3 ms·

> No LTE is a deal-breaker for me on the Nexus 4. I would pre-order one right now if it was included. I think I'll wait for the next great Android phone that ha

> No LTE is a deal-breaker for me on the Nexus 4. I would pre-order one right now if it was included. I think I'll wait for the next great Android phone that has LTE. There's a good explanation of the LTE situation by The Verge[0]. If Google wants to release timely upgrades, they need to break free of carrier control. And since Verizon and Sprint devices require carrier approval, this will never happen. As for AT&T, their LTE coverage is so limited and the frequencies unique, so it doesn't make economic sense. > The Nexus S is a pretty good phone, so without an upgrade in internet speed I don't see any reason to upgrade. With AT&T, there will be an upgrade in speed from the Nexus S to the Nexus 4 (or to the Galaxy Nexus, for that matter). The Nexus S doesn't support HSPA+ (what AT&T is falsely claiming in its TV ads to be 4G - it's actually more like 3.5G), whereas the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 4 do. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3569688/why-nexus-4-does-not-have-4g-lte/in/3335719 http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3569688/why-nexus-4-does-...

ericdykstra 14y ago
Oh I definitely understand why Google made the decision, it just isn't a decision that suits me. HSPA+ isn't enough of an upgrade for me to make the purchase, especially if 6 or 8 months from now there's a great Android phone that does have LTE. I may end up buying the Nexus 4 anyway, but no LTE puts up a big resistance barrier that would otherwise put me in line to pre-order the phone.
lnanek2 14y ago
Definitely not my experience. I'm sitting miles away from Walnut Creek, a town i the East Bay, and I have LTE on AT&T. I certainly have it anywhere closer to civilization, like SF itself or NYC. I wouldn't call AT&T coverage limited at all.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Well, your anecdotal data doesn't line up with the facts. There's a Verge article from a month ago[0] that contains LTE coverage information for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. There's simply no comparison - Verizon is leaps and bounds ahead of AT&T. Just because you have AT&T LTE in your neck of the woods doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans do. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-markets-cities http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-marke...
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    The valid metric to observe in asserting AT&T's LTE coverage's uselessness is not relative standing. We should measure the number of people who can be reasonably expected to have LTE coverage a reasonable percent of the time.
  - RobAtticus 14y ago
    Maybe he misinterpreted it like I did. It read a bit like you were saying AT&T's coverage was not only worse than Verizon, but also Sprint.
  - ssmoot 14y ago
    That's a pretty useless chart. It appears to be just charting carrier claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, but yeah, the chart is flawed. Dallas, TX shows Sprint for example, but Sprint's LTE in Dallas is notoriously bad. As in, many people never see it, and I've never seen one single person claim to get it regularly. I think I've seen it mentioned that the maps are "4 to 5 year" projections, but today's actual coverage is something like 4% of DFW.
onetwothreefour 14y ago
This "explanation" is a BS excuse.

ericdykstra 14y ago

Oh I definitely understand why Google made the decision, it just isn't a decision that suits me. HSPA+ isn't enough of an upgrade for me to make the purchase, especially if 6 or 8 months from now there's a great Android phone that does have LTE. I may end up buying the Nexus 4 anyway, but no LTE puts up a big resistance barrier that would otherwise put me in line to pre-order the phone.

lnanek2 14y ago

Definitely not my experience. I'm sitting miles away from Walnut Creek, a town i the East Bay, and I have LTE on AT&T. I certainly have it anywhere closer to civilization, like SF itself or NYC. I wouldn't call AT&T coverage limited at all.

w1ntermute 14y ago
Well, your anecdotal data doesn't line up with the facts. There's a Verge article from a month ago[0] that contains LTE coverage information for Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. There's simply no comparison - Verizon is leaps and bounds ahead of AT&T. Just because you have AT&T LTE in your neck of the woods doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans do. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-markets-cities http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/21/3367602/iphone-5-lte-marke...
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  The valid metric to observe in asserting AT&T's LTE coverage's uselessness is not relative standing. We should measure the number of people who can be reasonably expected to have LTE coverage a reasonable percent of the time.
- RobAtticus 14y ago
  Maybe he misinterpreted it like I did. It read a bit like you were saying AT&T's coverage was not only worse than Verizon, but also Sprint.
- ssmoot 14y ago
  That's a pretty useless chart. It appears to be just charting carrier claims. I'm not saying you're wrong, but yeah, the chart is flawed. Dallas, TX shows Sprint for example, but Sprint's LTE in Dallas is notoriously bad. As in, many people never see it, and I've never seen one single person claim to get it regularly. I think I've seen it mentioned that the maps are "4 to 5 year" projections, but today's actual coverage is something like 4% of DFW.

onetwothreefour 14y ago

This "explanation" is a BS excuse.