The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
This is so far from the truth it is hard to know where to start. but anyway, UMTS works fine. It is funny how every other UMTS network in the world works great except for AT&T's. Just face it. AT&T just has crap coverage, there is nothing complicated about it. QCOM are a bunch of patent trolls and were getting their ass kicked in court for years, plus most of their CDMA patents were already expiring. It is no wonder they suddenly made friends with everyone else.
This is so far from the truth it is hard to know where to start. but anyway, UMTS works fine. It is funny how every other UMTS network in the world works great except for AT&T's. Just face it. AT&T just has crap coverage, there is nothing complicated about it. QCOM are a bunch of patent trolls and were getting their ass kicked in court for years, plus most of their CDMA patents were already expiring. It is no wonder they suddenly made friends with everyone else.
AT&T isn't that bad --- they offer the largest iphone data allowance (not counting Canada's Roger's time limited special 6 GB iphone plan) and AT&T has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world (wired.com survey).
Qualcomm is doing fine --- they WON the war. Qualcomm is larger than Nokia, Ericsson, Texas Instrument, Broadcom, Seimens, Alcatel-Lucent. Their CDMA patents may be expiring, that's why Qualcomm bought Flarion for their Flash-OFDM patents that are essential for LTE.
The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
This is so far from the truth it is hard to know where to start. but anyway, UMTS works fine. It is funny how every other UMTS network in the world works great except for AT&T's. Just face it. AT&T just has crap coverage, there is nothing complicated about it. QCOM are a bunch of patent trolls and were getting their ass kicked in court for years, plus most of their CDMA patents were already expiring. It is no wonder they suddenly made friends with everyone else.
The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
This is so far from the truth it is hard to know where to start. but anyway, UMTS works fine. It is funny how every other UMTS network in the world works great except for AT&T's. Just face it. AT&T just has crap coverage, there is nothing complicated about it. QCOM are a bunch of patent trolls and were getting their ass kicked in court for years, plus most of their CDMA patents were already expiring. It is no wonder they suddenly made friends with everyone else.
AT&T isn't that bad --- they offer the largest iphone data allowance (not counting Canada's Roger's time limited special 6 GB iphone plan) and AT&T has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world (wired.com survey).
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
If the NYT wrote ONLY (or at least primarily) about the Ford company it would certainly be a conflict of interest to accept ads from Ford. Do you really disagree?
Do you really think that using WSJ or NYT as a counter example is accurate? Clearly a newspaper that writes about just about everything can't not accept ads from companies that it covers. But AI? Cmon, you can't really think that counter example is accurate can you?
I think you're making too big a deal of it. Perhaps it is just that I am less cynical than you are, but just as I would not expect AI to be anti-Apple if, say, Apple had blacklisted AI, I would not expect it to be pro-Apple if it accepted Apple ads.
That said, I was simply pointing to recalling a mention from someone - and as MissionGrey recalls above, it could have been from Kasper himself - that Apple had refused to advertise on AI. (I recall he had hinted that AI was being blacklisted for some reason, but I could be wrong about that - I wish I could find the link!)
Perhaps we can ask AI directly: Kasper et. al, if Apple were to offer to place ads on your site, would you say 'yes''? If so, don't you think it will be perceived as impacting your journalistic integrity?
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
Because everything is RELATIVE.
AT&T is being compared with THE NETWORK (aka Verizon Wireless).
That said, I was simply pointing to recalling a mention from someone - and as MissionGrey recalls above, it could have been from Kasper himself - that Apple had refused to advertise on AI. (I recall he had hinted that AI was being blacklisted for some reason, but I could be wrong about that - I wish I could find the link!)
I think they had a story that leaked some unreleased details and kasper was call up for trial, to disclose the leaker, but the court decided he had journalistic immunity and that pissed apple off.
I think apple views sites like this as both a positive and negative so they have not desire to encourage them.
Also when it comes to leaks they go all out to stop them, which is understandable, especially when your products are the leading edge, when they put all they work into research and development the last think they want is employees who will sell to the highest bidder.
So does this mean that (outside of the US) Nokia isn't selling as many smart phones as they used to? What does this mean long-term for other handset manufacturers? I wonder what HTC's share of profits is...
Nokia are selling more smartphones now than they ever have - 17 million a quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
So they do not make $200 from the sale of a blackberry?
Yes, RIM make $200 in revenue not profit on every device sold. RIM make its "massive profits" from servers + subscription services, not hardware sales as AI incorrectly suggests.
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
That's because the only people who talk are the people who are there to complain. The 70 million (or whatever) paying customers they have aren't paying them out of the kindness of their hearts.
Cellphones are commodities. iPhones and Blackberry are necessity. And iPhone is sexy, an aphrodisiac, a luxury, who-is-who product.
And all the above brings money, a lot of money. And more money means great profit. BMW sells less than 10% of GM, but while GM filed for Bankruptcy, BMW is awash in cash. That is the difference between quality and quantity.
Nokia is in every country in the world selling cheap cellphones to everybody. Apple of course is for the select few who are willing to pay for the best.
Comments
The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
But the $400 subsidy for the iPhone? I thought that was debunked and the real subsidy is only $200-250...
Go to Apple's SEC filings: divide their iphone revenue by the number of iphones sold --- and you will get more than $600+ per iphone.
AT&T isn't that bad --- they offer the largest iphone data allowance (not counting Canada's Roger's time limited special 6 GB iphone plan) and AT&T has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world (wired.com survey).
Qualcomm is doing fine --- they WON the war. Qualcomm is larger than Nokia, Ericsson, Texas Instrument, Broadcom, Seimens, Alcatel-Lucent. Their CDMA patents may be expiring, that's why Qualcomm bought Flarion for their Flash-OFDM patents that are essential for LTE.
I vaguely recall from a previous discussion that AI does not get ads from Apple. So they have to rely on non-Apple sources.
Can someone confirm this?
If this is true, it is stupid (and spiteful) on Apple's part.
Yep, your correct, from what Kasper said, they even try to bully the advertisers they do get.
The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
The people who run Nokia are not overpaid dummies like Moto... when thing go wrong they change management. I do think they are a little bit too arrogant and smug. For years, they + Ericsson were in denial regarding the CDMA and even WCDMA tech... then they lost in court. They created UMTS/WCDMA just to dilute QCOM IPRs. However, the UMTS/WCDMA tech is defective and that is one of the reasons that ATT has some difficulty with its network.
Oh, in that case (and as an example), the NYTs and WSJs of the world must have no journalistic integrity at all?
Haha no they don't
AT&T isn't that bad --- they offer the largest iphone data allowance (not counting Canada's Roger's time limited special 6 GB iphone plan) and AT&T has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the world (wired.com survey).
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
If the NYT wrote ONLY (or at least primarily) about the Ford company it would certainly be a conflict of interest to accept ads from Ford. Do you really disagree?
Do you really think that using WSJ or NYT as a counter example is accurate? Clearly a newspaper that writes about just about everything can't not accept ads from companies that it covers. But AI? Cmon, you can't really think that counter example is accurate can you?
I think you're making too big a deal of it. Perhaps it is just that I am less cynical than you are, but just as I would not expect AI to be anti-Apple if, say, Apple had blacklisted AI, I would not expect it to be pro-Apple if it accepted Apple ads.
That said, I was simply pointing to recalling a mention from someone - and as MissionGrey recalls above, it could have been from Kasper himself - that Apple had refused to advertise on AI. (I recall he had hinted that AI was being blacklisted for some reason, but I could be wrong about that - I wish I could find the link!)
Perhaps we can ask AI directly: Kasper et. al, if Apple were to offer to place ads on your site, would you say 'yes''? If so, don't you think it will be perceived as impacting your journalistic integrity?
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
Because everything is RELATIVE.
AT&T is being compared with THE NETWORK (aka Verizon Wireless).
Verizon sold more LG Voyagers than AT&T selling the original iphone.
That said, I was simply pointing to recalling a mention from someone - and as MissionGrey recalls above, it could have been from Kasper himself - that Apple had refused to advertise on AI. (I recall he had hinted that AI was being blacklisted for some reason, but I could be wrong about that - I wish I could find the link!)
I think they had a story that leaked some unreleased details and kasper was call up for trial, to disclose the leaker, but the court decided he had journalistic immunity and that pissed apple off.
I think apple views sites like this as both a positive and negative so they have not desire to encourage them.
Also when it comes to leaks they go all out to stop them, which is understandable, especially when your products are the leading edge, when they put all they work into research and development the last think they want is employees who will sell to the highest bidder.
So does this mean that (outside of the US) Nokia isn't selling as many smart phones as they used to? What does this mean long-term for other handset manufacturers? I wonder what HTC's share of profits is...
Nokia are selling more smartphones now than they ever have - 17 million a quarter.
So they do not make $200 from the sale of a blackberry?
Yes, RIM make $200 in revenue not profit on every device sold. RIM make its "massive profits" from servers + subscription services, not hardware sales as AI incorrectly suggests.
That still doesn't have anything to do with their network quality. All I ever hear about with AT&T is how often the calls are dropped and the number of places where there is no signal.
That's because the only people who talk are the people who are there to complain. The 70 million (or whatever) paying customers they have aren't paying them out of the kindness of their hearts.
Really? A Palm Pre advertisement on the page? What a waste. If I was interested in the Pre, I'd be at the palminsider website (as if).
Palminsider, Appleinsider; are these sites are about cutting edge botany?
Just catching this? I guess you weren't around for the Zune ads.
To hell with the ads, we weren't even around for the actual Zunes.
And all the above brings money, a lot of money. And more money means great profit. BMW sells less than 10% of GM, but while GM filed for Bankruptcy, BMW is awash in cash. That is the difference between quality and quantity.
Nokia is in every country in the world selling cheap cellphones to everybody. Apple of course is for the select few who are willing to pay for the best.
Cellphones are commodities. iPhones and Blackberry are necessity. And iPhone is sexy, an aphrodisiac, a luxury, who-is-who product.
Necessity is necessity. Luxury is luxury.
By definition, the iphone can't be a necessity AND a luxury at the same time.
Go to Apple's SEC filings: divide their iphone revenue by the number of iphones sold --- and you will get more than $600+ per iphone.