choose whether or not I want to change the battery on my phone?

I'm sick of Apple fanboys that looks at a product flaws and tries to twist it around to a positive, no matter how illogical. These fanboys make the rest of the Apple community of users look bad. Seriously.

[r3loaded @ May 11th 2008 4:24AM]

@N30 G30

I think Steffen Jobs was being sarcastic. Very subtle though..

[zenmoused @ May 10th 2008 8:10PM]

Sadly, battery technology still sucks.

[gad get @ May 10th 2008 8:11PM]

Amen.

[Nick M. @ May 10th 2008 11:50PM]

if the new iPhone will fit in the sleeve.

[Mr. S. @ May 11th 2008 5:38AM]

You have a internet capable computer in your pocket that is thin as a asian hooker which can run for days with average use. OH ya, batteries suck? O_o

[sarky @ May 10th 2008 8:14PM]

WHAT this is completely shocking!!

is this more evidence that firmware 2.0 is needed for the next iPhone i wonder.

[sarky @ May 10th 2008 8:16PM]

meaning that the next iphone will probably be announced at WWDC when firmware 2.0 is released.

[Ace b @ May 10th 2008 9:24PM]

We really shouldn't care about any other "clues"about the next iphone having 3G.We all know it's gonna happen.

Call me when ya find out something interesting,like better battery life,better screen,bigger capacity,or what the next iphone will really look like.

[Nomi @ May 10th 2008 10:52PM]

well said aces..

[Nomi @ May 10th 2008 10:52PM]

*ace

[Nick M. @ May 11th 2008 12:47PM]

based on that ATT letter... iPhone 2 will be available to the public not too long after the WWDC announcement, I'd assume.

[iB3nji @ May 10th 2008 8:15PM]

well like said battery technology has not improved heaps it may be almost the same. the reason i reckon apple just didnt put a 3G chip in the first iPhone and have this option is they wanted to put the iPhone out in the market, grab some interested and release the bombshell a year later with all this new stuff including 3G :)

Let the rumours and speculation build up like it has been, it then creates more and more interest and more media attention to the device.

If they were to put 3G in it from the beginning what would be so great about the second iPhone?

[Ellianth @ May 10th 2008 8:18PM]

that's just a nice way of saying, "they wanted to milk their customers."

[clak @ May 10th 2008 8:25PM]

You really can't claim Apple is milking their customers when Steve Jobs announced that they were going to make a 3G phone the very same day they released the original iPhone.

Reality check for Apple haters.

A quote from Steve Jobs, MacWorld Keynote, January 9, 2007.

"iPhone is a Quad Band GSM+EDGE phone. We have decided... (clapping) ...we have decided to go with the most popular international standard, which is GSM. We are on that bandwagon, headed on that roadmap and plan to make 3G PHONES and all sorts of amazing things in the future."

Steve Jobs, London, September 18, 2007.

"Um, the 3G chip sets that are available now to semiconductors work reasonably well, except for power. They're real power hogs, so as you know, the handset battery lives used to be sorta in the 5 to 6 hour range for, uh, uh, GSM and when we got to 3G they got cut in half, right. Most phones now have a battery life of 2 to 3 hours. And that's due to these very power hungry 3G chipsets.

And the problem is, we just, our phone has battery life of 8 hours, this is of talk time, I'm talking about, not standby time, standby time is a few hundred hours, but for talk time, most 3G phones are 2 to 3 hours. We got a 8 hour talk time phone. That's really important when you start to use the internet and you want to use your phone to listen to music. So if you only have a 2 and a half hour talk time on your phone, you're not going to use it for the internet, you're not going to listen to music on it, because you'll be afraid to drain the battery and miss that important call that's going to come in.

So we got to see the battery life for 3G get up back up into the 5 plus hour range before it's really suitable for this and I think, uh, and I think we'll see that hopefully, ya know, late next year..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gyq0lTubjk

PC users have a wide stance

[Kryz @ May 10th 2008 8:46PM]

Battery life may not have improved very much (sounds logical, batteries have been around for quite some time, revolutions are not to be expected so much anymore), but 3G-chip energy consumption has probably improved drastically in the past year or 2, since this technology is new enough to allow for considerable improvement. Also the size of the installment will have been reduced, meaning it can be fitted more easily into an already crowded space.

So yes, I think Apple did need the time to do it right, and I think that may have been a good decision. Also, 3G coverage in the US was limited a year ago - the US mobile market is not as mature as the markets in Europe or some parts of Asia. Since the iPhone's major audience was the US market anyway, it was good enough.

[Andrew @ May 10th 2008 10:02PM]

Clak: I'm sorry but I have to respond to a few things you say.

First off, I was the first person to call BS on Apple when they didn't include 3G on the first gen iPhone. They claimed it would hurt battery life, I said add a switch to turn it on or off. EXACTLY what they are doing for the second gen iPhone.

Apple is an incredibly smart marketing company. They know exactly how to leave out the right features so that people will buy the newest generations of their products and toss the old.

To say that they didn't leave the feature out to, to use Ellianth's words, milk their customers, is just plain silly. As said, battery technology isn't much different and there is absolutely no reason they couldn't have added it as a switch in the first place.

I don't see what there is to defend them for on that. Plain and simple, they left it out because they could get people to buy again when the new one came out, period. That's all there is to it. I'm not saying it's bad. On the contrary, I am constantly amazed at how well Apple markets. They are the only company in the world that I can think of that can make their customers drop their old products for new so quickly. Maybe it sucks for the consumer, but hey, they are a profit driven company, if they can do it why the hell not, right? Congrats to them on an incredibly successful business model.

Now I don't think that gives the consumer a whole lot of room to complain though. You're stupid if you didn't know a 3G version was coming, and soon. Rather than complaining, I absolutely wouldn't buy an iPhone because I knew 3G was coming and that's important to me.

Also, one other thing, I don't know about GSM/HSDPA 3G devices, or even all CDMA/EVDO 3G devices, so I can't make a blanket statement, however, I do know that at least my phone (Mogul with Sprint) drops out of 3G while you're on the phone, so saying that 3G affects talk time and battery life would be incorrect. You don't talk over a 3G connection, only transferring data affects battery life. This may be true with all CDMA/EVDO devices, and hell, possibly even all GSM/HSDPA devices, but like I said, I'm not positive so I won't say definitively. It would make sense though. You're not going to be using the internet while talking, so you might as well drop the connection and save battery life. It might also affect the call, not sure if there is any specific reasoning behind it other than saving battery.

[Andrew @ May 10th 2008 10:12PM]

I also just realized that the battery life thing was all said by Steve, not you. Still, it further proves that he's sweet talking around the situation to have an excuse for not adding 3G immediately. I do have the battery problem that he speaks of, but it's not as easy as just saying that 3G affects talk time. 3G or not, my phone's battery sucks, mainly because it's just not a big battery and not very efficient while running a big touch screen and all that. Contrary to what he says, 3G ONLY affects standby/internet browsing time, and not talk time, if you see what I mean. 

[clak @ May 10th 2008 10:13PM]

@Andrew

Well, I didn't read all of your comment. You started to bore me halfway through, but the simple fact remains, Steve Jobs was very clear that there was going to be a 3G version and he had a good explanation why they didn't go 3G in the beginning, so you're really just speculating on his intentions, which directly contradicts what he told the public.

My main point is, he never lied about the possibility of a 3G phone, so if 3G was important to people buying the phone and they bought it anyway, they have no one to blame but themselves. No one held a gun to their heads.

Normally I would say you're entitled to your opinion, but it stinks because your opinion contradicts know facts.


I would trade all of my technology for an afternoon with Socrates—Steve Jobs

[sdf632 @ May 10th 2008 10:21PM]

This is a reply to Andrew, but the Mogul drops out of 3G while talking because that's the way EVDO is. The DO stands for data only. HSDPA/UMTS, the type of 3G that the iPhone will use, actually does use 3G for talking as well.

And to defend Jobs, battery life does suck on earlier 3G handsets. I suspect it's only nowadays that 3G is beginning to become a reasonable option, judging from talk time on newer phones.

[Andrew @ May 10th 2008 10:27PM]

clack: I apologize. I mistook you for someone who could have a mature conversation. Nothing I said was picking on you or anything you said, nor is any of it contradicting facts.

Plain and simple, as I said, the reasoning behind not adding 3G before was battery life. Adding a switch, as they are doing in the 2nd gen iPhone, is the solution to that, ergo, there was no reason to not include it before. Do you think that a CEO has never lied or made up fluff to sell a product? You make it sound like just because he gave a reason, it means that there is absolutely no other reason that could be true other than his.

I also never bashed or spoke badly about Apple for doing what they did. Leaving a few features out and then selling a new version is incredibly smart for them if it works. I hold nothing against them for it. I'm actually a very happy Apple user myself, just not the iPhone... yet.

Additionally, if you HAD read the rest of my post, you'd see that I agreed and said that it was no fault to anyone other than the consumer if they knew a 3G version was coming and bought anyway.

So rather than ignoring what I said and blindly defending Apple for things that no one attacked them for, perhaps you should take a few seconds and read what it said without automatically assuming someone is attacking you, or, god forbid, Apple.

[Andrew @ May 10th 2008 10:45PM]

sdf632: Thanks for the clarification. I may be reading into what you said wrong, but I'm fairly certain that GSM/HSDPA phones still only use GSM for the call itself. Whether or not they leave 3G up while in a call is a different story, but I don't think they'd be draining any more battery because specifically because of the 3G connection other than what it would take to maintain the idle 3G connection when not talking.

It's kind of hard to explain what I'm trying to say, but 3G doesn't really relate to the affect on talk time as much as it does overall battery life. The overall battery life is lower simply because you have a 3G connection up, but calling while using a 3G phone doesn't drain even more just because you're talking on a phone that has 3G, if you get what I'm saying.

At least that's how I understand it all. :)

[giantenemycrab @ May 10th 2008 10:56PM]

@ clak

Thanks for that youtube clip, I never knew that.. I answers a lot of my questions. Thanks man.

[rjrawlings @ May 10th 2008 11:08PM]

you know there are different chip's that have different battery life don't you? some 3g phones have terrible battery life even with 3g turned off. hmmm maybe apple didn't want to make one of those phones and held out...

no that's just way too crazy, that couldn't be it...

[generally @ May 10th 2008 11:23PM]

I'd have to agree with Andrew on this. A perfect example of Apple doing this is with the iPods. When you go from iPod, to iPod Color, to iPod Photo, to iPod video..., not to mention the varios transition "click" models before them, you know they are milking it. The models came out about 6 months from one another, so you can't tell me that some technological hurdle was preventing them from going straight from iPod Color to iPod Video.

Whether you like it or not, even if AT&T had their 3G network working at the time, I'm willing to bet that Apple would have released a 3G-less device, followed by a 3G one, simply because they could and they knew people would buy into it.

[Abbie @ May 11th 2008 12:16AM]

Did any of you even bother to research the creation of the iPhone before making accusations and rants?
Article: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=1
The iPhone _was_ rushed out the door. After reading this, it becomes obvious that the features of the 1.1.3 firmware could not have been made available at launch much less a complete SDK. What you are asking from Apple is a miracle. Apple had to pull developers from Leopard to develop the iPhone just to meet the deadline and you say it could have had 3G on release? I am inclined to believe that yes, they did skip on 3G because of battery life and availability of the network. And why else? Because they had a deadline and EDGE was clearly the best option: most available and they did not have to spend time working on 3G and EDGE (@ Andrew's: its easy to make a switch") and then a switch for it. If anyone believes that it is "simple" and "easy" and "trivial" to add 3G to a phone, perhaps you never wrote a device driver or did any software development. You would have to create yet another driver that the developers probably did not have time for. Heck, even the wifi and modem was not perfect when released (both receiving updates - some major - after the fact). There are sacrifices that need to be made to push a product out the door.
And so what if Apple makes a huge profit from people upgrading to 2nd gen iPhones? Its their product; you buy or do not buy.
Angry that they milk you? Don't buy it! But most of all, get your facts in line before you start tearing up a company without knowing anything about the development process.

[generally @ May 11th 2008 1:45AM]

Haha. Well thanks for exaggerating my comments for arguments sake. Very nice. Sorry I didn't research the iPod release dates before posting. Still, I am right about iPods past the click-wheel, which is what I was referencing.

iPod 4th gen: 19 July 2004
iPod 4th gen color: 26 October 2004
iPod 4th gen photo: 28 June 2005
iPod 5th gen video: 12 October 2005

They release four different versions of the iPod, with a TINY improvement each time over the course of 16 months. And you're going to try and tell me they didn't milk it? You're an idiot.

"My answer is: So what? We have a right as consumers to never have to buy an upgraded piece of technology ever in our lives, even if the company in question hasn't invented the technology. Surely that's not unreasonable."

Yes, but that's the whole argument here. Apple is being unreasonable in the way in which they release their devices over repeatedly slightly-improved iterations. A method which ploys consumers to buy a new product with a TINY upgrade from the previous generation, only to find the their device will essentially be obsolete come six months later.

This kind of behavior with technology is expected. Things change at such a fast pace. Yet Apple deliberately taking advantage of it, and it frustrates consumers.

So stop calling people lying dumb asses. I'll (try to) stop calling you an idiot. And we'll have a good day.

[Andrew @ May 11th 2008 1:52AM]

clak: Nope, sorry, don't follow everyone's posts. :)

But hatred for Steve Jobs? Haha, I'm typing this on a Macbook you twit. I very much like Apple products.

I have 3G in my area and have had it since before the iPhone came out. Nothing wrong with being proactive, right?

And Abbie, since you seem to have gotten something stuck up your rear and set off on a rant, first understand what I said before calling me out and saying what I said is wrong. I said it would be an easy solution to add a switch, not that it would be easy to code drivers. And yes, I would know what it's like, being that I'm a programmer and have written drivers before. And being that I have, I can tell you it's not as hard as you would make it sound either. A driver for a 3G chip would certainly not be the most complex driver. It's basically just setting up a connection and receiving and transmitting a stream. That's nothing compared to say the touch screen drivers.

Also, do you really think that they didn't have a main team of developers for the iPhone? You make it sound like they'd have to shut down their OS side to make an iPhone. Apple is a big company, they have teams for each project. While some developers may share projects, a lot wouldn't, and they certainly have the money to temporarily hire a few more people to get a job done. Even by the timeline in the article you link to, the iPhone was in development for 9 months. Take out a month or two for QA and testing, hell, take off half the time if you wanted. You could hire one extra person and he could alone have the driver done in easily less than a month. The timeframe excuse is worse than the battery power excuse. Not to mention, you made this one up yourself. This isn't even something Apple used as an excuse. So I didn't research the story behind it? Or I didn't research your thoughts, ideas, and opinions?

Trust me, if Apple wanted 3G in the first iPhone, they would have had it.

You guys prove exactly what blind fanboyism is all about. I'm sitting here praising the company for being so damn good at marketing that they manage this, never once actually complaining about it, just stating that it's obvious what the reasoning behind it is, and it is, and it's what makes their marketing so good, and yet, I've been accused of "picking on Apple" no less than 2 or 3 times so far.

[dBs @ May 11th 2008 4:38AM]

So lets speculate: What is the next incremental update that will inspire the 3rd version? Storage and 700MHz is my guess. Maybe it will be one then the other next. That sounds like a proper time line.

[clak @ May 11th 2008 10:20AM]

@Andrew

Damn, I get a good night's sleep and come back to find that I'm being accused of being a fanboy after I presented facts and evidence supporting my argument. Christ, this always seems to happen when someone fails to own me in an argument.

Andrew, my boy, your argument does not hold up. This has nothing to do with fanboyism. Your argument just sucks. It's a 110 percent speculation. I've given you quotes from Steve Jobs himself, where he promised a 3G phone at MacWorld 2007, the day he presented the original iPhone. I gave you another extensive quote where Steve Jobs explained his rational for not going with 3G, where he cited the battery as the primary culprit. I would also like to point out that Steve cites the inclusion of Wifi in the iPhone, which is faster than 3G, as a stopgap measure until the 3G phone. Maybe you should watch it again, if you haven't already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gyq0lTubjk

I also brought up the fact that AT&T's 3G network was not robust enough to support the kind of coverage that Apple wanted originally. AT&T was heavily invested in GSM for its mobile phones at the time of the iPhone's introduction, so it was only prudent for Steve to use the technology that was available, from the only company that was willing to agree with his revenue sharing, voicemail and home activation ambitions. Here's an article from AT&T to that effect:

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=25146

So, dude, unless you have some real evidence that Steve was trying to milk his customers (a memo would be nice or even the confession of a disgruntled employee) you're just jumping on the Apple hating bandwagon. Who knows why you're doing it. Maybe you're trying to suck up to all the Windows Fanboys. Maybe you're trying to impress a hot girl who reads Engadget.

Whatever the reason, you are not winning your argument by repeating your flawed premise and speculations. Furthermore, your whole notion that Apple could have made the 3G phone if they really, really wanted to proves absolutely nothing. OF COURSE they could have had a 3G phone if they really wanted to. I'm sure they could have had MMS if they really wanted to, but it's called MAKING DECISIONS.

It's the reason Steve Jobs has a multi-billion dollar company and you don't. It's called focus. All successful people practice it, and Steve Jobs has often stated that saying "NO" is just as important as saying "YES" when developing a product.

So whine all you want, Steve Jobs made a decision. You might not like it. You might think he has ulterior motives, but you don't have to buy the damn phone and Apple doesn't owe you an explanation. Instead of complaining, why don't you design a phone that's better. What's that? You're not an engineer? No shit! Then maybe you should shut the f*ck up.


I'm Rick James, Bitch!

[rv @ May 11th 2008 1:07PM]

Clak, what is with the quotes. Are you fucking Confucius or something?

[clak @ May 11th 2008 6:41PM]

No, I'm Yoda. Or I should say, "Yoda, I am."


1984

[Dave @ May 12th 2008 12:10PM]

@Andrew
3G/UMTS/HSPDA is an entirely different air interface from GSM. 3G phones are 3G for both voice and data. They can also use voice and data at the same time and have the benefit of slightly higher voice bit rates.

This is contrasted with CDMA carriers, who are just adding "3G" high speed data on top of their existing voice service.

[ryan @ May 10th 2008 8:16PM]

now all we need is to find in beta6 are the GPS settings ;)

[Colin @ May 10th 2008 8:18PM]

Gasp. Shock. Awe. I NEVER saw this one coming. I mean seriously, this whole 3G iPhone thing. That is completely out of the blue. You'd think with this kind of thing you'd be hearing about it for months and months now. But I must say, this took me completely by surprise.