If you're arguing for 4G because you can get it at your house, I recommend instead, you get a Wireless N router, save some power, and make your connection way faster. 4G is a big deal to me, but many people have learned to use WiFi when they want a faster connection, and the availability of WiFi hotspots substantially decreases the value of 4G to me except maybe when I'm in my car, in which case, 3G is more than enough for GPS navigation and music streaming.
I haven't heard of any cell phone radio chips that have a CDMA/LTE or CMDA/WIMAX combo on the same chip (please someone prove me wrong on this!). Thus, adding LTE or WIMAX to an existing phone would necessitate adding another chip. It is unlikely that Palm just left an empty space to drop in a "4G" chip.
The Snapdragon MSM8960 is expected to have LTE in addition to GSM and CDMA capabilities on the same chip. It's due sometime this year. Qualcomm has already surprised everyone with a new chip for the tablet, so maybe we'll see a new chip for the phone. After all, the Pre3 CPU is supposed to be 1.4GHz, and yet none of the listed Snapdragons that I can find clock at that speed.
We can hope.
Originally Posted by CGK
To me what's more puzzling is the lack of NFC - which is going to be the next big thing (in terms of apps and commercial transactions). I assumed that touch to share was based on NFC but instead it seems to rely on the some complex cloud based intermediary.
It goes over Bluetooth, not a cloud synchronization. I'd imagine that the tap uses the accelerometers in both units, field interference on the Touchstone coils, and confirmation over Bluetooth to pick up on the need to synchronize.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
Most of the country doesn't have "4G" coverage. I'm in a city with no wimax and it's amazing all the EVO's and Epics I see. These people are paying $10/month for a service they can't use. HP will make 4G devices at some point if they don't already have something in the works. 3G is fine for me when I'm going around town and it's nicer on my battery too. Wifi options are plenty.
Well you going to have pay for it anyway so why not get something for it.
You know those AT&T commercials where the person is waiting for something to download and the AT&T person already has it downloaded?
That commercial doesn't work so much because of the horrible experiences people have had with AT&T.
However, imagine an iPhone 5 or Android commercial in 2012 with a Pre3 in it. The Pre has the same apps, the same website, but is totally out of touch. Imagine the jokes about the Everybody On campaign.
The Android Armada is going to have a field day with this in certain KEY markets
There is hope for 4G on your pre3 yet. If you look in the wiki it shows the pre3 and the HTC thunderbolt as having the same version of MSM8655 chipset and if you don't already know the thunderbolt will support Verizon's lte network. Also if you look at the evo's chipset you'll notice wimax support is not listed. I think all this shows is wimax and lte use a separate chip to enable the use of 4G, so there is a chance.
And on a side note 4G is no battery waster if used purposefully, by that I mean turn it on when you need the bandwidth. It actually saves battery when those large downloads or app updates are needed. Think of it as a car with nitrous, you don't drive around with it on till you want to go really fast.
My area has 4G and my Sprint contract ends in June. If Sprint doesn't announce (not release) a 4G Web OS phone by, lets say, July, it's Android for me. If there's any news by then, I'll wait.
...4g is the emerging as the new standard for high speed data.... and Sprint is now charging $10 extra a month for data usage on new contracts signed after(march?) whether i use 4g or not...
Then why would I commit to a 1 year (for others a 2 year) contract to a phone that isn't 4g.
I love webOS to the point that i still run my sprint pre plus instead of upgrading to other more powerful devices.
Lets say I commit to a 3g Pre3. Well its going to be slower than the standard on the day its released, and two years later when we're finally eligible to upgrade... it will be like a damn dinosaur.
It not having LTE is the only thing keeping me from buying it. And I really want to have it to go great with my touchpad. But I need LTE and if I have to get a HTC ThunderBolt for that, I will.
Because the coverage for LTE and Wimax networks isn't at critical mass. If 4G is the defining factor for you to buy a phone, then you should buy a 4G phone. I care about the user experience and since wifi is much more prevalent than the 4G networks, I'm perfectly happy with that.
I am going to say no for one reason, HP has proven it wants to do whatever it can do to fail. They'll release a 4G phone on a carrier that has a small customer base a few months before some new mobile speeds are introduced. Bah humbug.
Because the coverage for LTE and Wimax networks isn't at critical mass. If 4G is the defining factor for you to buy a phone, then you should buy a 4G phone. I care about the user experience and since wifi is much more prevalent than the 4G networks, I'm perfectly happy with that.
I disagree in a sense. Your right 4G isn't slathered everywhere but it's around enough. Anyway, maybe with Sprint 4G this is the case. But not with Verizon's. First of all clearwire, the company building Sprint's 4G network, is going broke and they are slowing down big time on the rollout. Sprint has about 60 cities rolled out and they've been working since roughly 2007/8. Verizon on the other hand, began in ONE MONTH and nearly caught up to Sprint :/ They have a TON more markets in 2011 and with the cash they have, they are going to turbo-charge their rollout. Second of all, frequency. A little info. Higher frequency numbers travel very small distances and penetrate buildings terribly. Low frequencies, travel very far and rip through buildings like there is no tomorrow. Sprint 4G uses one of the very highest frequencies, 2500MHz or 2.5 Ghz. Verizon uses 700MHz for 4G the lowest (best) frequency for any cellular service YET. I am by no means a Sprint hater, I love them, but let me say I've used both and Sprint's 4G sucks. It totally doesn't get inside at all. I would have to stand by a window. Google it. There are tons of threads on it. Verizon's got in anywhere for me. Also, I live in Pittsburgh, look at how far Verizon's 4G goes out of the city vs. Sprint's. I pulled these directly from the websites. Keep in mind, Sprint started rolling out in 2008ish and Verizon flipped the switch in this past December. Then again it depends where you live and where you go. Also, to the OP, I agree I want the Pre 3 badly, but if it doesn't have 4G it could make me get a HTC ThunderBolt.
Originally Posted by cwgtex
