[hanspeter]

If given that most people charge their phone once a day and doesn't actually need more battery efficiency, and battery efficiency is the only benefit, are there then no actual benefit from 5G?

[arcticbull]

Unless one day you could charge your phone once every two days? Or once a week! Like back in the day of the 3310, which had 22 hours of talk time and 31 days of standby. Or you could make the phone smaller/lighter/faster with the extra efficiency. I'm having trouble believing someone here on HN is arguing against improving technology.

I sometimes forget to plug my phone in, maybe after traveling, maybe after drinking haha. I'm already super glad my phone will make it through a second day. Back in the iPhone 3G days? Not so much.

[thatcat]

Smaller/lighter/faster phones and battery banks are already available, without 5g. Why do you need 5g specifically? It's value has to exceed the value it destroys. Not all tech developments are net improvements.

[arcticbull]

Because they'll be even smaller/lighter/faster. That's what efficiency gets you. 5G is more efficient. There's really nothing else to say.

[jackvalentine]

So is it worth rolling out globally a very expensive new network which will cause negative externalities for that?

[sah2ed]

That depends on whether the expected benefits greatly exceeds the costs of the new network and can offset the supposed negative externalities.

   expected benefits >> costs + supposed negative externalities

[thatcat]

You could just as easily have switched those words and that would make just as much sense.

supposed benefits << cost and expected negitive externalities

[jackvalentine]

And that is why everyone is asking the question, rather than blindly accepting 5G as a desirable thing.

[thatcat]

Everyone buying new phones and changing the infrastructure for marginal gains sounds super efficient.

[arcticbull]

That will happen anyways.