back to article Samsung leads 5G early birds after shipping 6.7m phones to snatch over half of the market

5G is in its infancy and yet Samsung has managed to carve out an impressive slice of the market, shipping more than 6.7 million Galaxy 5G devices during 2019. This, according to Counterpoint Research, represents 53.9 per cent of the global 5G smartphone market, with the likes of Xiaomi and OPPO sweeping up the scraps. No …

  1. JohnFen Silver badge

    I'll be staying with 4G

    Everything I've learned about 5G tells me that it's something I actively don't want.

    1. larokus

      Re: I'll be staying with 4G

      But what if the resulting tumour were to give you superhuman powers?

      Fortunately my living smack in the middle of a forest a kilometer away from neighbours and even farther from comms infrastructure affords me the option to avoid the bombardment of this absurd high risk moderate reward technology altogether.

      Good luck city dwellers

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: I'll be staying with 4G

        I see no reason to think that there are any health issues with 5G.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'll be staying with 4G

          Amazing to see clueless Luddites on El Reg of all places!

          5G isn't magic, it isn't like it is used at higher power levels or that its slightly different modulation makes any difference. Well not unless you think the changeover from ATSC's 8vsb modulation to 5G's OFDM modulation in the US's 600 MHz band somehow increases cancer risk. And if you do, look at for ATSC 3.0 which changes from 8vsb to COFDM!

          The only thing 5G brings that's different is higher frequency ranges, which you are already exposed to if you've ever been near an airport.

          1. JohnFen Silver badge

            Re: I'll be staying with 4G

            I agree. I think this is really just a new version of the "cell towers/phones cause cancer" nonsense that has been around since cellphones were first deployed.

            The thing is that there is literally zero solid evidence for such an effect.

  2. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Happy

    a new version of the "cell towers/phones cause cancer"

    I am actually surprised that since the release of 802.11ax (no, I refuse to call it by it's new marketing number) no one has made similar accusation (of "802.11ax is giving me headaches").

    The place I used to work for had a staff complain that she was "allergic to WiFi" (even sported a medical certificate). She asked that WiFi be turned off to the entire building of 250 people. (Yes, she has a mobile phone but isn't "allergic" to it.)

    To appease her, she was re-assigned to a remote site with no WiFi coverage and no mobile phone coverage. She quit shortly later.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: a new version of the "cell towers/phones cause cancer"

      When wifi first came out there was some a bit of buzz about how its frequency was the same as that of a microwave oven. There just wasn't much of an internet back then, imagine if it came out today all the scary scary talk you'd hear from idiots on social media about how a wifi capable device is like a microwave oven in your pocket.

  3. David Pearce

    I will wait for the dust to settle on frequency assignments before I buy a 5G set.

    In Malaysia 5G will be 700 MHz, 3.5 GHz, 26 GHz and 28 GHz

    The 2x GHz will be of little use as the range will be pathetic - physics

    That is a challenging range of frequencies to tune, without even adding existing bands

  4. stuartnz

    I'll be staying with 4G too

    For reasons of economics, not tinfoilhat syndrome. I have yet to see a compelling case for it. So far, all I've seen repeatedly plugged is "faster downloads", with the downside of "poor/challenging coverage" not getting quite so much coverage in the glossy ads - can't for the life of me figure out why.

    Since I am not a gamer, and don't watch movies on my phone, I see no reason to spend money on a new device for no perceptible gain to my personal usage. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and currently, for me, 5G seems all cost, no benefit. When the numbers change, my pov might too. Of course, by that time the early adopters will have transcended and/or been assimilated.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Since I am not a gamer

      I am a gamer. I play on a proper PC with a 28" widescreen, a keyboard+mouse and a Microsoft Strategic Commander. On a 1Gbps fiber line.

      4G covers all the needs I have for my phone usage, but my gaming I do on a proper platform.

      I do not see that 5G is going to benefit me in any way in the foreseeable future. I also do not plan on changing my Samsung Galaxy A3 unless it dies on me. A phone is a phone, as far as I'm concerned, and the only other use I have for it is occasionally checking Google Maps for my position vs my destination. 4G works fine for that.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. ThatOne Silver badge

    Headlong flight into the "future"

    I think they should make sure there is a full coverage of at least 3G before deciding to launch a new fad standard.

    I myself live in a big city so I don't really care if only dense urban areas get decent coverage, but it doesn't seem fair to me. YMMV.

  6. Giles C Bronze badge

    Coverage round east anglia is very poor still, on the Norfolk coast there are places where you struggle to get any signal, and once in the Peak District prepare to climb to get a signal.

    So like the other comments get a decent universal signal before trying any new tech, especially as mentioned some of the 5g bands are really short ranged (unless we are going to start using squirrels as relay posts...)

    As for me personally if I can make a call that will do, if i can’t download something it isn’t really a problem and will wait until I am back in civilisation. Having said that the coverage at the top of mount snowdon is excellent!

  7. the Jim bloke Silver badge
    Unhappy

    The greatest disservice to humanity committed by the "internet"

    Is that it has given stupid people a voice..

    And all the monetisation and exploitation is based on faster and easier ways to separate fools and their money

    1. chr0m4t1c

      Re: The greatest disservice to humanity committed by the "internet"

      Nah, it's ease of use. The stupid people always had a voice, but as long as access to a platform involved employment of double-digit brain cells they either couldn't get in or got distracted by a different shiny.

      I would say that the biggest disservice is the "Login using Facebook" button - or equivalent.

  8. Guildencrantz

    Cancer woo woo

    My ex and my mum both believe in this wireless makes you ill moonshine, but it's something they won't shake, it's the judgement of huge numbers of people who won't be disabused of it. I feel for them. Some very bright people are like this. I won't hear it said they're stupid. So they don't reason like you or I, but you and I have a certain conception of risk and trust and so forth too, that's not all pure reasoning. The whole Better Call Saul subplot about Chuck McGill is a painful illustration of such tormenting and incorrect beliefs that are in practice unshakeable.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020