Apple's iPhones Trail Samsung, Google Devices in Internet Speeds (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Apple's iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and $1,000 iPhone X trail the latest smartphones from Samsung Electronics and Alphabet's Google in download speeds, according to data from Ookla, a company that provides the most popular online service for measuring the speed of an internet connection with its Speedtest app and website. Faster internet data means that users can load websites and start watching movies more quickly, make crisper video calls and get higher-quality video.

[...] Ookla's data are important because they are created by users -- not in a corporate lab -- and encompass the range of random real-world conditions that affect performance like distance from cellular towers and network congestion. Ookla said it hosts millions of tests a day and has done 20 billion in total.

[...] The speed-test data, reviewed by Bloomberg, show that Samsung's Galaxy S9 phones had an average download speed -- across carriers in the U.S. -- of 38.9 megabits per second, based on about 102,000 tests over the past three months. The larger model, the S9+, delivered speeds of 38.4 Mbps, according to a sample size of about 169,000 phone connections. The iPhone X on average downloaded data at 29.7 Mbps, based on a 603,000 tests. The iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone 8 were close behind with speeds of 29.4 Mbps and 28.6 Mbps, respectively.

Comments

Larger sample size

[110010001000]

So the larger the sample size, the slower the average download speed. Conclusion: my Windows Phone has the fastest download speed.

Re:Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people go to speedtest for two reasons.
1) The internet is being slow, and Ookla is seen as an uninvolved 3rd party.
2) They bought something new and want to see how fast it's going.

I would expect that a small sample of a new product will average higher speeds than the total collected data of older products, even if there is no change in the hardware's capabilities.

Also, the last time I cared, iStuff only had one carrier, while Androids were avaiable with every carrier. If that is still the case, this could just be averaging a 30Mbps carrier that has exclusive deals with Apple alongside 40Mbps carriers that do not carry iPhones.

Re: Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF???

Re:Larger sample size

[SeaFox]

Also, the last time I cared, iStuff only had one carrier, while Androids were avaiable with every carrier. If that is still the case, this could just be averaging a 30Mbps carrier that has exclusive deals with Apple alongside 40Mbps carriers that do not carry iPhones.

iPhones are available on all major carriers and several MVNOs, and have been for some time. You can also buy them carrier-unlocked from the Apple Store.

Re: Larger sample size

[saloomy]

Yes, but iPhones have more user engagement. People will reach for their phones more often than do androids. They also update more often, since updates are not dependant on the carrier and OEM. So, it stands to reason that iPhones hit their data caps more often.

If you want real results, throw out the speeds that fall under the data caps, only include results from the IP blocks of the wireless carriers (to rule out WiFi and VPNs), and analyze those results.

Also, maybe give a breakdown for the top 1% of results as well, so we can see best case scenario. Everything from housing size and construction material, to population density can affect these results, and it has been well documented that more affluent people buy iPhones, who tend to live in more sparsely populated areas like suburbs.

Re: Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would you throw out data?

These people are, on average, using the phone in the places they would normally be using them.

I'm average, non idevices perform almost 20% better

Re: Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually many carriers allow speed tests to work at full no matter what, otherwise it makes them look bad on when their numbers fall in these tests.

And no, Apple users don't download updates over their carrier network, primarily because it's configured to be wifi only by default. Because Apple updates tend to be quite big, people rarely allow it over the carrier network. That, and who doesn't have an unlimited plan these days? They're so cheap, mine averages down to 25 a month after t-mo's military discount on my family plan.

Android updates come frequently (and they tend to be incremental, thus smaller, and Android only prompts to download over WiFi when the update is over a certain size) on the newest phones these days as Google now requires it from OEMs, which means OEMs have to negotiate an SLA on the part of carriers, or else released unlocked phones. In Android one devices, the update is pushed by Google.

Because of treble, Samsung themselves (notorious for slow updates) plan to have Android 9 available to their users the very day that Google releases the final version. Also because of treble, updates rarely need to involve carrier approval, not to mention carriers in general are more hands off about that these days since non-carrier branded phones are now more common. (Buying a non-carrier branded phone means carrier has no involvement whatsoever, guaranteed.)

Re: Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

IPhones are sold by something like 339+ carriers globally.

In other news, you have been living under a rock.

In other, other news, the number of locations in which high speed downloads like this can be achieved over LT is tiny - typically in the US 5mbps or less is common.

Re:Larger sample size

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how statistics works. You can't just keep growing your sample size and expect a non-negligible change in results. Past a point your sample size is adequate to give you the answer you need.

There maybe other confounding factors and problems with your sampling that skew results, like, iPhone users all have a thousands chats going on transferring data in the background because they're so cool and have so many friends, which slows web speeds down when they go to a speed test site, but sample size isn't just a thing you can typically grow much past a few thousand for things like this and expect different results.

So, even if the sample size was identical for all, and only at about 10,000, or even quite a lot less you'd almost certainly get the exact same result. In this case, the only reason the sample sizes are high is because they're just lazily querying their entire dataset and quoting the numbers, rather than selecting an equally viable subset.

Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Arkham]

There are several stories of Qualcomm and Samsung trying to produce anti-apple propaganda about this, because really they have nothing compelling to say against the iPhone X.

Turns out, none of these differences are even noticeable because the carriers are the limit, not the modem. Also, nobody downloads huge files on their phone because why would you?

If the cellular is fast enough to stream video and load web pages instantly, the rest is just academic.

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Luthair]

Wow you really drank the koolaid. The X is apple catching up to what Android phones have been offering in many cases for years.

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your Android still vulnerable to the Broadcom hack, BTW? Play store still riddle with malware even after all these years? Millions of malware apps downloaded each month? Two stage droppers adding malware to even "clean" apps after you've downloaded them?

Good luck with all that.

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of sub standard parts in iPhones but sold at premium prices

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[tlhIngan]

There are several stories of Qualcomm and Samsung trying to produce anti-apple propaganda about this, because really they have nothing compelling to say against the iPhone X.

Qualcomm is doing it because Apple does deliberately slow down the Qualcomm chipsets. Apple does it to minimize differences between phone models (there's not really "one" iPhone X, but a couple of them, and depending on the carrier, they get one or the other).

This is in part because of the Apple-Qualcomm lawsuit. Qualcomm obviously wants Apple to go all Qualcomm, but Apple doesn't want to be beholden to a single supplier - they've been down that road before (Motorola, IBM both failed to deliver the product Apple wanted on time, leading to many shortages in the past).

  Samsung's doing it because their Galaxy S10 is coming out sooner or later, so they need to ramp up their advertising.

Of course, one wonders if the many Android bootlooping problems could be solved with Apple's "performance management" solution. I know it kicks in if the phone fails to boot because of the battery (i.e., what would've been a boot loop is then managed by the OS so instead of a dead rebooting phone, you have a working, but slower, phone). Some phones that bootloop were solved by simply reloading a kernel that disabled the high-power cores, a crude form of performance limiting, really.

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone users still butthurt that they pay 3x the price for subpar hardware in a shiny shell?

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Android users still butt hurt their chosen platform is a security nightmare - and their devices are bin worthy after 24 months?

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Targon]

You may have missed how much people are doing with their phones. Apple users are often the ones saying how much faster they feel their web browsers are and such, so speed DOES make a difference to them. If the average download speed is faster on the Galaxy S9, that doesn't work well with the Apple people who insist their phones must be faster because of some sort of Apple magic.

People do more with their phones these days, and they DO find that there are differences in terms of data speeds in the same area on the same carrier between different brand phones. As far as your "none of these differences are even noticeable..." comment, when streaming video, the source will often adjust quality based on speed of connection, and the difference between data speeds between phones CAN be seen in some cases.

You probably see "broadband" and accept the same sort of thing where phone company DSL which tops out at 6Mbps in many areas is still considered broadband, compared to cable or fiber. What you might notice and what others might notice WILL be different, and trying to downplay where Apple may very well be slower is what people are jumping on. Apple just isn't "the best", even if it may be the best in some areas.

Yes, there are going to be those that come from competition in the industry, but there will be a number of good and objective reasons why Apple isn't as good in various areas. Don't defend a company that claims they are the best if they are not.

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Targon]

Are you stupid enough to download malware from whatever source? Do you need big brother watching out for you like a babysitter? It would be good to not have these things out there, but honestly, there are weaknesses in any platform, so pointing out problems with one platform just to deflect from the weaknesses of yours is pretty Trumpian of you.

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

apple users are full of shit and will spread and believe any sort of lies to make their God brand sound better than it is.

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Idevices are bin worthy in a few months.

Lower than industry RAM, OS locked features that were just software (see voice assistants) or trying to slow down people's devices without telling them there was a problem

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Luthair]

Interesting that is your argument when Slashdot just covered malware in the Apple store.

Re: Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several stories of Qualcomm and Samsung trying to produce anti-apple propaganda about this, because really they have nothing compelling to say against the iPhone X.

There's plenty compelling against the iPhone x, even Apple's own fans are willing to admit that. Apple even had to write off much of its channel inventory because nobody was buying them. iPhone x is Apple's take on the Surface RT (that, or its Apple's recent pitiful attempt at getting iPads into classrooms.)

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Great story, but MDM isn't malware. The user will have to enter passcode several times, and acknowledge that installing it gives total controll to the MDM.

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[AmiMoJo]

Actually this issue was first discovered years ago by Apple fans. Apple uses two different radio systems in the iPhone, to prevent them becoming dependent on one supplier. One is Intel, the other is Qualcomm. Because the Intel one is slower they cripple the speed of the Qualcomm one to match, so that there is no "fast iPhone lottery".

Thus they will be slower than any manufacturer that doesn't cripple their radios. Samsung, for example, sells different configurations to different parts of the world so that they are not dependent on one supplier but each market only gets one model. Not just radios either, often they will do things like give Europe a better CPU but give the US an extra gig of RAM.

Re:Samsumg or Qualcomm propoganda

[thegarbz]

because really they have nothing compelling to say against the iPhone X.

It's always interesting when something doesn't fit your world view it suddenly becomes "nothing compelling". But talk something truly irrelevant like CPU speed and I'm sure you would start to salivate along with the rest of the fanbois.

because the carriers are the limit

Yeah those damn common carries that only serve Apple and not Samsung.

Also, nobody downloads huge files on their phone because why would you?

No one. On the other hand my phone's battery life is longer on account of not running a high-powered wireless receiver for as long as you do, when we both use the same amount of data.

If the cellular is fast enough to stream video and load web pages instantly, the rest is just academic.

That is completely wrong. It's like saying the only spec that matters on a HDD is continuous unfragmented read performance. The benefits of a faster connection on your phone run very deep from overal responsiveness, to less active time, to less impact from background tasks, or and you can download files faster too. No one downloads huge files? I just got pushed some 280MB. The only notice I got about it is "Google Play has installed updates".

Mind you I also tether my laptop when I'm working, so having a 33% faster internet connection helps a lot there (or it would if I had the phone in question).

This isn't great, but

[Dixie_Flatline]

...Does anyone actually buy phones based on their max LTE download speed? Most of us have quotas and are trying as hard as possible not to burn through them. I've got a 6GB plan, which is big for Canada (I know how sad it is in comparison to Europe's download caps, don't @ me) so I spend a lot of time making sure I do my downloads over wifi, and even then, LTE on my iPhone 7 is usually faster than whatever burdened wifi network I'm on.

I mean, definitely Intel's modems aren't as good, but I'd be really interested to see how many people rate this as a first-tier, dealbreaker feature. Honestly, if this is you, please speak up, I'm honestly curious as to what you're doing on your phone.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it's adoption by *Phone Makers*, not customers/end-users that Qualcomm cares about, and they most certainly DO care and pay attention to LTE speeds.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

The same can be said for most of the metrics that reviewers and OEM use in comparing phones; it's something for them to talk about in trying to differentiate their products, but makes minimal real-world difference.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Tsolias]

Instead of saying "Apple went the cheap way, instead of the right way"
you claim that nobody(you, someone) needs that.
Let me tell you this.
Intel modem: 28nm
Qualcomm modem: 14nm
not only you get a worse modem, but you get one that consumes more. ...and even if you get the good modem, it's locked in order to be as fast as the bad one.
all in all, apple jewed itself for $5 BOM
more here https://www.reddit.com/r/apple...

Louis Rossman said once that the Apple consumers police themselves.
In other companies, one consumer would react and the rest would've followed.
With apple, one reacts and the rest are using arguments like:
"you don't need that"
"you aren't supposed to do that"
"you are using it wrong"
"you are holding it wrong"

Re:This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeds are merely a symptom of a real problem with Apple phones using Intel modems: the Intel modem barely works once the S/N ratio starts to drop. The Intel modem is only slightly slower to the Qualcomm modem ... if you're standing next to the tower. Once the S/N ratio drops below -86dBm, the Intel modem just loses it. It can barely function. Below -95dBm, the Intel modem might as well be a brick. ("Good" coverage ranges from -75dBm to about -90dBm, so dropping out at -95dBm means dropping out at about two to three bars.) The Qualcomm modem will happily keep on ticking well into the -110dBm range, beyond which you might as well have no signal anyway.

If you live in a city and routinely have four bars, the Intel modem is probably "fine" and you won't notice or really care about the fact that it's slightly slower. But if you don't or ever go anywhere where the coverage isn't quite so strong - you won't notice that it's slower, you'll notice that it doesn't work AT ALL.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Dixie_Flatline]

Wow, rabid Apple-hater much?

I said that *I* didn't need it, and I specifically asked if ANYONE DOES need it, without casting aspersions on someone that might and indeed, made a point of asking what someone who DOES need this sort of feature is actually doing because I would find that interesting. It would be very surprising to me that this would be the sort of thing that someone would actually choose to buy or not buy a phone over, so I specifically asked if someone does do this because that's a useful perspective to me.

I agree that Intel modems are crap. Intel is sort of crap across the board right now. That's not the point.

Anyway, congratulations on adding basically nothing to this conversation. You must be very proud to have typed so many words for nothing.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Dixie_Flatline]

That's actually a really good point, and I wish THAT were in the articles covering this, rather than the focus on just the speed.

Re:This isn't great, but

[sglewis100]

apple jewed itself for $5 BOM

Unfortunately, I stopped paying any attention to you when you took the opportunity to turn an Apple vs Android flame war into an anti-semitic statement.

Re: This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a stupid apple worshiper common defense. Nothing anyone else in the tech industry does is any good until apple copies or steals it.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually a really good point, and I wish THAT were in the articles covering this, rather than the focus on just the speed.

But then it wouldn't make it onto Slashdot to start fanboy flame wars.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke IMO. I can litrally break 6gb (my limit as well in Norway - Telenor) in under 31 minutes. Being able to break it in 20 minutes won't help me much in my phone usage.

Re:This isn't great, but

[thegarbz]

...Does anyone actually buy phones based on their max LTE download speed? Most of us have quotas and are trying as hard as possible not to burn through them.

Yes. Quotas are irrelevant. Pretty much everything we do on our phones accesses data in small chunks. This data access happening faster is good for not only phone responsiveness but also improved battery life since your wireless components aren't active as long.

Admittedly this is a small incremental change.

That said outside of the USA where banning the use of tethering isn't actually a thing, the max LTE speeds can be relevant for some.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Tsolias]

I explicitly told you that you need the faster modem, because the better modem consumes less due to better lithography, regardless of the speed it's set at. ...and less power consumption is what everyone needs in battery powered devices.

rabid Apple-hater much

and how am I an apple hater when I am stating the obvious with facts and sources?
would I be rude to call you an iDiot now?

Apple did the worst move(it isn't the first time this month) and screwed over its customers.
If you are lucky your $1k bought you a better phone than someone else who also paid the exact same amount.

Re:This isn't great, but

[Tsolias]

anti-semitic statement

I like to bait idiots.

I stopped

It seems to me that not only you stopped, but you pressed the reply(possibly had to log-in also), then opened your drawer, took the kippah, wore it, stretched your arms and cracked your fingers and did what every jidf officer would do.

0.02 shekels have been deposited to your account.

This Internet Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it any good? How long does it last? Do you shoot it or snort?

Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

If the local loop is faster than your ISP or you plan is cappped at 2GB/mo?
If it was any faster you will blow your monthly plan in 5 minutes and 45 seconds instead of 5 minutes and 53 seconds ... big effing deal!
We have devices that can consume at speeds faster than the providers will provide

Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay more for much much less

So iPhone users are in areas with slower internet.

[jellomizer]

Much like Coke and Pepsi. You have areas where there are more Android users and areas with more iPhone users.

I can see a case where City people may be more Android focused, (higher cost of living, meaning less money for a phone) would get a cheaper but good quality Android phone. But being in the City they have access to faster internet speeds.

While the Suburban and Rural users who have lower cost of living, may be willing to splurge more on an iPhone. However those area they don't have access to such high speeds.

This isn't a case of iPhone being slower with networking with an Android. But more to the case that iPhone users have a slower internet connection.

I know I can get an Ookla speed over 100mbs from an iDevice so it isn't the hardware.

This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a difference of 0.3 Mbps and it's confounded with carrier and location of the people who buy each kind of phone. There's absolutely no reason to think that, everything else being equal, swapping phones will increase your speed by 0.3Mbps (as if you'd notice anyway!).

Re:This is stupid

[Calydor]

Did you read all the numbers? The only 0.3 mbps difference in the summary is between different kinds of iPhones, while Android phones are getting roughly 10 mbps more.

That said, who cares when data plans are capped and it's a constant struggle to not max out. What kind of movie can you watch that requires more than 30 mbps and is short enough that there'll be data left on your plan when it's done?

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that it's just the web-browser based speed test effectively. The 'APPs' spin up the system's web browser.

So this is really just a safari vs chrome test.

HEAVY android slant here.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the title to your post a disclaimer to what you were about to say? It seems like it should have been even if it wasn't.

Re:This is stupid

[thegarbz]

That said, who cares when data plans are capped

Everyone. Just because we're not all downloading torrents on our phones doesn't mean a faster internet connection doesn't do wonders for page load times or app responsiveness, not to mention side benefits like reduced battery life due to less active RF time.

Re:This is stupid

[Calydor]

The summary was specifically talking about watching videos in higher resolution.

Re:This is stupid

[thegarbz]

The summary is as short sighted as a lot of Slashdot posters when it comes to the benefits of speed. Not only that it's actively ignoring the fact that many carriers now specifically degrade video anyway.

Apple fanboys getting triggered in 3...2...1....

[Sebby]

NT

Re:So iPhone users are in areas with slower intern

[Anonymous Coward]

People on suburban/rural areas might not only have lower cost of living but also smaller disposable money. So they might not be able/want to buy the expensive iPhones. And the reverse for city dwellers.

Re:Apple fanboys getting triggered in 3...2...1...

[jythie]

And Android fanboys just staying triggered.

YES, BUT...

[Anne Thwacks]

It may be slow, but its iData ... which makes it worth the wait!

Wow

[Frankie70]

> I can see a case where City people may be more Android focused, (higher cost of living, meaning less money for a phone) would get a cheaper but good quality Android phone. But being in the City they have access to faster internet speeds.

> While the Suburban and Rural users who have lower cost of living, may be willing to splurge more on an iPhone. However those area they don't have access to such high speeds.

While the article (and their conclusion) itself is not that meaningful, your mental gymnastics deserve a medal the size of a dinner plate.

Re: Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they gave us those answers. This is a shit metric and you know it. The bottleneck is the ISP not the modem.

Re:Apple fanboys getting triggered in 3...2...1...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know when you run into an Apple fanboy?

They ramble on how great their iPhone is without you asking.

How do know when you run into an Android fanboy?

They ramble on how much the iPhone and Apple sucks without you asking.

FTFY

[DredJohn]

Apple's iPhones Trail Samsung, Google Devices, and the Pony Express in Internet Speeds

I'll keep my iPhone and the majority of my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed increase not worth it to give my data to Google. I use no Google products and never will. They are a privacy nightmare that sells you to the highest bidder. Apple is not perfect, but far and away better than Google. Apple sell a tangible product. Google are an ad company with some services for sale, payable with money and privacy.

Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[solid_liq]

I have the iPhone X, and I stopped using the Ookla app months ago after I discovered that it was giving me incorrectly slow results. When I use the dslreports speed test, I consistently get the speeds I expect to see on any given wifi network; however, the Ookla app shows a much slower speed (consistently) on those same networks. When running these speed tests over cellular, I observe the same issue. This observation led me to conclude that the software was no longer useful, and possibly had gone unmaintained. However, if theyâ(TM)re advertising this data as factual, it leads me to believe they may be doing this as an anti Apple campaign. This makes me wonder if Samsung (or another company) has paid them under the table to do this.

Re:Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[SeaFox]

I have the iPhone X, and I stopped using the Ookla app months ago after I discovered that it was giving me incorrectly slow results. When I use the dslreports speed test, I consistently get the speeds I expect to see on any given wifi network; however, the Ookla app shows a much slower speed (consistently) on those same networks.

The app needs to be put out to pasture. It's unnecessary with today's HTML5 browsers. Some ISPs use a carrier-branded Speedtest.net portal for a customer speed test site. These testing sites are nothing more than the speedtest.net site skinned with an ISP logo and color scheme and testing from specific servers. These sites work just fine on mobile browsers while going to speedtest.net will get you blocked and referred to download the app.

Re:Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[laird]

Interesting - so the "news" might actually be an artifact of Ookla's testing app having a bug? Interesting.

Re: Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can demonstrate this with screenshots, you'll have an instant high traffic blog post.

Put up your proof, or shut up and stop lying.

Re:Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Fast.com, operated by Netflix. They can't fudge these results without also increasing your Netflix speeds.

Re: Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'm not sure why people think an "instant high traffic blog post" is necessarily a good thing. I mean, I guess if you blog already, it's nice to have more viewers. I just get all my bitching done pseudonymously on /.

Re: Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh yes the old 'its some elses fault' apple defense. Some other third part company is all anti-apple. Bullshit

Re:Ooklaâ(TM)s iOS App is to blame

[thegarbz]

I have the iPhone X, and I stopped using the Ookla app months ago after I discovered that it was giving me incorrectly slow results. When I use the dslreports speed test, I consistently get the speeds I expect to see on any given wifi network; however, the Ookla app shows a much slower speed (consistently) on those same networks.

Ookla have put quite a bit of effort into preventing carriers from treating them specially. When doing speed tests across various programs it would be the *slowest* not the fastest that I would believe.

I can't speak for you or your observation but I gave up on dslreports after I was torrenting at 18MB/s ran dslreports and instantly got shown my theoretical max transfer rate while my torrents suddenly froze. A very clear indication that carriers are artifically prioritising dslreports. In the meantime Speedtest showed my torrents drop to around 10MB/s and then gave me a result a tad below half my actual connected speed.

YMMV. Bottom line, don't believe anything outright.

So many butt hurt android fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Rejoice over this, if you are serious.

This smells of propaganda. My X has done > 224Mbps lte. I cant test wifi having no ac at home or work. Yet I can do 100Mbps at work over 802.11n, which is our wan speed.

I call bullshit.

Has more to do with your network

[WillAffleckUW]

If you have actual Gig speed networks and hold your phone just right, you'll be a lot faster than people who can afford to live in the neighborhoods that won't let you build cell towers.

Re:I'll keep my iPhone and the majority of my priv

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality Apple and Android phones have the same network bandwidth - Apple's iPhones just slurp up more user data and consume 25% of their allotted bandwidth relaying it to Apple.

Stats are misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Phones do different things over the air. Power saving for example can dramatically affect how a device will perform. Not only is ISP involvement possible (aka throttling), but the local network can have a massive impact on this too.

If that wasn't enough, the speed tests themselves are quite easy to beat at a carrier level without looking at the packets themselves. A simple example is over bursting. If I know it should take 10 seconds I can adjust how long you're able to burst such that you technically tranfer the correct ammount of data in the correct time, but you do so over a shorter period. Why that matters is I can blame YOU for the problem (and as an ISP, charge) - if you or anything between you and the server lacks sufficient buffers. To make this worse, if your device requires time to ramp up its CPU, that micro burst will completely hose it.

Most of the speedtest sites out there do nothing more then dump data to the network. Quite ironically I've _never_ been able to get the speedtest from Sourceforge / Slashdot working. The button isn't there to start.

Who cares?

[AbRASiON]

I'm an Android guy and I know which phone feels consistently snappier is to work with, and it's not the Android phones.

33Mbit LTE vs 50Mbit won't make much difference in casual browsing.

Because they have nothing else.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that speed is all that matters, buy yourself a rocket and just strap it to your head, and then FLY wherever you want to go. Sure, it might rip your head off and leave your body behind, but your HEAD will get there WAY faster, and isn't speed all that matters, not getting there all in one piece, or being alive, just get there FAST, because that's all that matters, and not comfort on the journey... or any other consideration.

Truth is, Samsung's, or any Android phone for that matter, being able, under some hypothetical conditions, to download something slightly faster, maybe, is almost the stupidest reason I've ever heard to choose one device over another. That they'd harp and harp on having THIS one thing means they obviously have nothing else to recommend their phone over an iPhone and that's frankly sad and pathetic. If they DID have other reasons, they'd be touting them TOO, or INSTEAD, rather than making this desperate play for attention.

It's the kind of thing people do when they're out of ideas. It's up to you though. By all means, buy a (pain in the ass) Android phone if you want, but if you're only choosing it because you THINK it can download something slightly faster... (and it sounds as if they have no other thing they can offer as justification for why you should buy theirs,) as if the phone's download speed from the network is the only bottleneck forcing you to wait, (it's usually not,) rather than THE REST OF THE INTERNET, most of it porn, admittedly, that everyone else on Earth is trying to download at the same time as you're trying to download... whatever it is YOU'RE trying to view... statistically, that's probably also porn, not that I'm judging.

This reminds me of a vacuum cleaner ad I once saw at 3 in the morning, where they were showing off how powerful their vacuum cleaner was by using a special attachment, (a funnel) to pick up a BOWLING BALL with their vacuum, which really doesn't prove anything since ability to support that bowling ball's (alleged) weight is a function of air pressure and surface area... and probably nearly any vacuum cleaner with a motor having the same number of amps drawn could have done the exact same thing with the funnel attachment, (which I doubt it sold with, since the only thing such an attachment would be suited, or indeed even useful for, is picking up and holding a bowling ball). Now it would have been REALLY impressive, if it had ripped that bowling ball RIGHT THROUGH THE HOSE, or ripped it apart, but... it's a vacuum cleaner, so there's literally no chance of that happening. The only thing they could have said, HONESTLY about that vacuum cleaner is the same thing you can say about pretty much any vacuum cleaner, if it works: it sucks. Any vacuum cleaner is limited to the amount of force the weight of the atmosphere above it can apply to the side of whatever you're trying to suck up into the device, OPPOSITE to the opening of the device's hose, wand, or whatever.

Also, I don't buy the whole premise here as I've never heard of Oook, and it's tough to buy that they've done "billions of tests" because it seems terribly unlikely that they've got THAT big an install base or fleet of test devices, or do they call each individual BIT downloaded a "test"? Also, who pays them? This whole thing smells fishy, and even if it's true, every word, who the hell cares? How much of your day do you typically spend staring at your phone waiting for it to load something? Also, who is making video calls? If you can't be bothered to talk to someone on the phone and would rather text, (as most people seem these days,) how are you going to make a VIDEO call, especially if you have to make sure you look pretty or whatever before you dial... then make sure you're both ready to talk at the same particular time, and since you have to stare at the person you're talking to, doing something else while talking is probably out of the question...

No, screw that. This whole stupid conversation is so pointless I'm just going to stop now.

Re:So iPhone users are in areas with slower intern

[jellomizer]

It isn't all or nothing. It is call trends. The richest person in the world hooked up to gigbit network can have an Android phone, because he likes it better then the Apple. A poor person with no money, may sacrifice 2 meals a day to get an iPhone with some slow shared Network.

But trending will show that people with more money will pay more for stuff vs people with less money.