The next big AT&T phone?

[Deeko]

I'm very satisfied with how Anandtech tests battery life.

That's good - but unfortunately that battery test, while very objective, is not indicative of real world performance.

Comparing Android devices known for poor battery life to WP7 doesn't really accomplish anything. Besides the HD2 was never an official Android device and the only hardware the Vibrant and Focus have in common is the screen.

Are there any devices out there that have closer hardware equivalents than those two pairs? I can't think of any. Look - obviously some Android phones have better battery life than others, and some Windows Phones have better battery life than others. However, spend some time actually reading reviews, on lots of devices, from more than one source. It is a common trend that Android phones tend to have poor battery life, and Windows Phones tend to have good battery life. Having owned a significant quantity of both, I would agree with that trend. Its just how it is. You accuse me of comparing against devices with poor battery life; conversely, you're trying to cherry pick the few Android phones that do better against the one Windows Phone known to have a firmware issue around charging. The trends are what they are.

The vast majority of WP7 fans always say that it is the fastest, has the best battery life, or the best browser despite the fact that they have no hard evidence to back up their claims and in many cases there are even benchmarks that directly contradict them. Until you can actually prove WP7 has the battery life you claim it does I see no reason to accept it.

Believe it or not, I don't really care if you accept it. I already provided you with multiple reviews that spoke highly of the Lumia 710's battery life. There is no benchmark for real-world real-usage battery life, I already asked if you had a better solution for testing that, and you didn't. Also, synthetic benchmarks are largely useless, which is a point I've maintained for almost a dozen years on this forum, since smartphones didn't exist, so I highly doubt that opinion has something to do with me like WP7.

 

[pantsaregood]

The majority of tech review sites are generally quite impressed with Windows Phone devices. The only truly negative press I've seen given to WP7 was from The Guardian (which gives everything bad press), so it is pretty safe to say that "WP7 is fast" claims are not limited to fans of the platform.

 

[dagamer34]

What's really sad is that even if WP7 and Android were equivocal in performance or battery life, all WP7 devices are using year old single-core CPUs and GPUs. That's just a testament to how efficient their entire software stack is. And when the dual-core 720p party comes to Windows Phone, I expect the average WP device to outperform all but the best Android devices because of the awful skins OEMs put on them that drags down performance.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

What's really sad is that even if WP7 and Android were equivocal in performance or battery life, all WP7 devices are using year old single-core CPUs and GPUs. That's just a testament to how efficient their entire software stack is. And when the dual-core 720p party comes to Windows Phone, I expect the average WP device to outperform all but the best Android devices because of the awful skins OEMs put on them that drags down performance.

At the rate Ms has been updating WP7 hardware by the time it gets dual core snapdragons Android will already have quad core cortex A15s

 

[Red Storm]

What's really sad is that even if WP7 and Android were equivocal in performance or battery life, all WP7 devices are using year old single-core CPUs and GPUs. That's just a testament to how efficient their entire software stack is. And when the dual-core 720p party comes to Windows Phone, I expect the average WP device to outperform all but the best Android devices because of the awful skins OEMs put on them that drags down performance.

Unfortunately for Microsoft I would still take an HTC/Motorola/Samsung phone with Sense/Blu/Touchwiz over the extremely limited interface of WP7 any day.

 

[gorcorps]

What's really sad is that even if WP7 and Android were equivocal in performance or battery life, all WP7 devices are using year old single-core CPUs and GPUs. That's just a testament to how efficient their entire software stack is. And when the dual-core 720p party comes to Windows Phone, I expect the average WP device to outperform all but the best Android devices because of the awful skins OEMs put on them that drags down performance.

It's not just the OEM launchers and software, it's Android in general. Despite how much I like it, I can't deny how frustratingly inefficient it truely is. It requires way too much horsepower to get all the menu and screen transitions to feel "smooth", and the battery life is pretty terrible across the board. I've only used 3rd party roms on my phones that were touted to increase battery life and cut down on bloat, but even overclocked it didn't run as smooth as it should have. Only after I got the SGSII did I feel it was a "perfect" experience with the same responsiveness I saw in my iPhone 4. Problem is the battery life is still poor despite the tweaks on the rom and my own downclocking.

The OEMs are part of the problem, but not really as big as expected. Android truly is just an inefficient OS in its current state. I can't imagine anyone else disagreeing if they've actually OWNED the competition for any length of time. I hope ICS is a little more refined but it doesn't sound like it offers up much in the way of improved battery life.

 

[Red Storm]

It's not just the OEM launchers and software, it's Android in general. Despite how much I like it, I can't deny how frustratingly inefficient it truely is. It requires way too much horsepower to get all the menu and screen transitions to feel "smooth", and the battery life is pretty terrible across the board. I've only used 3rd party roms on my phones that were touted to increase battery life and cut down on bloat, but even overclocked it didn't run as smooth as it should have. Only after I got the SGSII did I feel it was a "perfect" experience with the same responsiveness I saw in my iPhone 4. Problem is the battery life is still poor despite the tweaks on the rom and my own downclocking.

The OEMs are part of the problem, but not really as big as expected. Android truly is just an inefficient OS in its current state. I can't imagine anyone else disagreeing if they've actually OWNED the competition for any length of time. I hope ICS is a little more refined but it doesn't sound like it offers up much in the way of improved battery life.

Efficiency from a hardware requirement perspective, yes I do agree. However, efficiency from a "getting shit done as fast as possible" perspective is much better on Android IMHO. The vast amount of UI customizations allow you to do things how you want, which for me means more simple, quick and convenient. A lot of people (not saying you) like to equate Android customizing to making things more complicated, when the reality is that it's actually used to simply things beyond what WP7 (and iOS) offer.

 

[s44]

I don't know how this thread turned into a big WP7 discussion when the first post specified that even GB->ICS might be a tricky transition -- there's zero chance of a full ecosystem change.

That said, please go on.

 

[Deeko]

I don't know how this thread turned into a big WP7 discussion when the first post specified that even GB->ICS might be a tricky transition -- there's zero chance of a full ecosystem change.

That said, please go on.

The title of the thread is "The next big AT&T phone". The next big AT&T launch is likely the Lumia 900, hence the discussion. If you wanted to stick with Android, the title probably should have been "The next big AT&T Android phone"

 

[badb0y]

Should I get the Skyrocket or wait for Lumia 900? I just want to experience LTE speeds since ATT just turned it on. This is just for testing purposes it's not going to be my permanent phone.

I want to wait for Lumia 900 since I never owned a WP7 but the Skyrocket is available now :-/ .

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

LTE is kinda overrated on AT&T don't you guys think? I get a solid 3-4 mbps without HSPA+. But I suppose if you want to max out your 2GB bandwidth in a mere 20 minutes.....

It's not just the OEM launchers and software, it's Android in general. Despite how much I like it, I can't deny how frustratingly inefficient it truely is. It requires way too much horsepower to get all the menu and screen transitions to feel "smooth", and the battery life is pretty terrible across the board. I've only used 3rd party roms on my phones that were touted to increase battery life and cut down on bloat, but even overclocked it didn't run as smooth as it should have. Only after I got the SGSII did I feel it was a "perfect" experience with the same responsiveness I saw in my iPhone 4. Problem is the battery life is still poor despite the tweaks on the rom and my own downclocking.

The OEMs are part of the problem, but not really as big as expected. Android truly is just an inefficient OS in its current state. I can't imagine anyone else disagreeing if they've actually OWNED the competition for any length of time. I hope ICS is a little more refined but it doesn't sound like it offers up much in the way of improved battery life.

But don't you think the custom ROMs have pretty much optimized battery life for Android? Given a lot of inefficiencies lie in Android itself, there's really not THAT much more we can do, but custom ROMs pretty much take the phone to where the manufacturer should have but did not... The only limitations we face with custom ROMs are the inherent problems of Android, and the hardware... but knowing how fast a dual core phone should be (look at iPad 2/iPhone 4S), we're not too hardware limited...

 

[Deeko]

LTE is kinda overrated on AT&T don't you guys think? I get a solid 3-4 mbps without HSPA+. But I suppose if you want to max out your 2GB bandwidth in a mere 20 minutes.....

3-4 mbps < 20 mbps. Having LTE isn't going to make me browse more - but its going to make the experience better when I'm doing it. Similarly, I'm not going to listen to music more often, but I'll do it with less buffering.

 

[gorcorps]

But don't you think the custom ROMs have pretty much optimized battery life for Android? Given a lot of inefficiencies lie in Android itself, there's really not THAT much more we can do, but custom ROMs pretty much take the phone to where the manufacturer should have but did not... The only limitations we face with custom ROMs are the inherent problems of Android, and the hardware... but knowing how fast a dual core phone should be (look at iPad 2/iPhone 4S), we're not too hardware limited...

Well yeah, I do agree and that's what's depressing. The custom roms give us the best the OS is capable of... and for battery life it's not good. I get barely a work day + evening out of my slightly extended 1800mAh battery on my SGSII, where my 1400 on my iPhone4 got nearly 2 full days at times. The SGSII is also rooted to include downclockers, dropped voltages, and all sorts of battery saving tweaks and that's STILL the best I can get. Granted the screen sizes are a bit different, but that can't account for how different it is.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

3-4 mbps < 20 mbps. Having LTE isn't going to make me browse more - but its going to make the experience better when I'm doing it. Similarly, I'm not going to listen to music more often, but I'll do it with less buffering.

3-4mbps isn't gonna limit your buffering though.... unless you're talking about streaming FLAC maybe...

3-4mbps won't affect your daily browsing, even on a desktop I'm pretty sure. The only time I care about my 18mbps on my cable line is when I'm downloading. And how much can you download when you have a 2GB limit anyway?

 

[ponyo]

It's not just fast download/upload speed with LTE. Lower ping is really nice.

 

[Deeko]

3-4mbps isn't gonna limit your buffering though.... unless you're talking about streaming FLAC maybe...

3-4mbps won't affect your daily browsing, even on a desktop I'm pretty sure. The only time I care about my 18mbps on my cable line is when I'm downloading. And how much can you download when you have a 2GB limit anyway?

You will get higher sustained speeds and better latency on LTE and it will absolutely make a difference in your daily usage. In "good" situations you might pull 3-5 on HSPA, but conditions aren't always good. If "good" for LTE is 20, then not so good might be 5. Hence you'll get consistently superior performance.

Also, if you watch video, or tether, or say tether your phone to your tablet that's watching video while you use your phone for other things, you will absolutely benefit from LTE.

 

[s44]

LTE is kinda overrated on AT&T don't you guys think?

Depends where you live. In NYC the HSPA network gets totally clogged and chokes way too often. LTE gets you around that.

 

[Strk]

At the rate Ms has been updating WP7 hardware by the time it gets dual core snapdragons Android will already have quad core cortex A15s

I hope the deal with Nokia changes that. I've read a bit about Nokia using Novathors in their next set of phones, which should be pretty awesome (dual-core a9 with mali-400 gpu).

The Lumia 900 should be pretty nice though, but I don't know if a LTE radio alone would make me get it over a Focus S. The Focus S is thinner and I can get it for $20 on Amazon.

 

[KK]

what is the best at&t phone currently? My upgrade is coming up next week.

 

[ponyo]

what is the best at&t phone currently? My upgrade is coming up next week.

iPhone 4S.

 

[soccerballtux]

I agree with this. While the differences between the Skyrocket and non-Skyrocket mean little to those who aren't tweakers and not power users, the Skyrocket is still more expensive simply for LTE. If you're not in an LTE area already then getting the cheaper Galaxy SII is regarded as the better buy. The processor/GPU is better on the standard SGSII, and the big thing is developer support is huge. If your dad isn't into custom roms, tweaking and all that stuff then if nothing else he'll save at least $50.

I would also check out Amazon for prices. Many times you can get phones there cheaper than the ATT stores.

But to answer your questions, no there's nothing on the immediate horizon.

Meh, the processors are equal. Folks on this board play up the processor a bit much IMO. The 1.5ghz in order architecture is equivalent to the out of order Exynos at 1.2ghz. The OOO is worth ~ 25&#37; which puts you right at 1.5ghz.
I think the LTE support is worth it, and certainly makes sense from AT&T's standpoint what with their overloaded network and whatnot.
GPU is probably better in Exynos IDK or care really...nobody does hardcore gaming on their phone....do they?

 

[soccerballtux]

I've been speaking out against arbitrary synthetic benchmarks vs real world performance for the entire 11 years I've been posting here.

friend, let me be the first to say, I am utterly thankful for your contributions over the last 11 years. I don't know WHERE we would be if we didn't have your activism against synthetic benchmarks vs real world performance. I, too, have made it a priority and life goal to stamp out the use of synthetic benchmarks in phone analysis. In particular, the obsession with SunSpider is frustrating. It is not indicative of real world performance.

 

[soccerballtux]

It's not just the OEM launchers and software, it's Android in general. Despite how much I like it, I can't deny how frustratingly inefficient it truely is. It requires way too much horsepower to get all the menu and screen transitions to feel "smooth", and the battery life is pretty terrible across the board. I've only used 3rd party roms on my phones that were touted to increase battery life and cut down on bloat, but even overclocked it didn't run as smooth as it should have. Only after I got the SGSII did I feel it was a "perfect" experience with the same responsiveness I saw in my iPhone 4. Problem is the battery life is still poor despite the tweaks on the rom and my own downclocking.

The OEMs are part of the problem, but not really as big as expected. Android truly is just an inefficient OS in its current state. I can't imagine anyone else disagreeing if they've actually OWNED the competition for any length of time. I hope ICS is a little more refined but it doesn't sound like it offers up much in the way of improved battery life.

I found between running an undervolted kernel + using the external charger (charges slower, better, I notice about 20&#37; better battery life) that the battery life is fine. No? If you make sure you don't have silly Twitterz running in the background syncing, and have SetCPU downclocking your kernel to 250mhz when screen is off, then you don't have any problems and battery life is great yes???

 

[soccerballtux]

iPhone 4S.

If you want a toy.

Galaxy S2 is not bad. Android is nice cause you can do things like use FTP server on the phone and login to it at home instead of plugging into USB to transfer files. Every time I sit down with an Iphone I feel like I'm thinking...ok...what do I do with it? Surf the web? Boring!

 

[ponyo]

If you want a toy.

Galaxy S2 is not bad. Android is nice cause you can do things like use FTP server on the phone and login to it at home instead of plugging into USB to transfer files. Every time I sit down with an Iphone I feel like I'm thinking...ok...what do I do with it? Surf the web? Boring!

Dropbox?

Ill take iPhone 4S over every phone except for Galaxy Nexus.

If I was on AT&T, I would get the 4s using the upgrade, then sell it new, and use the money to import GSM Galaxy Nexus.