> The new cameras are supposedly slightly better, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless you've got a highly trained eye.
This is completely nuts. The camera on the 3GS was the first acceptable camera in an iPhone, but it was nothing special. The 4S camera rivals dedicated point-and-shoot cameras for quality, and the 5's should be even better. The difference between the 3GS and the 4S (I've had both) is extremely noticeable.
And the idea that internet browsing speed would be unaffected, when the 5 has a way faster CPU and fricken LTE is so bizarre I can't even begin to understand how you make that statement. Are you somehow under the impression that internet browsing speed on the 3GS was already being bottlenecked by the remote server?
>> 4S camera rivals dedicated point-and-shoot cameras for quality
Good enough to replace vs. rivalling for quality aren't the same thing. I'm not sure what you said (i.e. "rivals") is true, given how much larger the sensor is in a dedicated point and shoot.
And keep in mind, that in good light, even a camera phone produces really nice images. Once you get into adverse conditions, things start to get dicey.
The difference in camera between the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S is noticeable. This holds true even more so between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4S.
I used to own an 3G and a 3GS and I use my iPhone 4S WAY more often for taking pictures of anything and everything. It is my preferred go to for taking pictures because it is always with me. I own a point and shoot but it has largely been sitting on my desk at home and is rarely used.
I want to take a look at the iPhone 5 specifically for shooting more pictures with, my iPhone 4S's lens has a slight scratch in it (which doesn't seem to affect the picture quality, thankfully) and something harder that can't be scratched as easily would be fantastic.
Although, if I had maybe invested in a case it wouldn't have been scratched, I prefer to not have a bumper/case around my devices, it makes them feel bulky and larger than they have to be.
One phone uses LTE, while the other uses 3G. I'm also ignoring how the 5 is easily faster than the 3GS, which requires more power.
All of the most popular apps still run on the 3GS, and run well, with the exception of a half dozen or so.
This will change as the 3GS doesn't get iOS 7 and other apps start requiring it (or a full-featured iOS 6).
The internet browsing speed is effectively identical, regardless of whatever the specs claim.
By virtue of the faster processor + GPU, this is patently false. Also, you'll get fewer Safari reloads since the 5 has 4x as much RAM.
The only features that the new iPhones have are things like Siri and Facetime, which are largely gimmicks with no real use case.
You forgot a faster cellular connection and a high-definition screen.
With that said (I won't speak to the camera, since I don't have an eye for that sort of thing), I agree that iOS updates since iOS 4 have not introduced gamechanging features. Still, it's nice to Facetime with my family given that we don't live in the same city.
Wait, is this an argument against a technology that (a) has been widely rolled out by Verizon, and (b) will be even more pervasive in the coming months and years?
It's a question. A buddy of mine in NYC bemoans the fact that he can't actually get LTE coverage despite having an LTE phone. I still have an HSPA+ phone, so I haven't even looked. I'm curious, because it was my impression that outside of a few niche markets, LTE wasn't really a "yay, I get massively fast internets everywhere" feature yet.
Sorry, I expect the worst from the HN crowd these days. See my most recent comment for an example.
NYC is notorious for its poor Verizon LTE coverage. Right now, the US LTE market is "Verizon," however, as AT&T has rolled out slowly and Verizon LTE covers some high double-digit percentage of the US.
Here is a video comparing the 3gs to the 4s for internet browsing speed. The complicated sites are much different the simple sites are basically the same:
It seems a little deceptive to test highly complicated sites like apple.com, since you're not going to have a good experience on sites like that no matter how fast they load. The vast majority of the sites I visit on my phone are text-based: HN, Reddit, Google News, 538, DailyKos, RealClearPolitics, etc. On these sites there wouldn't be much difference at all. If I want to go to apple.com I'll do it on my laptop regardless of speed.
And based on the video, it looks like the 3GS is as fast or faster than the 4S for sites that are text-based or optimized for mobile.
Were you hoping the iPhone 5 would be better in some particular way?
Because it sounds like you just don't need more than a basic phone. There's nothing wrong with that, but for people who are looking for a high end phone it's a clear upgrade in many ways (for example a larger, higher pixel density screen).
The battery life is the same but the processor speeds are much different. That's huge! A faster processor and a bigger screen will draw more power, so the fact that the battery life is the same is impressive on it's own.
Interesting. The 4S is clearly the best for the city shot, but for the indoor shot it's the sharpest though I think the 3GS colors may actually be better.
I too have a 3GS, and the difference between its camera and the 4S is unbelievable. I can't wait to upgrade, as I use my iPhone as my principal camera. Go test the 4S and see the difference.
All of the most popular apps still run on the 3GS, and run well, with the exception of a half dozen or so.
The internet browsing speed is effectively identical, regardless of whatever the specs claim.
The new cameras are supposedly slightly better, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless you've got a highly trained eye.
The only features that the new iPhones have are things like Siri and Facetime, which are largely gimmicks with no real use case.