 |
 |
It's more than folklore, I think. As an example the Motorola Charm uses a GPS chipset that is really hungry. I watched the current drain on the phone with and without GPS enabled, and the difference was startling. I need to do this again, and record the numbers. I think people have bitched about this enough such that hardware OEMs are starting to realize that lower power consuming chips are where they need to go. They've pretty much always been available, but the cost was high enough that they didn't want to raise the price of the phone for them. It's important to remember that there is a struggle between quality and price and ability in consumer electronics these days, with price usually winning out. --STeve Andre' On 07/19/11 15:46, Richard Wiggins wrote: > In using an iPhone 3Gs for a long time, in a variety of situations, > and in following folklore online, I'm not convinced of this. There > are too many variables involved. Is there a faint 3G signal the phone > keeps valiantly pursuing? Is Bluetooth enabled? Do have have lots of > "push" apps trying to reach you? How aggressively have you set your > screen dimming? > > There is just so much folklore on this, and so little controlled > study, that it's hard to make a definitive claim. My own experience > suggests that the iPhone, at least, does not optimize between 3G and > Wi-Fi, and you're better off turning Wi-Fi off and leaving it off, > turning it on only when you have some heavy data needs. In my > experience this greatly increases standby battery time. > > For residential uses, AT&T sells a device that acts as a home cell > tower, providing a cell signal to your phone and then using your > broadband Internet connection to carry the traffic. It's a great deal > for AT&T, moving cell traffic off their network and onto yours. Over > a year ago AT&T explored in Times Square moving traffic from their > cell network to Wi-Fi in Times Square. AT&T would love for your > broadband or cyber cafe connection to carry traffic that otherwise > their cell network would need to. > > If anyone can point to some serious literature on this that'd be good. > > /rich > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Gary Schrock <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote > > > > FWIW, my understanding is that using the wifi part of the phone is > actually more battery efficient than using the cell side. So if > that's an option in your building, it's probably the best option. > (At least for the smartphone people who can't get email, obviously > it's not going to help with calls.) > > I know in my building I did set my phone up to access the wireless > in the building, because there's a fair number of places that the > cell signal just plane sucks. (Not surprising given the makeup of > the building.) > > > Is there such a thing as a cell repeater that can be placed > inside a > building? Or some other solution that has worked for folks? > > Scott Smith > > HR Systems Development and Support > > Michigan State University > >