It could be huge in developing countries, although, it's disturbing that for the less affluent to access the benefits of technology they'll be forced to give up their privacy. Privacy and Liberty are inextricably entwined, and one cannot exist without the other.
There is a very disturbing aspect to this. The data collected and collated by Google (and others) will be (by which I mean is now) freely accessed by the various national security states. Run a few algorithms through that and you will have a highly effective psycho-symmetric profiling system of every internet user i.e. everyone. Privacy is subversion (if you're doing nothing wrong what is there to worry about?) and subversion will not be tolerated.
I already mentioned this in another thread... but Apple needs a good dual mode CDMA/UMTS chipset for the iPhone V to happen. Cutting off Android is far more of a priority. I just think that economies of scale (3 billion potential GSM customers vs. 500 million potential CDMA 2000 customers) weren't in Apple's favor before but may be in the near future if they can get a dual chip plus you have the exclusivity contract. Even if Verizon were GSM, I still doubt they would have the iPhone by now. Note the option of other GSM HSPA carriers in Germany and Spain have not ended the exclusivity contracts in those countries. I'd say T-Mobile will beat VZW to the punch though based on the fact that Apple and T-Mob already enjoy a very good relationship internationally.
There is no question about the merits of CDMA --- as Qualcomm is the largest mobile pure play technology company in the world. Qualcomm won. AT&T just decided to put Qualcomm BREW on all their mid-level feature phones --- Qualcomm won again. ...
samab, you are your reputation's own worst enemy. All I have to do is mention CDMA, and there you are with your Qualcomm shilling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Not single issue, definitely not paid to do so, although this is something that does interests me, and you and I have talked about this before. It probably comes from me owning multiple computers as well as an iPad and iPhone. I want to access the current version of my data no matter which device I'm using. The old personal computer paradigm of the single version of the file sitting on the local harddrive doesn't work so well.
It may not be ideal but clouds designed to allow others to sift through your data, and act as the gatekeeper to it definitely are not the right answer. While to some this might seem like the future, it's really a huge step backwards.
"making WiFi standard at a time when most carriers forbid phone makers from including non-mobile data access"
This point shows just how far we've come. Only a few years ago looking for free Wi-Fi in the city involved taking out some Windows/Mac laptop and sitting there outside some office. Now WiFi search is as easy as turning off 3g and opening the browser and seeing what pops up. Pity it's all locked down now but still it's nice to see how many networks there are.
You are talking about ev-do being nearly EOL right now --- of course they have slower speed than the other competing technology..
Uo clearly implied that CDMA2000 was better all around, even suggesting that the better tech didn?t win out. I pointed out reasons why CDMA was not the better tech and NEVER implied that EV-DO was at EoL.
UMTS and CDMA are very similar in their air interface. It is the MAP application core where UMTS blasts CDMA 2000 out of the water. CDMA 2000 uses the inferior ANSI core. Samab compares GSM to CDMA missing on the fact that GSM was the 2G standard and UMTS was the 3G version. Of course a 3G standard will beat out a 2G one.
Let's be sure to compare oranges to oranges. UMTS is a better orange.
2) Verizon/Qualcomm BREW nickel and diming everybody --- but guess what? AT&T just decided to put BREW in all their mid-level feature phones.
3) Verizon CDMA phones are crippled --- but guess what? The original iphone remains the most definitively locked-up crippled phone in the whole world --- and it's a GSM phone.
You based all your arguments on old information that does not stand the test of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Uo clearly implied that CDMA2000 was better all around, even suggesting that the better tech didn?t win out. I pointed out reasons why CDMA was not the better tech and NEVER implied that EV-DO was at EoL.
It's a better tech because it's more spectrally efficient and it is data only. You only pointed out the top speed advantage, but that's at the expense of using spectrum in an inefficient way. Spectrum efficiency is what separate the US with the rest of the world --- when Americans talk an average of 800-900 voice minutes a month and European talk about 300 voice minutes a month.
UMTS and CDMA are very similar in their air interface. It is the MAP application core where UMTS blasts CDMA 2000 out of the water. CDMA 2000 uses the inferior ANSI core. Samab compares GSM to CDMA missing on the fact that GSM was the 2G standard and UMTS was the 3G version. Of course a 3G standard will beat out a 2G one.
Let's be sure to compare oranges to oranges. UMTS is a better orange.
The only missing "feature" from that ancient core --- ANSI can't do 6 party conference calls. OMFG, there you have it, GSM has a massive win on that one.
UMTS has 1 so-called killer app --- video calling, which nobody uses.
CDMA has 1 killer app --- AGPS, which is the only 3G killer app that is successful. Remember how Cingular couldn't for the longest time get E911 to run, Verizon didn't have problems with that.
Spectrum efficiency is what separate the US with the rest of the world --- when Americans talk an average of 800-900 voice minutes a month and European talk about 300 voice minutes a month.
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
Besides that, he didn't define how these talk times were measures. Are these actual talk times or paid talk times. Since European carriers tend to only charge for outgoing minutes it can easily seem like Europeans are using less minutes than the US and other countries.
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
CDMA 1x is more spectrally efficient --- it is the main reason why Verizon hasn't done VoIP via EV-DO (so that you can do smartphone data and voice at the same time a la the iphone). EV-DO has a 1.5 MHz channel vs. HSDPA has 5 MHz --- so of course HSDPA has more top speed.
Otherwise we may just say that aviation has been in a 40 year stand still in technology since the concord.
The so-called HSDPA technology edge is higher top line speed (which may not show up in everyday web browsing because the handset and the web browser are often the limiting factor). You won't notice a difference at all just by visiting Appleinsider on FIOS vs regular cable broadband.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Besides that, he didn't define how these talk times were measures. Are these actual talk times or paid talk times. Since European carriers tend to only charge for outgoing minutes it can easily seem like Europeans are using less minutes than the US and other countries.
I already DOUBLE the European talking minutes to take account of their free incoming voice payment system.
CDMA 1x is more spectrally efficient --- it is the main reason why Verizon hasn't done VoIP via EV-DO (so that you can do smartphone data and voice at the same time a la the iphone). EV-DO has a 1.5 MHz channel vs. HSDPA has 5 MHz --- so of course HSDPA has more top speed.
Otherwise we may just say that aviation has been in a 40 year stand still in technology since the concord.
The so-called HSDPA technology edge is higher top line speed (which may not show up in everyday web browsing because the handset and the web browser are often the limiting factor). You won't notice a difference at all just by visiting Appleinsider on FIOS vs regular cable broadband.
I already DOUBLE the European talking minutes to take account of their free incoming voice payment system.
But what does those cultural usage stats have to with these disparate network types Note the US is nearly 50% GSM-based.
What percentage of their revenue do you think Apple will get from ads?
Probably about the same as they get from music, which is very little.
Apple uses the iTunes Store to help sell hardware. They don't need to make a profit on music they sell. It's the opposite of the razor blade model: Apple sells the blades (Songs, Apps, etc) at cost, but make a very large profit on the razor (iPod, iPhone, etc).
However, I cannot see how iAds will help Apple sell hardware. The only reason to get involved with ads is if Apple intends for it to contribute to future profits.
But what does those cultural usage stats have to with these disparate network types Note the US is nearly 50% GSM-based.
It has been Verizon that really started the $99 unlimited voice plan (and then the later price drop as well).
If one carrier has the spectrum efficiency and offers more voice minutes, then even the carrier without that spectrum efficiency technology has also have to offer more voice minutes.
The US government is asking Apple the same kind of privacy questions.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
Apple is not being investigated because they are a bit player in mobile advertising. They are being investigated because they are the 800lb gorilla in mobile apps.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
Privacy has nothing to do with whether your company is big or small.
Comments
It could be huge in developing countries, although, it's disturbing that for the less affluent to access the benefits of technology they'll be forced to give up their privacy. Privacy and Liberty are inextricably entwined, and one cannot exist without the other.
There is a very disturbing aspect to this. The data collected and collated by Google (and others) will be (by which I mean is now) freely accessed by the various national security states. Run a few algorithms through that and you will have a highly effective psycho-symmetric profiling system of every internet user i.e. everyone. Privacy is subversion (if you're doing nothing wrong what is there to worry about?) and subversion will not be tolerated.
There is no question about the merits of CDMA --- as Qualcomm is the largest mobile pure play technology company in the world. Qualcomm won. AT&T just decided to put Qualcomm BREW on all their mid-level feature phones --- Qualcomm won again. ...
samab, you are your reputation's own worst enemy. All I have to do is mention CDMA, and there you are with your Qualcomm shilling.
Not single issue, definitely not paid to do so, although this is something that does interests me, and you and I have talked about this before. It probably comes from me owning multiple computers as well as an iPad and iPhone. I want to access the current version of my data no matter which device I'm using. The old personal computer paradigm of the single version of the file sitting on the local harddrive doesn't work so well.
It may not be ideal but clouds designed to allow others to sift through your data, and act as the gatekeeper to it definitely are not the right answer. While to some this might seem like the future, it's really a huge step backwards.
This point shows just how far we've come. Only a few years ago looking for free Wi-Fi in the city involved taking out some Windows/Mac laptop and sitting there outside some office. Now WiFi search is as easy as turning off 3g and opening the browser and seeing what pops up. Pity it's all locked down now but still it's nice to see how many networks there are.
You are talking about ev-do being nearly EOL right now --- of course they have slower speed than the other competing technology..
Uo clearly implied that CDMA2000 was better all around, even suggesting that the better tech didn?t win out. I pointed out reasons why CDMA was not the better tech and NEVER implied that EV-DO was at EoL.
Let's be sure to compare oranges to oranges. UMTS is a better orange.
samab, you are your reputation's own worst enemy. All I have to do is mention CDMA, and there you are with your Qualcomm shilling.
People "hate" Qualcomm/CDMA for the following reason:
1) they think that Qualcomm is a patent troll --- but guess what? The GSM world has their own patent troll as well (InterDigital).
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1704
2) Verizon/Qualcomm BREW nickel and diming everybody --- but guess what? AT&T just decided to put BREW in all their mid-level feature phones.
3) Verizon CDMA phones are crippled --- but guess what? The original iphone remains the most definitively locked-up crippled phone in the whole world --- and it's a GSM phone.
You based all your arguments on old information that does not stand the test of time.
Uo clearly implied that CDMA2000 was better all around, even suggesting that the better tech didn?t win out. I pointed out reasons why CDMA was not the better tech and NEVER implied that EV-DO was at EoL.
It's a better tech because it's more spectrally efficient and it is data only. You only pointed out the top speed advantage, but that's at the expense of using spectrum in an inefficient way. Spectrum efficiency is what separate the US with the rest of the world --- when Americans talk an average of 800-900 voice minutes a month and European talk about 300 voice minutes a month.
UMTS and CDMA are very similar in their air interface. It is the MAP application core where UMTS blasts CDMA 2000 out of the water. CDMA 2000 uses the inferior ANSI core. Samab compares GSM to CDMA missing on the fact that GSM was the 2G standard and UMTS was the 3G version. Of course a 3G standard will beat out a 2G one.
Let's be sure to compare oranges to oranges. UMTS is a better orange.
The only missing "feature" from that ancient core --- ANSI can't do 6 party conference calls. OMFG, there you have it, GSM has a massive win on that one.
UMTS has 1 so-called killer app --- video calling, which nobody uses.
CDMA has 1 killer app --- AGPS, which is the only 3G killer app that is successful. Remember how Cingular couldn't for the longest time get E911 to run, Verizon didn't have problems with that.
Spectrum efficiency is what separate the US with the rest of the world --- when Americans talk an average of 800-900 voice minutes a month and European talk about 300 voice minutes a month.
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
Besides that, he didn't define how these talk times were measures. Are these actual talk times or paid talk times. Since European carriers tend to only charge for outgoing minutes it can easily seem like Europeans are using less minutes than the US and other countries.
Spectrum efficiency is a good thing but how does random differences in talk time minutes show that spectrum is being used efficiently?
CDMA 1x is more spectrally efficient --- it is the main reason why Verizon hasn't done VoIP via EV-DO (so that you can do smartphone data and voice at the same time a la the iphone). EV-DO has a 1.5 MHz channel vs. HSDPA has 5 MHz --- so of course HSDPA has more top speed.
Otherwise we may just say that aviation has been in a 40 year stand still in technology since the concord.
The so-called HSDPA technology edge is higher top line speed (which may not show up in everyday web browsing because the handset and the web browser are often the limiting factor). You won't notice a difference at all just by visiting Appleinsider on FIOS vs regular cable broadband.
Besides that, he didn't define how these talk times were measures. Are these actual talk times or paid talk times. Since European carriers tend to only charge for outgoing minutes it can easily seem like Europeans are using less minutes than the US and other countries.
I already DOUBLE the European talking minutes to take account of their free incoming voice payment system.
CDMA 1x is more spectrally efficient --- it is the main reason why Verizon hasn't done VoIP via EV-DO (so that you can do smartphone data and voice at the same time a la the iphone). EV-DO has a 1.5 MHz channel vs. HSDPA has 5 MHz --- so of course HSDPA has more top speed.
Otherwise we may just say that aviation has been in a 40 year stand still in technology since the concord.
The so-called HSDPA technology edge is higher top line speed (which may not show up in everyday web browsing because the handset and the web browser are often the limiting factor). You won't notice a difference at all just by visiting Appleinsider on FIOS vs regular cable broadband.
I already DOUBLE the European talking minutes to take account of their free incoming voice payment system.
But what does those cultural usage stats have to with these disparate network types Note the US is nearly 50% GSM-based.
Apple is an ad company now --- so they are in the same boat as Google.
Yeah . . .
sure they are?like they're a music distribution company.
What percentage of their revenue do you think Apple will get from ads?
Probably about the same as they get from music, which is very little.
What percentage of Google's revenue do you think comes from ads? (hint pretty much all of it.)
What percentage of their revenue do you think Apple will get from ads?
Probably about the same as they get from music, which is very little.
Apple uses the iTunes Store to help sell hardware. They don't need to make a profit on music they sell. It's the opposite of the razor blade model: Apple sells the blades (Songs, Apps, etc) at cost, but make a very large profit on the razor (iPod, iPhone, etc).
However, I cannot see how iAds will help Apple sell hardware. The only reason to get involved with ads is if Apple intends for it to contribute to future profits.
But what does those cultural usage stats have to with these disparate network types Note the US is nearly 50% GSM-based.
It has been Verizon that really started the $99 unlimited voice plan (and then the later price drop as well).
If one carrier has the spectrum efficiency and offers more voice minutes, then even the carrier without that spectrum efficiency technology has also have to offer more voice minutes.
Yeah . . .
sure they are?like they're a music distribution company.
What percentage of their revenue do you think Apple will get from ads?
Probably about the same as they get from music, which is very little.
What percentage of Google's revenue do you think comes from ads? (hint pretty much all of it.)
The US government is asking Apple the same kind of privacy questions.
Both CDMA and GSM carriers are migrating to OFDMA based networks.
And the better technology does not always win in the market place --- i.e. VHS vs. Beta.
Great point!
The US government is asking Apple the same kind of privacy questions.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
Apple is not being investigated because they are a bit player in mobile advertising. They are being investigated because they are the 800lb gorilla in mobile apps.
But it would be a miscarriage of justice to hold Apple (still nothing but a bit player in mobile advertising, albeit with huge upside potential) to a standard that Google (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) themselves don't have to answer for.
Privacy has nothing to do with whether your company is big or small.