Moto Triumph Review, what does this mean for the Bryce/Esteem?

[Danny24]

http://www.phonedog.com/2011/07/21/m...iew-by-sydney/

I hope this doesn't seem out of place but I found this interesting.
According to this review:

After testing out the Motorola Triumph, I can say that it is one of the best prepaid smartphones currently on the market. The Samsung Galaxy Indulge offered by MetroPCS did better in my testing, but the Triumph is a solid second-place winner.

How would this phone, which I thought would kill the Indulge even without 4G, will do against the Lg Bryce/Esteem which spec wise, is slightly better AND has 4G LTE?

[ChazzMatt]

http://www.phonedog.com/2011/07/21/m...iew-by-sydney/

I hope this doesn't seem out of place but I found this interesting.
According to this review:

How would this phone, which I thought would kill the Indulge even without 4G, will do against the Lg Bryce/Esteem which spec wise, is slightly better AND has 4G LTE?

Depends on which carrier you are testing it on. A non-LTE CDMA phone on Metro will have 100kbps. A non-LTE CDMA phone on any other CDMA carrier (Verizon, Sprint, Cricket) will run 1,000kbps, give or take. This phone you mention, the Motorola Triumph, is on Virgin, which is owned and operated by Sprint -- so it's Sprint CDMA network.

If this CDMA-only Motorola Triumph phone were on Metro, the LTE + CDMA LG Bryce/Esteem would kick this non-LTE's butt (as long as you stayed in LTE reception areas). But if you are comparing this Motorola Triumph phone running on Virgin to LG Bryce running on Metro -- well, that's your decision. But Metro's LTE network is not bad. Most people are getting 2 - 5 mbps (2,000 - 5,000kbps).

Another consideration: Virgin's full 3G network (Sprint) is 90% nationwide, while Metro's LTE network is in 14 markets. (We Metro customers have capped CDMA roaming on Sprint, so we do have "nationwide" coveage, but it's not 3G data speed coverage; it's limited to the same CDMA speed we get on Metro.) If you do a lot of traveling, then Virgin with this Motorola Triumph would be for you. If you stay in your home area most of the time, and you have good LTE reception, then Metro with the LG Bryce would work well.

I am a long-time Metro customer, I have two Optimus M, and I will be getting the LTE LG Bryce/Esteem. But I have recommended Virgin to friends wanting Androids (like the Optimus) due to the "2G" CDMA speed Metro has. 100kbps is a LOT slower than 1,000 kbps on an Android.

[digi7al ph0enix]

Depends on which carrier you are testing it on. A non-LTE CDMA phone on Metro will have 100kbps. A non-LTE CDMA phone on any other CDMA carrier (Verizon, Sprint, Cricket) will run 1,000kbps, give or take. This phone you mention is Virgin, which is owned and operated by Sprint -- so it's Sprint CDMA network.

So, on Metro the LTE Bryce/Esteem would kick this non-LTE's butt. But if you are comparing this phone running on Virgin to Bryce running on Metro -- well, that's your decision. But Metro's LTE network is not bad. Most people are getting 2 - 5 mbps (2,000 - 5,000kbps).

To add to this from someone who has used both Metro and VM, the 3G speeds are more than capable of hitting 2000kbps on VM. I average 1000kpbs to 1500kbps on VM 3G at work with only 2-3 bars of signal and I have seen speeds over over 2000kpbs on off peak hours with better signal. Add to that the fact that I only pay $25 a month and it makes VM a far better value for me. I don't need 4G speed, period. If I need speed like that I'll use Wi-Fi, anything I do on the go including streaming movies and music and misc. downloads the VM 3G is plenty fast for.

[Helgaiden]

I also had Metro before switching to VM. The 2g speeds got tiring after about 5 months and i had to jump ship. The Bryce will be nice but unless you're in a 4g market, 2g on such a fast phone is going to feel just plain wrong.

[Danny24]

Oh wait. Isn't Metro quietly testing out their 3G?
If so, it would be cool if they release it along with the Bryce just to mess with everyone, even if it's not guaranteed it will be as good as Virgin's 3G.

[Tekzel]

I was actually thinking about switching to Virgin mobile and this phone, but I found out that they I can't use my bank's bill payer service, which I've been using with Metro for 2 years now. I have no interest in buying "top off cards" or using my credit card to pay it, so I guess I'm going to stick with Metro and wait for the Bryce.

[QuestKev]

Oh wait. Isn't Metro quietly testing out their 3G?
If so, it would be cool if they release it along with the Bryce just to mess with everyone, even if it's not guaranteed it will be as good as Virgin's 3G.

metro's data is 3g.

now metro is in the process of turning on an EV-DO 3g network to alleviate most of the problems with metro's existing 1xrtt 3g network.

If anybody says metro has claimed that they are skipping a 3g network, honestly has no idea what they are saying. because its plainly obvious that when that was said, nobody bothered to inform who ever said it, that metro does in fact have a 3g network in place in all home networks. Just not a fast 1. there is no such thing as 2.5G, its just what most people consider, because the speeds of out data are SLOW

[ChazzMatt]

metro's data is 3g.

Metro doesn't have 3G data speed, and you know that is what we are talking about. 100kbps is pre-historic speed!

Even Metro's management says they have "2G". And by that, they ean data speed. Not sure why you take this so personally when everyone else knows what we are talking about.

I don't care if Metro has elements of 3G, even 8G, or 12G. If they can't get over 100kbps, NOBODY cares.

Metro's CDMA speed sucks, and REPEATEDLY SAYING they have 3G doesn't make it better. IN FACT, it makes it worse! They have 3G and still can't get it up over 100k? What's the use in having "3G" -- as you say they do -- if you still have 2G speed!

By insisting they have 3G, you make them look even worse!

========

Just accept that when we say "3G" we are talking about data, and by that we mean data speed. REAL 3G data speed is 1,000kbps or thereabouts. It's sure not Metro's crappy 100k.

See this story: in Philly, using Optimus and Ascend phones -- Metro clocked at 100kbps, while Cricket clocked at 1,000kbps. That's because Cricket uses full, unthrottled EVDO while Metro does not. Metro still has "2G" speed. Even Metro's management accepts that description.

now metro is in the process of turning on an EV-DO 3g network to alleviate most of the problems with metro's existing 1xrtt 3g network.

And by that they mean, it's not going any FASTER, will still be 100k. Just won't be as many network DATA outages. Which is why Metro sure won't advertise it, because there's nothing to advertise. Nothing faster, no visible improvements. The network will just work for all the days of the month you pay for it, instead of 20 days out of the month.

People who work inside Metro says this EVDO installation is only in a few markets, will be CAPPED speed, and only temporary -- until Metro can offload more people to LTE. Just more 3G "technology" but not 3G speed.

People aren't stupid. You tell them Metro has "3G" and they only get 100kbps? What the heck? That's why Metro's management says they are skipping 3G for LTE. There's just no good way to explain it otherwise.

"Oh, we have 3G. See all these engineering manuals? They say we have 3G. Who you gonna believe? Your speed tests or these musty books?"

Instead Metro management tells the truth that people can SEE with their own eyes.

/www.pcworld.com/article/167391/a_day_in_the_life_of_3g.html

there is no such thing as 2.5G, its just what most people consider, because the speeds of out data are SLOW

OK, if there is no "2.5G", and you say Metro has 3G -- with molasses s l o w 100kbps... Then what does Verizon, Sprint, Cricket have with red-hot blazing 1,000+ kbps?

Do they have 3.5G? You HAVE to differentiate it somehow. They both don't have the same 3G. Either you describe Metro's laggard speed as 2.5G -- 2G speed with elements of 3G technology, or you have to say Verizon and Sprint have 3G on steroids, thus 3.5G. Something has to give. You can't have it both ways, because there's a 10X DIFFERENCE in performance.

[n4zty]

very good explanation chazz!!! easy and clear to understand!

[W.S.]

I was actually thinking about switching to Virgin mobile and this phone, but I found out that they I can't use my bank's bill payer service, which I've been using with Metro for 2 years now. I have no interest in buying "top off cards" or using my credit card to pay it, so I guess I'm going to stick with Metro and wait for the Bryce.

Virgin Mobile actually does have non-top up card tiered data + voice plans as well.

So far $55 for unlimited voice and web at 3G speeds is pretty competitively priced and hell even BETTER than what Metro currently offers even with their LTE plans considering the data cap and their spotty LTE service areas. Granted, I'm not in any rush to run to Virgin Mobile given that the Esteem and other LTE capable phones are coming and I tend not to travel or leave my service area all that much but Virgin does have an edge right now even if they're more like Sprint "lite".

[QuestKev]

Metro doesn't have 3G data speed, and you know that is what we are talking about. 100kbps is pre-historic speed!

you do realize there are multiple networks that make up 3g right? we just happen to have the slowest version right? jsut because its slow does not mean its NOT 3g

Even Metro's management says they have "2G". And by that, they ean data speed. Not sure why you take this so personally when everyone else knows what we are talking about.

are you saying that the mgmt couldnt have made a simple uneducated mistake when they say that? they didn't say the word speed, and besides if they were talking about speeds, would they have said an LTE 3G network, since thats what speeds we are getting?

I don't care if Metro has elements of 3G, even 8G, or 12G. If they can't get over 100kbps, NOBODY cares.

Metro's CDMA speed sucks, and REPEATEDLY SAYING they have 3G doesn't make it better. IN FACT, it makes it worse! They have 3G and still can't get it up over 100k? What's the use in having "3G" -- as you say they do -- if you still have 2G speed!

By insisting they have 3G, you make them look even worse!

whats making them look worse is ignorant people who dont care to educate themselves in what 3g actually is, not the person who actually understands it

========

Just accept that when we say "3G" we are talking about data, and by that we mean data speed. REAL 3G data speed is 1,000kbps or thereabouts. It's sure not Metro's crappy 100k.

and here we are again, aren't we getting those speeds? wait we are, with our LTE network, which is 4g, but then by your classifacation, we should be calling it 3G right? but wait metros management said we are getting 4g.......

And by that they mean, it's not going any FASTER, will still be 100k. Just won't be as many network DATA outages. Which is why Metro sure won't advertise it, because there's nothing to advertise. Nothing faster, no visible improvements. The network will just work for all the days of the month you pay for it, instead of 20 days out of the month.

People who work inside Metro says this EVDO installation is only in a few markets, will be CAPPED speed, and only temporary -- until Metro can offload more people to LTE. Just more 3G "technology" but not 3G speed.

People aren't stupid. You tell them Metro has "3G" and they only get 100kbps? What the heck? That's why Metro's management says they are skipping 3G for LTE. There's just no good way to explain it otherwise.

"Oh, we have 3G. See all these engineering manuals? They say we have 3G. Who you gonna believe? Your speed tests or these musty books?"

Instead Metro management tells the truth that people can SEE with their own eyes.

/www.pcworld.com/article/167391/a_day_in_the_life_of_3g.html





OK, if there is no "2.5G", and you say Metro has 3G -- with molasses s l o w 100kbps... Then what does Verizon, Sprint, Cricket have with red-hot blazing 1,000+ kbps?

Do they have 3.5G? You HAVE to differentiate it somehow. They both don't have the same 3G. Either you describe Metro's laggard speed as 2.5G -- 2G speed with elements of 3G technology, or you have to say Verizon and Sprint have 3G on steroids, thus 3.5G. Something has to give. You can't have it both ways, because there's a 10X DIFFERENCE in performance.

what is WiMax?
what is HSPA+?

if I am not mistaken, they are different networks belong to what the ITU classify's as 4g.

in the end though. I know that I am not as ignorant in moble technology as you are. If you this as an attack on you, so be it. I see it as me trying to educate a ******* who needs to read a book on it.

remember, All Band-aids are in fact Adhesive bandages, but not all Adhesive bandages are Band- aids.

[soccerballtux]

lol. 1xRTT is 2g dude.

[QuestKev]

lol. 1xRTT is 2g dude.

no. its not.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+1xrtt

[HandyWireless]

Seriously, who cares about tom-aye-to tom-ah-to. 1x is slow.

[Black69Camaro]

Seriously, who cares about tom-aye-to tom-ah-to. 1x is slow.

LOL now this makes perfect sense.