This afternoon, Dan Frommer has taken a look at Nilay Patel's review of the Motorola Droid RAZR Maxx (what a name) and highlighted a particularly interesting excerpt:
In general use, I found that the Maxx would run for about a day and a half to two days without a charge if I used it normally. It also stood up to far more intense use: I spent about two hours tethered to LTE data on a trip to DC from New York, used the phone during the day, and tethered for another two hours on the way back, and still had about a quarter of a charge left.
In response, Dan writes:
I think it’s safe to say we’ll see the first LTE iPhones this year.
Honestly, implications for Apple aside, I'm just impressed that Motorola has been able to squeeze some decent battery out of an LTE device. Given the repeatedly documented disaster of LTE in Android phones over the past year or so, I had ostensibly come to the conclusion that LTE inefficiency was not going to be solved by any Android phone manufacturer. It's not that they don't have the capacity, it's more that none seem to have any moral obligation toward marketing their devices as game-changing, earth-shattering devices, despite their patently awful battery life. As such, why admonish their own devices with a new phone with a marketable feature of "acceptable battery, for once?"
Granted, Motorola's solution lacks any particular panache, with the manufacturer choosing to, as Patel writes, "almost as though on a whim" slap on a high capacity 3300 mAh battery. The solution - ugly and basic as it may be - is unquestionably effective, with Patel's tests demonstrating a doubling of battery life under even the most "intense" of tests. In standard use, Patel discovered borderline mythical battery life for LTE Android devices.
Back in December, reflecting upon Shawn Blanc's testing of the Galaxy Nexus and the truly appalling nature of LTE power consumption, I wrote:
Although I believe LTE is the future, the technology should simply not be present in its current form as a defining, advertised feature. If you expect to have a useable device, LTE entirely undercuts your hopes, and relegates your phone's potential connection speeds to isolated and inconvenient situations.
Motorola's solution is surprisingly simple in its execution. Simple to the point that I cannot help but wonder why no other Android manufacturer has done this yet? Credit where credit's due, I'm genuinely shocked that Motorola seems to have found an acceptable solution and acted upon it. In doing so, Motorola has thoroughly defeated my spectacularly low expectations. Accordingly, Frommer's assertion regarding Apple's adoption of LTE over the course of 2012 appears all the more viable. Although I doubt Apple will stoop to the whimsical implementation of a form-factor-shattering battery, I imagine Motorola's success is indicative of a collective industry focus upon efficiency, thereby rendering Apple's chances for success in the area that much higher. With its penchant for design and efficiency, Apple will not implement LTE until technology facilitates its power-friendly existence, and that certainly seems to be far more attainable now than it was six months ago.
As an aside, Motorola's apparent concern for battery life bodes well for its impending absorption into Google. As Google begins to spin up toward hardware production, Motorola's evident care for efficiency married with Google's concern for the integrity of the Android OS, hints at the potential for an efficient, Google-branded LTE device for 2012.
As I write on a seemingly weekly schedule, competition, and any innovation therein, is certainly a good thing. Furthermore, any advance with regard to LTE power efficiency is certainly not a bad thing, no matter how inelegant the solution may be.