EDGE more efficient than 3G?
Carl Howe on Blackfriars publishes an extensive post explaining the reasons why EDGE can be more efficient than 3G (in defense of the iPhone), that is to say that at the time of actual use, users will feel that they make better use of mobile devices that work with EDGE ( that supports about 256 kilobits per second) to 3G networks that support from 1.8 to 7.2 megabits per second (including 14.4 mbps in some places) why?
According to the article on wireless networks, latency is more important than speed, which is questionable, but supposedly EDGE has much lower latency and the difference in speed to load a website between one technology and another may be almost unrecognizable.
It also ensures that there are hardware technologies that do not allow to take advantage of 3G networks and makes a comparison between the Nokia E61 and the iPhoneThe first one supports much higher speeds and even Wi-Fi, but even so it feels slower, this comparison is useless to anyone because in this case the problem is with Nokia and not with the data connection.
Finally it ensures that if the chip that supports a data connection that is 10 times faster than EDGE then it will consume 10 times more battery, which is basically a big lie. Although it is totally true that 3G requires more energy, it does not mean that mobiles with this technology can be used for 20 minutes before they “die”.
The fact is that although in USA or in general in America, Apple can sell iPhones with 2.5G technology, in the long run it will need a 3G version to really enter European and Asian markets (especially Japan).
Link: Why EDGE versus 3G matters less than you think | Via: Slashdot