So When Do You Think Google Will Activate LTE On The Nexus 4?

andr0idralphie

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2012
355
0
0
Visit site
According to anandtech's nexus 4 review, which is the most in-depth I've read, it is possible. In the Cellular, Wi-Fi, GNSS section of the review Brian Klug states [LTE] Band 4 (AWS) could essentially be supported with the power amplifiers and transceiver that already are onboard the Nexus 4, but again it ultimately comes down to a particular OEM choice whether these get supported.

Based on what I've been reading I ascertain the only carrier that might be able to pull this off in the US is T-Mobile, more so after a successful merger with MetroPCS, affording T-Mobile GSM/HSPA+ and CDMA 1700/1900/2100MHz data ranges. I thought about the argument that T-Mobile's "4G" isn't really "4G" but sold as "4G" but then again "4G LTE" is really a 3G standard based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network technologies...

I won't accept a "never" as a final answer but I'd readily accept a "not for awhile" or "pretty unlikely". I won't hold my breath but I can only imagine this being possible with T-Mobile as your carrier.

Mr. Klug further states T-Mobile has always been something of a silent (or not so silent) target for Google?s Nexus phones, with the G1, Nexus One, and Nexus S all coming in AWS-flavors before 850/1900 (Cellular/PCS) flavors for AT&T, and T-Mobile has had DC-HSPA+ rolled out to nearly all of its WCDMA footprint for months now.
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
You completely forgot to mention coverage. While T-Mobile or whoever you use may have fast speeds and coverage where you need it, many other people don't have the same experience. I know in my area alone, Verizon and AT&T have better LTE coverage than T-Mobile has HSPA coverage. Leave a Verizon/AT&T LTE zone and you're stuck with Edge on T-Mobile.

T-Mobile still does have decent coverage in my area and if I didn't have unlimited data on Verizon, I'd get a T-Mobile value plan without a second thought. But I'd rather be on Verizon with my current plan.

coverage is a different topic. the n4 (unlocked) can be used either on t-mobile or att, and you just said you have good att coverage in your area. sure you wouldnt be getting LTE but you should be getting HSPA+21 on att (and you also wouldn't be getting charged $85/month for just 1GB of att LTE data). att's LTE network is limited. few have it. i dont. i think your argument was since the n4 doesnt have LTE then you HAVE to be in an area with t-mobile's HSPA+42 speeds to somewhat compensate for the lack of LTE. i feel like most (including myself) are content with HSPA+21, and this would actually be faster than what a lot of people already have (i.e. sprints slow 3G). LTE is a new thing, and until att and sprint have solid coverage for it, i really dont think it should be this much of an issue at this point in time since verizon is going to be most people's only option. if this phone were sold unlocked in the play store and had LTE, it would only be beneficial to att's limited LTE network. having a nexus for verizon isn't really something Google wants to do after what happened with the galaxy nexus, and honestly I agree with google. if LTE is a deal breaker for you, than just get another phone. thats the beauty of android. choices.
 

anon62607

Well-known member
Sep 23, 2010
436
27
0
Visit site
According to anandtech's nexus 4 review, which is the most in-depth I've read, it is possible. In the Cellular, Wi-Fi, GNSS section of the review Brian Klug states [LTE] Band 4 (AWS) could essentially be supported with the power amplifiers and transceiver that already are onboard the Nexus 4, but again it ultimately comes down to a particular OEM choice whether these get supported.

Based on what I've been reading I ascertain the only carrier that might be able to pull this off in the US is T-Mobile, more so after a successful merger with MetroPCS, affording T-Mobile GSM/HSPA+ and CDMA 1700/1900/2100MHz data ranges. I thought about the argument that T-Mobile's "4G" isn't really "4G" but sold as "4G" but then again "4G LTE" is really a 3G standard based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network technologies...

I won't accept a "never" as a final answer but I'd readily accept a "not for awhile" or "pretty unlikely". I won't hold my breath but I can only imagine this being possible with T-Mobile as your carrier.

Mr. Klug further states T-Mobile has always been something of a silent (or not so silent) target for Google?s Nexus phones, with the G1, Nexus One, and Nexus S all coming in AWS-flavors before 850/1900 (Cellular/PCS) flavors for AT&T, and T-Mobile has had DC-HSPA+ rolled out to nearly all of its WCDMA footprint for months now.

I believe Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T are all eventually deploying LTE on AWS, but only AT&T and MetroPCS have anything there now for LTE, so far as I know, and I think AT&T's LTE AWS deployment is very limited - just a few cities.
 

anon62607

Well-known member
Sep 23, 2010
436
27
0
Visit site
I am a little bit surprised to see the speed tests up in the 40+ mbit range, which would mean not only is there an antenna connect but two receive antenna connected to give it it's two spatial layers. That seems somewhat intentional.
 

Kevin OQuinn

AC Team Emeritus
May 17, 2010
9,267
496
0
Visit site
I am a little bit surprised to see the speed tests up in the 40+ mbit range, which would mean not only is there an antenna connect but two receive antenna connected to give it it's two spatial layers. That seems somewhat intentional.

It is. LG has said the hardware is essentially the same as the Optimus G.

Sent from my One X using Tapatalk 2
 

Channan

Keyboard Warrior
Mar 21, 2010
842
69
0
Visit site
coverage is a different topic. the n4 (unlocked) can be used either on t-mobile or att, and you just said you have good att coverage in your area. sure you wouldnt be getting LTE but you should be getting HSPA+21 on att (and you also wouldn't be getting charged $85/month for just 1GB of att LTE data). att's LTE network is limited. few have it. i dont. i think your argument was since the n4 doesnt have LTE then you HAVE to be in an area with t-mobile's HSPA+42 speeds to somewhat compensate for the lack of LTE. i feel like most (including myself) are content with HSPA+21, and this would actually be faster than what a lot of people already have (i.e. sprints slow 3G). LTE is a new thing, and until att and sprint have solid coverage for it, i really dont think it should be this much of an issue at this point in time since verizon is going to be most people's only option. if this phone were sold unlocked in the play store and had LTE, it would only be beneficial to att's limited LTE network. having a nexus for verizon isn't really something Google wants to do after what happened with the galaxy nexus, and honestly I agree with google. if LTE is a deal breaker for you, than just get another phone. thats the beauty of android. choices.

AT&T is almost as expensive as Verizon. $70 for 450 minutes, 3GB of data, and no texting or $85 for unlimited minutes and texting and 1GB of data. If I'm paying so much for monthly service, why wouldn't I expect to have the fastest service possible? LTE might not be a big deal on T-Mobile but it is to many people on AT&T. My bro normally gets about 2-5Mbps down on his 4S and less than 1Mbps up. My dad gets anywhere from 15-23Mbps down and 7+ up on his iPhone 5. That's a pretty huge difference. T-Mobile's HSPA can compare to LTE in some areas so it's not as big of a deal but on AT&T it is.

You may be content with slower speeds but you don't share the same opinion with everyone. You originally asked what the big deal was with LTE and I answered you.
 

ryanr509

Well-known member
Jul 11, 2012
851
12
0
Visit site
AT&T is almost as expensive as Verizon. $70 for 450 minutes, 3GB of data, and no texting or $85 for unlimited minutes and texting and 1GB of data. If I'm paying so much for monthly service, why wouldn't I expect to have the fastest service possible? LTE might not be a big deal on T-Mobile but it is to many people on AT&T. My bro normally gets about 2-5Mbps down on his 4S and less than 1Mbps up. My dad gets anywhere from 15-23Mbps down and 7+ up on his iPhone 5. That's a pretty huge difference. T-Mobile's HSPA can compare to LTE in some areas so it's not as big of a deal but on AT&T it is.

You may be content with slower speeds but you don't share the same opinion with everyone. You originally asked what the big deal was with LTE and I answered you.

With the old plans u can get 3gb of data unlimited text, 3gb of data, and 450 minutes for $89 I believe. I'd opt for the 4gb on Verizon which is $70 for unlimited talk & text plus $40 for a smartphone. U do save a little bit but not alot. Also depends do u need the minutes or not

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Android Central Forums
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
AT&T is almost as expensive as Verizon. $70 for 450 minutes, 3GB of data, and no texting or $85 for unlimited minutes and texting and 1GB of data. If I'm paying so much for monthly service, why wouldn't I expect to have the fastest service possible? LTE might not be a big deal on T-Mobile but it is to many people on AT&T. My bro normally gets about 2-5Mbps down on his 4S and less than 1Mbps up. My dad gets anywhere from 15-23Mbps down and 7+ up on his iPhone 5. That's a pretty huge difference. T-Mobile's HSPA can compare to LTE in some areas so it's not as big of a deal but on AT&T it is.

You may be content with slower speeds but you don't share the same opinion with everyone. You originally asked what the big deal was with LTE and I answered you.

ok look. i dont think you are getting my point. i agree with you on "If I'm paying so much for monthly service, why wouldn't I expect to have the fastest service possible?" but the point of this being unlocked is to have the freedom of carriers. i was suggesting that an att MVNO (monthly costs would be like $40-$50) would be the best option if you wanted the n4, since you said you get good att coverage and bad tmobile coverage, if of course you are willing to sacrifice LTE. there really is no point going with (actual) att since there is no LTE on the n4, yet you would be paying for it. honestly, you are better off getting a subsidized phone on att (with LTE) if you are willing to pay that much for monthly service. an unlocked phone would not be as advantageous since you are going to pay those rates either way (subsidized or unlocked). I am well aware that to some, LTE is a deal breaker and not everyone shares my opinion.

now lets look at it from google's perspective:
Google employee #1: "we want to create an affordable, unlocked, phone with a pure android experience and top of the line features. we dont want to give it to verizon after what happened with the galaxy nexus. they stuffed it with bloatware, and updates were months after the GSM variant. this goes against the nexus experience we want to give to our customers."
Google employee #2: "ok so we will just ditch carriers all together and have one unlocked GSM phone."
Google employee #1: "should we put LTE in it?"
Google employee #2: "well as of now, verizon is the only carrier with NATIONWIDE LTE coverage. we sure as hell dont want to make a version for them."
Google employee #1: "what about att? and sprint?"
Google employee #2: "well as of now, both of their LTE coverage is pathetic. if we had to put LTE in this phone, it would only make sense to give it to verizon, but obviously we dont want to do that. if we did put LTE on this unlocked phone, it would only benefit att, but most people dont have att LTE coverage and we also want to keep costs DOWN because we are trying to sell this phone unlocked at an affordable price, without loosing money. we'd also have to make another version just for sprint, but their limited LTE does not make it worthwhile."
Google employee #2: "since people in the US are going to have to either be on tmobile or att, and since tmobile has a decent amount of HSPA+42 markets, lets make the n4 compatible with that"
"Google employee #1: "ok. sounds good. we'll wait and see what happens next year with LTE coverage, and plan accordingly with our next nexus device"

Also, my question "whats the big deal with LTE?" was a rhetorical question. I am merely pointing out that, at this point in time, Google putting LTE on an unlocked phone would not be worthwhile because of a lack of markets (excluding verizon of course). I am referring to the U.S. of course for this post. However, europe/the rest of the world doesnt really have widespread LTE either, so it works out okay for them too.

This was a long post. lol.
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
now lets assume that carriers didnt get in the way with the nexus experience as i said earlier. it would be a completely different story. i think the best way to handle that would be to have:
a cdma/lte version just for verizon.
an lte version (subsidized) for att
an hspa+42 (subsidized) for t-mobile (which there already is, but just saying)
possibly an unlocked version (similar to tmobile's version)
possibly an lte version for sprint (subsidized) (since verizon got one, might as well)
 
Last edited:

anon(94115)

Banned
Nov 29, 2010
5,697
511
0
Visit site
....and this brings me back to my gobbledy gook from a few months ago. (BTW, I mostly agree with your above assessment)

Google needs to run a Nexus Certification program. Outline the program, not the device necessarily.

For OEMs:
Set a minimum spec sheet for the year (or 6 month time frame)
Allow each manufacturer to only release 2 "Nexus" devices per year
Pure Android newest version number on release of device (even if it is X.X.X) No skins
When a new version of android is released, you have 10 business days to release OEM code to Carrier

For carriers:

1 per OEM per 6 months (or year)
When a newer version of Android is received from the OEM, they have 10 business days to roll out the OTA update.

That way we have a choice of Manufacturer, carrier, and the guarantee of updates within a month of Google release. Penalty is that you cannot make another, or carry one on the network for a period of one year. Second offense is 5.

I still love this idea
 

gone down south

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2012
2,040
0
0
Visit site
....and this brings me back to my gobbledy gook from a few months ago. (BTW, I mostly agree with your above assessment)

Google needs to run a Nexus Certification program. Outline the program, not the device necessarily.

For OEMs:
Set a minimum spec sheet for the year (or 6 month time frame)
Allow each manufacturer to only release 2 "Nexus" devices per year
Pure Android newest version number on release of device (even if it is X.X.X) No skins
When a new version of android is released, you have 10 business days to release OEM code to Carrier

For carriers:

1 per OEM per 6 months (or year)
When a newer version of Android is received from the OEM, they have 10 business days to roll out the OTA update.

That way we have a choice of Manufacturer, carrier, and the guarantee of updates within a month of Google release. Penalty is that you cannot make another, or carry one on the network for a period of one year. Second offense is 5.

I still love this idea

What does the OEM get out of this deal?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
....and this brings me back to my gobbledy gook from a few months ago. (BTW, I mostly agree with your above assessment)

Google needs to run a Nexus Certification program. Outline the program, not the device necessarily.

For OEMs:
Set a minimum spec sheet for the year (or 6 month time frame)
Allow each manufacturer to only release 2 "Nexus" devices per year
Pure Android newest version number on release of device (even if it is X.X.X) No skins
When a new version of android is released, you have 10 business days to release OEM code to Carrier

nothing wrong with this... only thing i can think of is that it could get kind of annoying/confusing to see so many nexus's brands (samsung nexus, htc nexus, xperia nexus, optimus nexus), especially for the average joe.

For carriers:

1 per OEM per 6 months (or year)
When a newer version of Android is received from the OEM, they have 10 business days to roll out the OTA update.

if this were the case, than there shouldn't have been problems with the verizon galaxy nexus. im sure they had the code, yet it took months after to get updates compared to the gsm version. verizon couldn't care less about updating on time. they do it their way. they really couldn't care less about "giving the updates ASAP to the customer so they will have the nexus experience." like i said earlier, the only OEM that they will comply with is Apple, and we both know why (demand). not the same case with the nexus. could change in the future though.

That way we have a choice of Manufacturer, carrier, and the guarantee of updates within a month of Google release. Penalty is that you cannot make another, or carry one on the network for a period of one year. Second offense is 5.

i mean this is basically what happened. were not seeing a verizon lg nexus 4. google basically said "screw you, big red"

I still love this idea

idea in theory isn't bad but the problem is the carrier would rather do things their way (and then not get the device) as opposed to doing things google's way just to keep the device. unless demand skyrockets, the power is in the carriers hands. nexus is "just another phone for them". i also feel like OEM's want to skin android as opposed to leaving it stock, to make their flagships stand out more from the crowd (marketing reasons) and to deliver "the best experience, etc". Like just imagine seeing a samsung galaxy s4, htc one x 2, sony xperia whatever all having the same exact UI, same internals (quad core cpu, 2GB ram), high resolution 1080p display, similar batteries, etc.. Everything seems the same, and marketing becomes more difficult, the only differences would be size/shape/build quality. I dont think they would want to do that, and i dont blame them. OEMS should just be more responsible with updates. Instead of pushing phones like there is no tomorrow (samsung) how about assign a team to keep all (or most) of the devices updated with fresh software? they shouldn't just abandon the customer or make him/her wait for months for updates after making a sale.
 
Last edited:

anon(94115)

Banned
Nov 29, 2010
5,697
511
0
Visit site
Sales of units, like they do now. They do not have to participate but The Nexus One X , Optimus Nexus, Nexus Razr...etc could carry the same weight as Droid branding did for VZW with the right marketing.

Not to mention they could sell the units at give or take 150 less (around 500) and make a profit because the development end will not figure into the equation.

- - - Updated - - -

Sales of units, like they do now. They do not have to participate but The Nexus One X , Optimus Nexus, Nexus Razr...etc could carry the same weight as Droid branding did for VZW with the right marketing.

Not to mention they could sell the units at give or take 150 less (around 500) and make a profit because the development end will not figure into the equation.
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
What does the OEM get out of this deal?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

getting to keep low demand phones that will hardly impact their sales if they dont have it. unless almost every or a significant amount of android phones are "nexus's". then it might matter, if you look at it collectively.
 

anon(94115)

Banned
Nov 29, 2010
5,697
511
0
Visit site
if this were the case, than there shouldn't have been problems with the verizon galaxy nexus. im sure they had the code, yet it took months after to get updates compared to the gsm version. verizon couldn't care less about updating on time. they do it their way. they really couldn't care less about "giving the updates ASAP to the customer so they will have the nexus experience." like i said earlier, the only OEM that they will comply with is Apple, and we both know why (demand). not the same case with the nexus. could change in the future though.

The point is exactly what you are stating, and it is the key to the whole house of cards, building the brand name nexus to Apple heights, carrying along with it the android name and the OEMs. If Android development is how i believe it is, plugging in the libraries to make the LTE Nexus comply with the Nexus spirit. I honestly do not know what else they baked in there so maybe that was the hold up. Getting the hardware "drivers" to work should have been childs play. I do crap like that all the time IRL. Especially since it isnt exactly like they are starting over every time.


i mean this is basically what happened. were not seeing a verizon lg nexus 4. google basically said "screw you, big red"

I am still not convinced that there will not be a LTE Nexus. I know I am now pretty much in the manority, but i could see a Verizon punch coming in early 2013. I could see something like them getting it when the 32Gb version is released

idea in theory isn't bad but the problem is the carrier would rather do things their way (and then not get the device) as opposed to doing things google's way just to keep the device. unless demand skyrockets, the power is in the carriers hands. nexus is "just another phone for them". i also feel like OEM's want to skin android as opposed to leaving it stock, to make their flagships stand out more from the crowd (marketing reasons) and to deliver "the best experience, etc".

Again that is the point of getting the Nexus name to the point of hitting Apple status. The nexus has to be a money maker and held in high regard. It does have to be worth the carriers while. It cannot just be another phone. Also it really will not get in the way of the other phones on the shelves. I personally prefer the added value that Sense and TW adds. AOSP is nice but we are getting past the old points where skins caused issues.

Even if it is just another phone to them, it is another thing to sell with the added bonus of a focused group that want that type of phone specifically
 

Channan

Keyboard Warrior
Mar 21, 2010
842
69
0
Visit site
I am well aware that to some, LTE is a deal breaker and not everyone shares my opinion.

This was the only part that mattered. Whether you meant for your original question to be rhetorical or not, I answered it anyway.

I can see the value in going with an MVNO or prepaid carrier. If I didn't have unlimited data on Verizon, I'd probably be picking up a Nexus 4 and using it on T-Mobile's $30 monthly4G plan. Either that or a value plan with truly unlimited data for $25/month more.
 

bobjohnson201

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2011
845
0
0
Visit site
Again that is the point of getting the Nexus name to the point of hitting Apple status.

that would take a long time. not going to happen overnight. it took apple years, and remember just att was on board. that was also a completely different situation because the iphone was so radically different than everything else currently on the market (at that time smartphone = blackberry), which made the iphone a hit, which made other carriers want it, but they had to do it apple's way if they wanted it. an android phone running stock android instead of an OEM skin isn't the same kind of "revolutionary change" if you will, that will spark demand and get the carrier's juices pumping to comply with Google for updates. carriers are not going to comply with the "terms" you listed because it just isn't worth their while, especially if you are going to have nexus phones compete with other OEM phones. why do they care? the nexus line hardly contributes to their sales, so why are they going to be "pushed around" by other companies? now this would be a different story if a significant portion of the OEM phones were "nexus" devices, as I stated earlier, because then collectively it would make a difference to their sales, again as i stated earlier.

The nexus has to be a money maker and held in high regard. It does have to be worth the carriers while. It cannot just be another phone.

has, does, cannot are keywords here. it isn't now. and thats what the carriers care about. now. att gave apple a chance, because it was so radically different and unique at that time. it was either a hit or miss with that. all the carriers didn't just jump in at first sight. they jumped in AFTER it became a hit. carriers are not going to assume that android phones running stock android and receiving updates in a timely manner are going to bring more customers and more $$$$. realistically, to the mainstream android customer, updates aren't as big a deal to say people like you and I. a lot of people get android because its a smartphone, and they are relatively inexpensive (of course im not talking about launch phones). youd never see the latest iphone for $50 or free (as was the GS3 this weekend), so a lot of people are enticed by the pricing. and to those mainstream customers, updates aren't their biggest concern. i bet most wouldn't even know what firmware # they are on (i.e. 4.0, 4.1, etc). and if this is not held in high regard to a majority of the consumers , why should the carriers feel pressured to offer speedy updates? I don't like this one bit, but I am just thinking about this from the carrier's perspective.

we can't just blame the carriers entirely. I know OTA updates are lengthy and take a long time to get to everyone, but the problem is that the OEM's take forever to update their phones. I got gingerbread on my GS 1 year after the nexus one got it. this was not because sprint had the update but decided to take an incredibly long time to distribute it to everyone. This was because Samsung just took forever to update their own product.

Another problem is that carriers get "exclusive versions" of devices (look what happened with the GS1 and GS2). It would be easier to just have a world version (gsm, unlocked) and to have other versions (exact same phone, just compatible with different networks) for the US networks. This would streamline the updating process significantly, I believe.

now lets assume for fun that a carrier decides to try this new concept. lets say its att, and they have their "nexus line". the only difference from their other android phones would be timely updates and stock UI. I just couldn't see that being a hit and bringing the nexus line to apple status, and having all the other carriers running in. another problem would be all the phones would be too identical (samsung nexus, one x nexus, xperia nexus etc.) so it would really be a difficult marketing strategy. if anything, it would just take away sales of other android devices on att (for this scenario).

Also it really will not get in the way of the other phones on the shelves. I personally prefer the added value that Sense and TW adds. AOSP is nice but we are getting past the old points where skins caused issues.

I disagree. I feel like every phone would become too alike, not allowing the OEM's to differentiate themselves enough for marketing purposes. same internals, same specs, same UI, I could see how OEM's could get uncomfortable with that.


Even if it is just another phone to them, it is another thing to sell with the added bonus of a focused group that want that type of phone specifically

this "focused group" in the past has proven to be a minority (look at the GN/Nexus S sales). so it is just another phone to them because this "focused group" is basically insignificant, at least as of now.


Instead of having this whole nexus system (aside from Google's one per year of course), it would just be better if OEM's updated their own phones. much simpler, much cleaner. if OEMs can keep pushing out new phones, why can't they take the time to support their own products? and if updating their products is such a pain in the a** for them, why do they have to skin the UI so deep? they could even offer the updates on their own websites and have it available for download so you don't have to wait for a long time for an OTA update from say verizon or sprint.
 
Last edited:

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
942,379
Messages
6,913,751
Members
3,158,382
Latest member
gkapidis