Comments on: Palm Pre vs. iPhone 3G S vs. iPhone 3G on Video

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:51:57 +0000

Must hurt to be an iPhone fan…

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:35:19 +0000

So for the iphone users, have fun finding a hotspot. My 3g coverage owns you

By: trim

trim — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:09:08 +0000

Anand Tech
has done some controlled WiFi tests on Pre and iPhone 3Gs.

The iphone is faster.

” the 3GS is actually able to render webpages slightly faster than the Pre in some cases. The overall performance advantage ends up being 11% in favor of the 3GS over the Pre.”

http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3587

By: Economyst

Economyst — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:25:14 +0000

How can you hit the send button without adding a delivery address?

You but the phone and sign up to the network. If you are willing to accept poor reception in return for the phone you have then please don’t complain about one phone being able to browse quicker than the other.

Phones surprisingly enough add value when connected to the network.

Why don’t people do something that’s intelligent like get a contract with the network that has the best recepton in the area you live and work in.

By: vas

vas — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:52:21 +0000

The Pre sent a picture of the light. That almost certainly results in a much smaller file because of the way jpeg compression works. Calling this an “unscientific test” is an understatement.

The more important thing is human usability. The iPhone user took the photo and had already hit the send button when the Pre user was just starting to type in the TO address. In other words, it appears the iPhone is more usable.

By: oneAwake

oneAwake — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:44:26 +0000

The tester saying the iphone 3GS is not running ATT’s 7.2 network upgrade should not matter. Sprints equivalent would be Rev-B which is 9.3Mbps, the Pre is running Rev-A which has a max of 3.1Mbps. Also, WebOS is much more complex than OSX, the Pre has to run through Sprints network as well during boot-up. I doubt the Pre CNET had was running the latest firmware upgrade, my Pre does not take that long at all.

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:02:36 +0000

I have a pretty busy schedule tomorrow, but if time allows, I’ll do a similar test over Wi-Fi between my Pre and iPhone 3G S. I suspect the Pre’s browser might be a little faster, but the browser shortcomings could potentially make it slower to get where you want to get. They need to add an indicator to tell you where you are on the page and we also need a fast way to nav back to the top of a webpage. That’s where Apple’s version gains “speed”; in the actual navigation and usage. Just my first thoughts without an iPhone 3G S in hand yet.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:49:36 +0000

I was playing with a friends iPhone 3G last night and the browser speeds were awful. That’s in the middle of London on 02. I ended up giving up after waiting a couple of minutes to load a very simple page. My friend apologised and mumbled something about it being faster on WiFi.

Every review I’ve seen has said that the Pre has a much faster browser than the iPhone and it would seem that the iPhone 3GS is no better in that department.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:21 +0000

How many calls are you going to miss in two minutes?

The bigger problem is that there’s a greater chance that you’d have your browsing interrupted on the iPhone with multiple calls coming through while you wait for it to load a page.

By: Apac

Apac — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:04:23 +0000

iPhone fans sound butthurt & are putting the excuse-o-meter out of the drawer (seems like that would get tiring after awhile).

By: zobby

zobby — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:01:27 +0000

They admit it’s unscientific and varies to conditions.

that said the first test is the only one we can take a smidgen of interest in.

Second and third based on network speed varies to the network coverage and bandwidth available. Significant that the 3G phone was taken out as it dropped to Edge which probably means reception problems.

Some time ago Palm legal filed SEC documents listing this vary issue:

“regarding the relative development and stability of Sprint’s, Verizon’s and AT&T’s 3G networks are generalizations regarding wireless cellular network performance that may or may not be true depending on a variety of factors specific to geographic regions.”

By: Jason Johnson

Jason Johnson — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:48:17 +0000

But you have to take the service into account as well. Since the phones are only available on their respective cell networks that is a valid comparison point.

By: Ricky B.

Ricky B. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:40:28 +0000

AT&T reception is horrible here in San Francisco period, while I’ve always had great reception and 3g with Sprint.

I’m not a fan of iPhones or AT&T, but the location really was biased.

By: Richard Garrett

Richard Garrett — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:11:49 +0000

I agree — a level playing field is needed to test these devices. One such field would be WiFi. As presented, the CNET video suggests more about Sprint vs ATT in SF. That said, the network should always be something to think about when selecting a device.

By: orbitalcomp

orbitalcomp — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:56:05 +0000

Plus, aren’t they testing in San Francisco? From what I have read here on the site, SF has horrible AT&T 3G, so that might be a bit unfair. They should have tested all three to level the playing field a bit.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:50:35 +0000

@Jalapeno I just watched it. Works fine. But it’s not worth watching, IMO.