Not to the extent of corporate usage in the US where American companies would fire a bunch of their secretaries and backoffice staff and really rely on blackberries.
I try not to make bold statements about an environment I don't know too much about (the U.S Corporate world). Being a North European I don't even try to make that for Europe in general.
Having seen first hand how certain corporations work in France, Germany, Singapore and Nordics, I'd say that at least in these cases your assumption that European corporate workers don't rely on mobile Internet and rely on secretaries and backoffice staff is dead wrong.
I wouldn't call Orange UK selling 30,000 iPhones in one day when they launched it late last year, followed up by Vodafone UK selling 50,000 on the first day when they launched last month a "meh" moment.
Bearing in mind that O2 UK had been selling iPhones for a few years and it was a supposedly saturated market.
Nokia could only dream of such figures with their N97 and N900 flagship models.
Instead they make do with sales of £99 PAYG handsets, to people who presumably DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY on calls or data as you refuse to take this money into account with your examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jodyfanning
The iPhone was a big deal in the US. Not from the corporate point of view, which was basically what RIM was at the time. But to consumers, who in the US didn't use smartphones at all. In Europe it was a "meh" moment. Since 2007 RIM has significantly expanded into the consumer market as well which shows in their significant market share increase.
A blackberry without a full browser, without a color screen, without the app store, without a million other things... will still be regarded by Americans as a smartphone --- because they are used as a corporate enterprise tool.
Now you claim that Blackberries are not smartphones?
I wouldn't call Orange UK selling 30,000 iPhones in one day when they launched it late last year, followed up by Vodafone UK selling 50,000 on the first day when they launched last month a "meh" moment.
Bearing in mind that O2 UK had been selling iPhones for a few years and it was a supposedly saturated market.
Nokia could only dream of such figures with their N97 and N900 flagship models.
Instead they make do with sales of £99 PAYG handsets, to people who presumably DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY on calls or data as you refuse to take this money into account with your examples.
WTF, are you off your rocker?
N97
In September 2009 it was reported that two million N97 handsets had been sold in three months following its release. - Wikipedia
And Apple doesn't make any money off the Apps Store (as they stated in their last earnings report) and they don't make any money off the data costs. So what difference does it make.
3G coverage --- haven't you seen all those Verizon commercials? 3G service? --- even the much blamed AT&T has given Americans the world's largest data allowance for the iphone, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
Why don't you compare the 3G penetration of something like NY or California against Spain? It's just so happens that the US population is equal to the total of Europe's big 5 combined --- perfect comparision.
As I said it before, the turtle always wins. Do you want to having bragging rights to which country launches 3G first, or uses SMS first or uses MMS first ---- or do you want to have the final laugh. Europe had their bragging rights, but the US is having the final laugh right now. I haven't seen the MMS usage statistics on both sides of the Altantic --- but it is natural to assume that the US (with a higher 3G penetration) to have more MMS usage than Europe.
My mistake, so they did launch a 2 city LTE commercially. But so what? So is America massively behind just because Verizon decides to basically have one big launch instead of a symbolic 2 city launch.
If you still intend to prove an absurd point that US has a better communications infrastructure than Europe, you are off the mark. Talking about 3G 'penetration' - what do you mean, a number of devices that have tried 3G service activation, or a number/quality of antenas capable and providing 3G output ('coverage')? In the latter respect, all of Europe is almost 100% 3G and some countries are 3.5G-4G already ...
I try not to make bold statements about an environment I don't know too much about (the U.S Corporate world). Being a North European I don't even try to make that for Europe in general.
Having seen first hand how certain corporations work in France, Germany, Singapore and Nordics, I'd say that at least in these cases your assumption that European corporate workers don't rely on mobile Internet and rely on secretaries and backoffice staff is dead wrong.
Regs, Jarkko
That's it --- certain corporations in Europe. In the US, it is a lot wide spread --- not just the wall street type that relies on the blackberry.
If you still intend to prove an absurd point that US has a better communications infrastructure than Europe, you are off the mark. Talking about 3G 'penetration' - what do you mean, a number of devices that have tried 3G service activation, or a number/quality of antenas capable and providing 3G output ('coverage')? In the latter respect, all of Europe is almost 100% 3G and some countries are 3.5G-4G already ...
That total BS.
You want to compare the quality of the 3G service --- just look at the much blamed AT&T iphone 3G service. AT&T's 3G network has been trashed by the press, by all the geeks --- guess what? AT&T's 3G iphone speed is third fastest in the world according to the wired.com survey, it is the second cheapest iphone plan (behind UK) in the G7 countries, and the largest regular priced data allowance per month.
Just look at various European iphone deals, they give you a dinky little 250 MB iphone data allowance per month, or they crippled you to 384 kbps in speed.... You live in London, so what good is the O2 UK 3G network when they cripple PAYG iphone speed to 384 kbps.
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
AT&T's 3G iphone speed is third fastest in the world according to the wired.com survey, it is the second cheapest iphone plan (behind UK) in the G7 countries, and the largest regular priced data allowance per month.
Would that be Wireds iPhone 3G survey?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
What do you class as a 3G subsciber? I use 3G with my phone each day, I don't use data on it though. And with Vodafone owning half of Verizon Mobile, do you think they care?
What do you class as a 3G subsciber? I use 3G with my phone each day, I don't use data on it though. And with Vodafone owning half of Verizon Mobile, do you think they care?
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
Vodafone came very close to acquiring AT&T, what a different world it would have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
Vodafone came very close to acquiring AT&T, what a different world it would have been.
It would have been much better --- not because Vodafone is better, or that GSM is better...
It would have been much better --- because that would leave the US with 5 national carriers, instead of 4.
The iphone launch has taught us ONE thing --- the crappy deals come from countries with 2 national carriers (Norway), 3 national carriers (Canada, France)... The best deals come from countries with 6 carriers (Hong Kong), 5 carriers (UK)...
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
I'm a little confused by your argument, so if people are using 3G for voice, it doesn't count as they aren't using data, or it does count, but it doesn't count because it might crush your argument? Which one is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
No, Verizon are spending their money on their network. Vodafone must be getting something back from it, after all Verizon is the only network they have left on CDMAone
I wouldn't call Orange UK selling 30,000 iPhones in one day when they launched it late last year, followed up by Vodafone UK selling 50,000 on the first day when they launched last month a "meh" moment.
No, Verizon are spending their money on their network. Vodafone must be getting something back from it, after all Verizon is the only network they have left on CDMAone
Vodafone is asset rich and cash poor on their VZW investment. VZW hasn't paid a dividend to both parents since 2005. Since VZ owns 55% of VZW, they can consolidate the VZW's results into the parent company. Vodafone can't.
Vodafone is asset rich and cash poor on their VZW investment. VZW hasn't paid a dividend to both parents since 2005. Since VZ owns 55% of VZW, they can consolidate the VZW's results into the parent company. Vodafone can't.
Since VZW has over 30 billion in debt, who has the advantage?
Comments
I disagree that the S60 browser is as good as the iPhone browser. It renders pages more accurately but the usability isn't as good.
The usability of the iPhone browser isn't that great either.
It's not about elitist or not. This is about software. No point of having a smartphone if there are no software to run it on.
Yes, that was an elitist comment, there is a tonne of software for S60, just because it doesn't come from the US, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not to the extent of corporate usage in the US where American companies would fire a bunch of their secretaries and backoffice staff and really rely on blackberries.
I try not to make bold statements about an environment I don't know too much about (the U.S Corporate world). Being a North European I don't even try to make that for Europe in general.
Having seen first hand how certain corporations work in France, Germany, Singapore and Nordics, I'd say that at least in these cases your assumption that European corporate workers don't rely on mobile Internet and rely on secretaries and backoffice staff is dead wrong.
Regs, Jarkko
Bearing in mind that O2 UK had been selling iPhones for a few years and it was a supposedly saturated market.
Nokia could only dream of such figures with their N97 and N900 flagship models.
Instead they make do with sales of £99 PAYG handsets, to people who presumably DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY on calls or data as you refuse to take this money into account with your examples.
The iPhone was a big deal in the US. Not from the corporate point of view, which was basically what RIM was at the time. But to consumers, who in the US didn't use smartphones at all. In Europe it was a "meh" moment. Since 2007 RIM has significantly expanded into the consumer market as well which shows in their significant market share increase.
A blackberry without a full browser, without a color screen, without the app store, without a million other things... will still be regarded by Americans as a smartphone --- because they are used as a corporate enterprise tool.
Now you claim that Blackberries are not smartphones?
I wouldn't call Orange UK selling 30,000 iPhones in one day when they launched it late last year, followed up by Vodafone UK selling 50,000 on the first day when they launched last month a "meh" moment.
Bearing in mind that O2 UK had been selling iPhones for a few years and it was a supposedly saturated market.
Nokia could only dream of such figures with their N97 and N900 flagship models.
Instead they make do with sales of £99 PAYG handsets, to people who presumably DON'T SPEND ANY MONEY on calls or data as you refuse to take this money into account with your examples.
WTF, are you off your rocker?
N97
In September 2009 it was reported that two million N97 handsets had been sold in three months following its release. - Wikipedia
5800
Nokia sold 13 million 5800s in six months. - http://nokiamobileblog.com/nokia-580...in-six-months/
And those figures are already old...
And Apple doesn't make any money off the Apps Store (as they stated in their last earnings report) and they don't make any money off the data costs. So what difference does it make.
3G coverage --- haven't you seen all those Verizon commercials? 3G service? --- even the much blamed AT&T has given Americans the world's largest data allowance for the iphone, the second cheapest iphone plans in the G7 and the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.
Why don't you compare the 3G penetration of something like NY or California against Spain? It's just so happens that the US population is equal to the total of Europe's big 5 combined --- perfect comparision.
As I said it before, the turtle always wins. Do you want to having bragging rights to which country launches 3G first, or uses SMS first or uses MMS first ---- or do you want to have the final laugh. Europe had their bragging rights, but the US is having the final laugh right now. I haven't seen the MMS usage statistics on both sides of the Altantic --- but it is natural to assume that the US (with a higher 3G penetration) to have more MMS usage than Europe.
My mistake, so they did launch a 2 city LTE commercially. But so what? So is America massively behind just because Verizon decides to basically have one big launch instead of a symbolic 2 city launch.
If you still intend to prove an absurd point that US has a better communications infrastructure than Europe, you are off the mark. Talking about 3G 'penetration' - what do you mean, a number of devices that have tried 3G service activation, or a number/quality of antenas capable and providing 3G output ('coverage')? In the latter respect, all of Europe is almost 100% 3G and some countries are 3.5G-4G already ...
Maybe you should read this. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...comment-184697
Philippines send about 3x as many messages per day as in the US. US figures do not "dwarf" Europe (or UK), they are just slightly ahead.
As I said it, Philippines use only 30 voice minutes per month --- they can't afford the voice minutes, so they HAVE to use SMS.
http://www.voip-news.com/blog/200901...ations-region/
US is slightly ahead of UK, but UK sends a lot more SMS than the rest of Europe.
I try not to make bold statements about an environment I don't know too much about (the U.S Corporate world). Being a North European I don't even try to make that for Europe in general.
Having seen first hand how certain corporations work in France, Germany, Singapore and Nordics, I'd say that at least in these cases your assumption that European corporate workers don't rely on mobile Internet and rely on secretaries and backoffice staff is dead wrong.
Regs, Jarkko
That's it --- certain corporations in Europe. In the US, it is a lot wide spread --- not just the wall street type that relies on the blackberry.
If you still intend to prove an absurd point that US has a better communications infrastructure than Europe, you are off the mark. Talking about 3G 'penetration' - what do you mean, a number of devices that have tried 3G service activation, or a number/quality of antenas capable and providing 3G output ('coverage')? In the latter respect, all of Europe is almost 100% 3G and some countries are 3.5G-4G already ...
That total BS.
You want to compare the quality of the 3G service --- just look at the much blamed AT&T iphone 3G service. AT&T's 3G network has been trashed by the press, by all the geeks --- guess what? AT&T's 3G iphone speed is third fastest in the world according to the wired.com survey, it is the second cheapest iphone plan (behind UK) in the G7 countries, and the largest regular priced data allowance per month.
Just look at various European iphone deals, they give you a dinky little 250 MB iphone data allowance per month, or they crippled you to 384 kbps in speed.... You live in London, so what good is the O2 UK 3G network when they cripple PAYG iphone speed to 384 kbps.
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
AT&T's 3G iphone speed is third fastest in the world according to the wired.com survey, it is the second cheapest iphone plan (behind UK) in the G7 countries, and the largest regular priced data allowance per month.
Would that be Wireds iPhone 3G survey?
See how AT&T gets trashed but still heads above the European carriers --- and we haven't even touch the king of the network (Verizon). Verizon has more 3G subscribers than the whole European arm of Vodafone, has 3G coverage to 280 million Americans, more quality network/antenna/coverage...
What do you class as a 3G subsciber? I use 3G with my phone each day, I don't use data on it though. And with Vodafone owning half of Verizon Mobile, do you think they care?
That 13 million figure was discredited months ago, I can't believe that you are bringing up such blatant Nokia fanboyism.
5800
Nokia sold 13 million 5800s in six months. - http://nokiamobileblog.com/nokia-580...in-six-months/
What do you class as a 3G subsciber? I use 3G with my phone each day, I don't use data on it though. And with Vodafone owning half of Verizon Mobile, do you think they care?
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
Vodafone came very close to acquiring AT&T, what a different world it would have been.
It would have been much better --- not because Vodafone is better, or that GSM is better...
It would have been much better --- because that would leave the US with 5 national carriers, instead of 4.
The iphone launch has taught us ONE thing --- the crappy deals come from countries with 2 national carriers (Norway), 3 national carriers (Canada, France)... The best deals come from countries with 6 carriers (Hong Kong), 5 carriers (UK)...
So what? That's how everybody counts 3G subscribers. What good is Europe's 3G network if they have fewer 3G handsets and fewer people having data plans. That's just pure useless bragging rights.
I'm a little confused by your argument, so if people are using 3G for voice, it doesn't count as they aren't using data, or it does count, but it doesn't count because it might crush your argument? Which one is it?
Of course Vodafone cares, it's their money. Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on VZW network improvements --- creating the king of the networks --- yet haven't paid Vodafone a cent in dividend since 2005.
No, Verizon are spending their money on their network. Vodafone must be getting something back from it, after all Verizon is the only network they have left on CDMAone
Vodafone came very close to acquiring AT&T, what a different world it would have been.
Not really, in case you have forgotten, you live in Australia, not the USA
I wouldn't call Orange UK selling 30,000 iPhones in one day when they launched it late last year, followed up by Vodafone UK selling 50,000 on the first day when they launched last month a "meh" moment.
So, can you tell us how many they sold on
day 2
day 3
day 4
etc?
No, Verizon are spending their money on their network. Vodafone must be getting something back from it, after all Verizon is the only network they have left on CDMAone
Vodafone is asset rich and cash poor on their VZW investment. VZW hasn't paid a dividend to both parents since 2005. Since VZ owns 55% of VZW, they can consolidate the VZW's results into the parent company. Vodafone can't.
Vodafone is asset rich and cash poor on their VZW investment. VZW hasn't paid a dividend to both parents since 2005. Since VZ owns 55% of VZW, they can consolidate the VZW's results into the parent company. Vodafone can't.
Since VZW has over 30 billion in debt, who has the advantage?