fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoDon’t repeat 5G mistakes with 6G, plead mobile operatorswww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square71fedilinkarrow-up1179arrow-down15
arrow-up1174arrow-down1external-linkDon’t repeat 5G mistakes with 6G, plead mobile operatorswww.theregister.comfne8w2ah@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square71fedilink
minus-squareEvotech@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·19 hours ago5 is good enough. Let’s do something else
minus-squareEcho Dot@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 hours agoI’d like a different letter while we’re at it as well. I think q would be good. I want 2q data.
minus-squarepython@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·19 hours agoWe should follow in the footsteps of many tech companies and stop numbering the Gs in favour of tagging on the year they were launched. So next year we wouldn’t get 6G, we would get G2027. Sounds much cooler, doesn’t it?
minus-squarewonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 hours agoOr change the G to Gen like it always is when used as an abbreviation for generation, so that people don’t think it means GHz or Gb/s…
5 is good enough. Let’s do something else
I’d like a different letter while we’re at it as well. I think q would be good. I want 2q data.
We should follow in the footsteps of many tech companies and stop numbering the Gs in favour of tagging on the year they were launched. So next year we wouldn’t get 6G, we would get G2027. Sounds much cooler, doesn’t it?
Or change the G to Gen like it always is when used as an abbreviation for generation, so that people don’t think it means GHz or Gb/s…