Its not the mobile carriers being lazy. This is a law of physics limitation. There isn't enough physical bandwidth to give everyone unlimited data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
In any case, it is sad, because the right solution would be to heavily invest in the idea of unlimited data?a long term strategy. I acknowledge the possibility that they may be doing just this, and simply have to deal with short-term limitations, but I don't know. I tend to come in on the negative side when guessing the motives of wireless mobile companies.
i cannot disagree more. apple has a LONG history of stealing ideas from, or purchasing creative companies, just as google does:
MacOS Graphical User Interface? STOLEN from Xerox PARC, then Apple cries that Windows is a ripoff.
iTunes? look up Soundjam. Multitouch? Synaptics. A4 Chip? PA Semi, and now Intrinsity.
there are dozens more.
undermining competitors? ever hear of Adobe? Kindle? Qik? Boxee? Amazon?
we're locked into iTunes. can't sync any apple portable without it. and don't you dare use Cydia.
it is a walled garden, and while i'm happy being part of the 5% within those walls, i see the thorns on the roses, and i don't believe the BS that's spewed about the companies on the other side is any different than what's happening in Cupertino.
First, and ignoring your irrelevant comments regarding walled gardens, etc., there is a considerable difference in, to use your example, they way Apple developed, extended and brought to market the idea of the GUI as a way of interacting with personal computers and the way Google simply takes something, knocks out a cheap copy of it and dumps it on the market in order to overrun the market and turn it into an advertising and data collection opportunity. If you can't see the distinction, then you need read no further.
Secondly, there is a difference between engaging in competition through best efforts and competing by undermining a competitor. In the former case, Apple, actually invests creative energy in creating and improving products and services to compete. In the latter, Google, product dumping (and there's really no other description for how Google operates) is employed to take over markets where one does not have a truly compelling offering.
Google's entire strategy for success is to destroy. Apple's is to create. This is obvious to anyone who looks critically at how the two companies operate.
Myth. Steve gave Xerox some phat Apple stock options for access to PARC. Also, Apple created certain UI concepts such as the trash can, menubar, that Windows cloned, and that is what Apple sued over. But these facts are usually forgotten in the mad rush to post something negative about Apple. You are forgiven
Didn't Apple implement overlapping window, having thought that Xerox had them? And it turned out that Xerox did no such thing, and it was an Apple innovation.
Its not the mobile carriers being lazy. This is a law of physics limitation. There isn't enough physical bandwidth to give everyone unlimited data.
What exactly is the limit of "physical bandwidth" involved here, and what determines it? And, tossing aside the assumption implicit in your assertion that everyone who had "unlimited data" would use the maximum possible bandwidth at all times, how do you defend the claim that the carriers cannot "physically" provide enough for everyone to have as much as they need?
Frankly, if you are correct, then people are wasting tons of money investing in mobile computing, because it will be destined to be a complete failure in the end. This argument is merely a rationalization by the carriers in defense of maximizing charges to subscribers while investing the minimum possible to upgrade their networks.
Google's entire strategy for success is to destroy. Apple's is to create. This is obvious to anyone who looks critically at how the two companies operate.
Google has some very clever people. Their solution to the web-search problem was pure genius.
The problem with Google was how they chose to monetize that genius.
When they decided on using advertising and only advertising as their business model I think they took a big step towards the dark side.
Apple makes stuff, and earns profits when customers buy it. I think that is honest and transparent.
Google gives away stuff to create a honey trap, and then sells the collected users on to advertisers.
Both are valid business models. But I think we should remember that Google's first loyalty will always be to their paying customers; the advertisers.
I'd be much less suspicious of them as a company if they just charged for stuff.
What exactly is the limit of "physical bandwidth" involved here, and what determines it? And, tossing aside the assumption implicit in your assertion that everyone who had "unlimited data" would use the maximum possible bandwidth at all times, how do you defend the claim that the carriers cannot "physically" provide enough for everyone to have as much as they need?
Yes this has been a big part of AT&T's problems, there are too many people trying to use the same limited wireless spectrum at the same time. But over all it sounds like you need to read up more on how wireless spectrum work. Just because you cannot see them doesn't mean they are infinite.
Quote:
Frankly, if you are correct, then people are wasting tons of money investing in mobile computing, because it will be destined to be a complete failure in the end. This argument is merely a rationalization by the carriers in defense of maximizing charges to subscribers while investing the minimum possible to upgrade their networks.
This is quite extreme. The only two options are to provide everyone with unlimited data or the whole thing fails?
It's not curious at all, for exactly the reasons you give.
Yea I though as much... After all I don't see any reports of market numbers for Jun - Aug (which should be available) and we're likely not to hear any numbers on the 'Jul - Sep' span either.
Yes this has been a big part of AT&T's problems, there are too many people trying to use the same limited wireless spectrum at the same time. But over all it sounds like you need to read up more on how wireless spectrum work. Just because you cannot see them doesn't mean they are infinite.
This is quite extreme. The only two options are to provide everyone with unlimited data or the whole thing fails?
My point is that the claim that we are up against some sort of bandwidth wall, as opposed to a carrier created (or uncreated) infrastructure wall, is entirely misleading and, if true at all, is only so in very limited locales.
To your second point, no. First, people don't need "unlimited" data as in "infinite" data. They need some finite amount that is, in most cases, just enough more than what carriers will allow them without hitting them with additional charges. Secondly, if we are now up against a "physical bandwidth" wall, then, no growth is possible in mobile. Clearly that's not the case, and the "bandwidth wall" is so far away that it cannot in most cases even be seen. What we are up against is a carrier infrastructure wall.
Google is making nearly $7 billion per quarter this year. How much of that comes from services on Android only Google really knows. With millions of Android phones being sold, I'm sure they expect it to be a growing part of their business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw
which is sooooooooooooo TINY it's practically ZERO.
My point is that the claim that we are up against some sort of bandwidth wall, as opposed to a carrier created (or uncreated) infrastructure wall, is entirely misleading and, if true at all, is only so in very limited locales.
Well yes the bandwidth issues are mostly a problem in large cities. Its not such a problem in less dense areas. But it is a real issue.
Quote:
Secondly, if we are now up against a "physical bandwidth" wall, then, no growth is possible in mobile. Clearly that's not the case, and the "bandwidth wall" is so far away that it cannot in most cases even be seen. What we are up against is a carrier infrastructure wall.
In nothing did I say there was no room for growth. I said its impossible to literally provide everyone with unlimited data.
Comments
Verizon has already stated they will be moving to limited data plans .
You get a Verizon App Store with all of Verizon's crappy services.
Verizon's crappy Skype deal that doesn't work over WiFi and uses your mobile minutes for local calls.
In addition to paying extra for visual voicemail. Its difficult to see how Apple and Verizon can work together.
I just got an Android phone
AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.
As soon as iphone is back with a company in the US with unlimited data, I think I'm getting one.
In any case, it is sad, because the right solution would be to heavily invest in the idea of unlimited data?a long term strategy. I acknowledge the possibility that they may be doing just this, and simply have to deal with short-term limitations, but I don't know. I tend to come in on the negative side when guessing the motives of wireless mobile companies.
i cannot disagree more. apple has a LONG history of stealing ideas from, or purchasing creative companies, just as google does:
MacOS Graphical User Interface? STOLEN from Xerox PARC, then Apple cries that Windows is a ripoff.
iTunes? look up Soundjam. Multitouch? Synaptics. A4 Chip? PA Semi, and now Intrinsity.
there are dozens more.
undermining competitors? ever hear of Adobe? Kindle? Qik? Boxee? Amazon?
we're locked into iTunes. can't sync any apple portable without it. and don't you dare use Cydia.
it is a walled garden, and while i'm happy being part of the 5% within those walls, i see the thorns on the roses, and i don't believe the BS that's spewed about the companies on the other side is any different than what's happening in Cupertino.
First, and ignoring your irrelevant comments regarding walled gardens, etc., there is a considerable difference in, to use your example, they way Apple developed, extended and brought to market the idea of the GUI as a way of interacting with personal computers and the way Google simply takes something, knocks out a cheap copy of it and dumps it on the market in order to overrun the market and turn it into an advertising and data collection opportunity. If you can't see the distinction, then you need read no further.
Secondly, there is a difference between engaging in competition through best efforts and competing by undermining a competitor. In the former case, Apple, actually invests creative energy in creating and improving products and services to compete. In the latter, Google, product dumping (and there's really no other description for how Google operates) is employed to take over markets where one does not have a truly compelling offering.
Google's entire strategy for success is to destroy. Apple's is to create. This is obvious to anyone who looks critically at how the two companies operate.
Myth. Steve gave Xerox some phat Apple stock options for access to PARC. Also, Apple created certain UI concepts such as the trash can, menubar, that Windows cloned, and that is what Apple sued over. But these facts are usually forgotten in the mad rush to post something negative about Apple. You are forgiven
Didn't Apple implement overlapping window, having thought that Xerox had them? And it turned out that Xerox did no such thing, and it was an Apple innovation.
C.
Its not the mobile carriers being lazy. This is a law of physics limitation. There isn't enough physical bandwidth to give everyone unlimited data.
What exactly is the limit of "physical bandwidth" involved here, and what determines it? And, tossing aside the assumption implicit in your assertion that everyone who had "unlimited data" would use the maximum possible bandwidth at all times, how do you defend the claim that the carriers cannot "physically" provide enough for everyone to have as much as they need?
Frankly, if you are correct, then people are wasting tons of money investing in mobile computing, because it will be destined to be a complete failure in the end. This argument is merely a rationalization by the carriers in defense of maximizing charges to subscribers while investing the minimum possible to upgrade their networks.
One fact, though, is that I'm far from clueless.
I agree ... it's obvious to me that you will have to "up your game" greatly before you can qualify as clueless.
Back to work for me, I have bills to pay.
Skip
Google's entire strategy for success is to destroy. Apple's is to create. This is obvious to anyone who looks critically at how the two companies operate.
Google has some very clever people. Their solution to the web-search problem was pure genius.
The problem with Google was how they chose to monetize that genius.
When they decided on using advertising and only advertising as their business model I think they took a big step towards the dark side.
Apple makes stuff, and earns profits when customers buy it. I think that is honest and transparent.
Google gives away stuff to create a honey trap, and then sells the collected users on to advertisers.
Both are valid business models. But I think we should remember that Google's first loyalty will always be to their paying customers; the advertisers.
I'd be much less suspicious of them as a company if they just charged for stuff.
C.
Google didn't jump into this market as a courtesy.
They absolutely are making money; they are securing their industry.
When they aren't making money is when Verizon locks customers in with Bing.
Where's the money?
Android US market share = 17%
Google's revenue from android = ZERO
What exactly is the limit of "physical bandwidth" involved here, and what determines it? And, tossing aside the assumption implicit in your assertion that everyone who had "unlimited data" would use the maximum possible bandwidth at all times, how do you defend the claim that the carriers cannot "physically" provide enough for everyone to have as much as they need?
Yes this has been a big part of AT&T's problems, there are too many people trying to use the same limited wireless spectrum at the same time. But over all it sounds like you need to read up more on how wireless spectrum work. Just because you cannot see them doesn't mean they are infinite.
Frankly, if you are correct, then people are wasting tons of money investing in mobile computing, because it will be destined to be a complete failure in the end. This argument is merely a rationalization by the carriers in defense of maximizing charges to subscribers while investing the minimum possible to upgrade their networks.
This is quite extreme. The only two options are to provide everyone with unlimited data or the whole thing fails?
It's not curious at all, for exactly the reasons you give.
Yea I though as much... After all I don't see any reports of market numbers for Jun - Aug (which should be available) and we're likely not to hear any numbers on the 'Jul - Sep' span either.
Google's revenue from android = ZERO
Directly or overall?
doesn't matter they're practically BOTH ZERO.
That's not true. Google's revenue from Android comes from the advertising and the use of its services.
which is sooooooooooooo TINY it's practically ZERO.
Yes this has been a big part of AT&T's problems, there are too many people trying to use the same limited wireless spectrum at the same time. But over all it sounds like you need to read up more on how wireless spectrum work. Just because you cannot see them doesn't mean they are infinite.
This is quite extreme. The only two options are to provide everyone with unlimited data or the whole thing fails?
My point is that the claim that we are up against some sort of bandwidth wall, as opposed to a carrier created (or uncreated) infrastructure wall, is entirely misleading and, if true at all, is only so in very limited locales.
To your second point, no. First, people don't need "unlimited" data as in "infinite" data. They need some finite amount that is, in most cases, just enough more than what carriers will allow them without hitting them with additional charges. Secondly, if we are now up against a "physical bandwidth" wall, then, no growth is possible in mobile. Clearly that's not the case, and the "bandwidth wall" is so far away that it cannot in most cases even be seen. What we are up against is a carrier infrastructure wall.
which is sooooooooooooo TINY it's practically ZERO.
Good work Google. now it's time to show me the money.
Android US market share = 17%
Google's revenue from android = ZERO
Why??? so what...what does that mean then? They give something away so it can generate revenue by other streams...so........
My point is that the claim that we are up against some sort of bandwidth wall, as opposed to a carrier created (or uncreated) infrastructure wall, is entirely misleading and, if true at all, is only so in very limited locales.
Well yes the bandwidth issues are mostly a problem in large cities. Its not such a problem in less dense areas. But it is a real issue.
Secondly, if we are now up against a "physical bandwidth" wall, then, no growth is possible in mobile. Clearly that's not the case, and the "bandwidth wall" is so far away that it cannot in most cases even be seen. What we are up against is a carrier infrastructure wall.
In nothing did I say there was no room for growth. I said its impossible to literally provide everyone with unlimited data.