I want 4g just so I can do basic tasks. In my Philadelphia suburb AT&T is so awful, and saturated... doing simple tasks are painstakingly slow. Actually, everyone is bailing to Android
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How does it make any sense to move to a different operating system when the network is the problem?
If it sounds like a troll, and walks like a troll, it's probably an android fanboy.
The problem with looking at theoretical limits of a technology is that it involves devoting more spectrum than realistically possible to hit that limit. It is easier for 100 LTE devices to be using 15Mbps of data at the same tower than HSPA+ because it's more spectrally efficient.
However, I think the comment about HD video is rather silly, because the only reliable source for that content is iTunes, and it would only take two high quality 720p movies would blow through a 5GB cap which costs $50. At that kind of pricing, who would even bother?
I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..
I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..
I can't tell if you are being serious here, but if you are, you're totally dreaming here.
3D TV's are already on the wane, the number of movies coming out in 3D similarly so. The industry has been pushing 3D TV sets and 3D movies for years now with almost no uptake at all. No one wants it, just as no one wanted it in the early 70's and no one wanted it in the late 50's. 3D is the ultimate boondoggle.
Two words: form factor. Changes everthing. When you hold a little depthy screen in your hands, you will want to crawl inside. Totally different from watching some framed theater on your wall.
You in particular might not get until you loosen up that right hemisphere of yours, but many others will. Actually, watching 3D will help, because it activates both hemispheres in a very specific way.
Edit: I really should take your point more seriously, because your bias toward reason/logic is so often useful in this forum. That is the valuable left brain working.
What's most interesting about 3D when it's used seriously—not for cheap thrills in terrible movies—is that new neuronal circuits are being stimulated by the enforced separation of the two eye-views, especially when moving picture is involved. That is why the depth effect and the textural solidity of things is so striking when the 3D is done well. Scorcese's Hugo provides many good examples. The best thing in that movie for me was the clothes, believe it or not. They went out of their way to recreate the feel of 1920s weaves and fabrics, and the 3D allows your mind to vicariously feel them. That's because both left and right visual channels are separately engaged, and the brain is fusing the two views like mad and feasting on the sensual stimulation, so long denied by flat, 2D media for all our lives. So 3D is a true neurological shift, and far from being a passing gimmicky fad. Like with stereo sound in the 50s, only far more powerful because it's light and vision.
I have very little use for video while on the go unless it is a short news clip which I don't expect to pay for. Paid video content I would rather watch at home in the comfort of my living room.
I watch a lot of paid content on the go. But I do it over wifi and honestly I don't think that Apple is thinking of video and LTE together.
Apple's desires and the carriers are diametrically opposed. Apple would love for people to use the iPad to constantly be connected and watch videos and other data uses. While the carriers want you to pay a lot for data and use as little as possible. Most people would choose the $30 for 3GB option with $10 per GB over that. That is great for the carriers and not so great for the consumer. Even with moderate use you could easily spend $100 a month for data.
The pieces won't be in place for a few years, but one possibility for Apple is to act as an MVNO for data. Dish has some spectrum they are sitting on and Clearwire also has a ton of spectrum. Apple have a number of possibilities for buying data as an LTE MVNO. They would have to be competitive with carrier data pricing, but I think Apple wouldn't mind low margins for data plans to sell more iPads. Similar to iTunes pricing with low margins to sell more hardware. Apple could also really shake things up by not requiring any contracts and simply selling data a la carte from the iTunes store. For example 1GB for $7 3GB for $20 5GB for $30 10GB for $50
I don't think Apple would ever want to become a full fledged carrier with the low margins and headaches that would go along with that. But I can see them partnering with some companies to build out a data only model for iPads, iPod touches, possibly Mac computers, and even people with iPhones who could choose to completely bypass the carrier completely. After all there are good alternatives to carrier text messaging and also VoIP calling already in place now. If you had a fast, steady, and reliable LTE data connection why would you need a traditional phone contract or carrier at all?
Typical carrier plans for the iPhone range between around $80 to $130 or more depending on options. And for $80 you really don't get too many voice, texts, or data except on Sprint. iMessage, google Voice, Whatsapp and several more options could easily replace traditional texts. Google Voice, or many VoIP apps like SessionTalk or even magicjack could replace phone calls. Imagine if Apple offered 10GB of LTE data with no expiration date for $50 or even $100. If you watched your usage and limited streaming videos, you could make 10GB last several months. No more monthly bills of $100 to use your iPhone. Now that really would be revolutionary and would turn the whole industry upside down.
Some very creative ideas here! What if Apple, as an MVNO, were to offer streamed content that included a charge/discount depending on the means of transmission -- a streamed movie to your AppleTV via cable cost $7, to your iPad via WiFi $8 -- via cell $10.
Apple's desires and the carriers are diametrically opposed. Apple would love for people to use the iPad to constantly be connected and watch videos and other data uses. While the carriers want you to pay a lot for data and use as little as possible. Most people would choose the $30 for 3GB option with $10 per GB over that. That is great for the carriers and not so great for the consumer. Even with moderate use you could easily spend $100 a month for data.
The pieces won't be in place for a few years, but one possibility for Apple is to act as an MVNO for data. Dish has some spectrum they are sitting on and Clearwire also has a ton of spectrum. Apple have a number of possibilities for buying data as an LTE MVNO. They would have to be competitive with carrier data pricing, but I think Apple wouldn't mind low margins for data plans to sell more iPads. Similar to iTunes pricing with low margins to sell more hardware. Apple could also really shake things up by not requiring any contracts and simply selling data a la carte from the iTunes store. For example 1GB for $7 3GB for $20 5GB for $30 10GB for $50
I don't think Apple would ever want to become a full fledged carrier with the low margins and headaches that would go along with that. But I can see them partnering with some companies to build out a data only model for iPads, iPod touches, possibly Mac computers, and even people with iPhones who could choose to completely bypass the carrier completely. After all there are good alternatives to carrier text messaging and also VoIP calling already in place now. If you had a fast, steady, and reliable LTE data connection why would you need a traditional phone contract or carrier at all?
Typical carrier plans for the iPhone range between around $80 to $130 or more depending on options. And for $80 you really don't get too many voice, texts, or data except on Sprint. iMessage, google Voice, Whatsapp and several more options could easily replace traditional texts. Google Voice, or many VoIP apps like SessionTalk or even magicjack could replace phone calls. Imagine if Apple offered 10GB of LTE data with no expiration date for $50 or even $100. If you watched your usage and limited streaming videos, you could make 10GB last several months. No more monthly bills of $100 to use your iPhone. Now that really would be revolutionary and would turn the whole industry upside down.
Some very creative ideas here! What if Apple, as an MVNO, were to offer streamed content that included a charge/discount depending on the means of transmission -- a streamed movie to your AppleTV via cable costs $7, to your iPad via LTE costs $8.
I have very little use for video while on the go unless it is a short news clip which I don't expect to pay for. Paid video content I would rather watch at home in the comfort of my living room.
I can't tell if it's the pretentiousness, the lack of actual information, the lack of POINT, or all of the above.
seems a little pot calling kettle black, I considered the 'if you don't have an iPhone, well you don't have an iPhone" some of the most obnoxious pretentious ads ever created, even though I agreed with the points.
I agree with the post above saying that the tablet and other mobile devices are becoming the video watching hardware of choice and that TV is losing ground.
I've got absolutely NO data to back that up, but my gut feeling trumps all data.
Mobile: the consumption of whatever I want, whenever I want it.
TV: what I want to watch with others I know or live with
Movie Theaters: where I go to watch big spectacles with people who are annoying to me.
That's not 4G. That's 3G. That's not going to solve any bandwidth problems.
That might be a matter of opinion however on the devices where it registers which type of connection it has such as Edge, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, when connected with HSPA+ identifies itself as 4G and it actually is much faster than 3G in my experience.
Comments
Video Shmideo...
I want 4g just so I can do basic tasks. In my Philadelphia suburb AT&T is so awful, and saturated... doing simple tasks are painstakingly slow. Actually, everyone is bailing to Android
How does it make any sense to move to a different operating system when the network is the problem?
If it sounds like a troll, and walks like a troll, it's probably an android fanboy.
The problem with looking at theoretical limits of a technology is that it involves devoting more spectrum than realistically possible to hit that limit. It is easier for 100 LTE devices to be using 15Mbps of data at the same tower than HSPA+ because it's more spectrally efficient.
However, I think the comment about HD video is rather silly, because the only reliable source for that content is iTunes, and it would only take two high quality 720p movies would blow through a 5GB cap which costs $50. At that kind of pricing, who would even bother?
I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..
I've stated in other threads that I suspect that Apple has a codec and hardware chip that will allow delivery of video streams with 10-20% of the bandwidth currently used. This would affect every transmission means -- cable, WiFi and cell radio..
10-20% of MPEG-2? That might be possible.
I can't tell if you are being serious here, but if you are, you're totally dreaming here.
3D TV's are already on the wane, the number of movies coming out in 3D similarly so. The industry has been pushing 3D TV sets and 3D movies for years now with almost no uptake at all. No one wants it, just as no one wanted it in the early 70's and no one wanted it in the late 50's. 3D is the ultimate boondoggle.
Two words: form factor. Changes everthing. When you hold a little depthy screen in your hands, you will want to crawl inside. Totally different from watching some framed theater on your wall.
You in particular might not get until you loosen up that right hemisphere of yours, but many others will. Actually, watching 3D will help, because it activates both hemispheres in a very specific way.
Edit: I really should take your point more seriously, because your bias toward reason/logic is so often useful in this forum. That is the valuable left brain working.
What's most interesting about 3D when it's used seriously—not for cheap thrills in terrible movies—is that new neuronal circuits are being stimulated by the enforced separation of the two eye-views, especially when moving picture is involved. That is why the depth effect and the textural solidity of things is so striking when the 3D is done well. Scorcese's Hugo provides many good examples. The best thing in that movie for me was the clothes, believe it or not. They went out of their way to recreate the feel of 1920s weaves and fabrics, and the 3D allows your mind to vicariously feel them. That's because both left and right visual channels are separately engaged, and the brain is fusing the two views like mad and feasting on the sensual stimulation, so long denied by flat, 2D media for all our lives. So 3D is a true neurological shift, and far from being a passing gimmicky fad. Like with stereo sound in the 50s, only far more powerful because it's light and vision.
I have very little use for video while on the go unless it is a short news clip which I don't expect to pay for. Paid video content I would rather watch at home in the comfort of my living room.
I watch a lot of paid content on the go. But I do it over wifi and honestly I don't think that Apple is thinking of video and LTE together.
Video and this alleged 'retina' screen, sure.
10-20% of MPEG-2? That might be possible.
Apple could start an advance push of HEVC!
Holy FRICK would that be amazing.
Apple's desires and the carriers are diametrically opposed. Apple would love for people to use the iPad to constantly be connected and watch videos and other data uses. While the carriers want you to pay a lot for data and use as little as possible. Most people would choose the $30 for 3GB option with $10 per GB over that. That is great for the carriers and not so great for the consumer. Even with moderate use you could easily spend $100 a month for data.
The pieces won't be in place for a few years, but one possibility for Apple is to act as an MVNO for data. Dish has some spectrum they are sitting on and Clearwire also has a ton of spectrum. Apple have a number of possibilities for buying data as an LTE MVNO. They would have to be competitive with carrier data pricing, but I think Apple wouldn't mind low margins for data plans to sell more iPads. Similar to iTunes pricing with low margins to sell more hardware. Apple could also really shake things up by not requiring any contracts and simply selling data a la carte from the iTunes store. For example 1GB for $7 3GB for $20 5GB for $30 10GB for $50
I don't think Apple would ever want to become a full fledged carrier with the low margins and headaches that would go along with that. But I can see them partnering with some companies to build out a data only model for iPads, iPod touches, possibly Mac computers, and even people with iPhones who could choose to completely bypass the carrier completely. After all there are good alternatives to carrier text messaging and also VoIP calling already in place now. If you had a fast, steady, and reliable LTE data connection why would you need a traditional phone contract or carrier at all?
Typical carrier plans for the iPhone range between around $80 to $130 or more depending on options. And for $80 you really don't get too many voice, texts, or data except on Sprint. iMessage, google Voice, Whatsapp and several more options could easily replace traditional texts. Google Voice, or many VoIP apps like SessionTalk or even magicjack could replace phone calls. Imagine if Apple offered 10GB of LTE data with no expiration date for $50 or even $100. If you watched your usage and limited streaming videos, you could make 10GB last several months. No more monthly bills of $100 to use your iPhone. Now that really would be revolutionary and would turn the whole industry upside down.
Some very creative ideas here! What if Apple, as an MVNO, were to offer streamed content that included a charge/discount depending on the means of transmission -- a streamed movie to your AppleTV via cable cost $7, to your iPad via WiFi $8 -- via cell $10.
Apple's desires and the carriers are diametrically opposed. Apple would love for people to use the iPad to constantly be connected and watch videos and other data uses. While the carriers want you to pay a lot for data and use as little as possible. Most people would choose the $30 for 3GB option with $10 per GB over that. That is great for the carriers and not so great for the consumer. Even with moderate use you could easily spend $100 a month for data.
The pieces won't be in place for a few years, but one possibility for Apple is to act as an MVNO for data. Dish has some spectrum they are sitting on and Clearwire also has a ton of spectrum. Apple have a number of possibilities for buying data as an LTE MVNO. They would have to be competitive with carrier data pricing, but I think Apple wouldn't mind low margins for data plans to sell more iPads. Similar to iTunes pricing with low margins to sell more hardware. Apple could also really shake things up by not requiring any contracts and simply selling data a la carte from the iTunes store. For example 1GB for $7 3GB for $20 5GB for $30 10GB for $50
I don't think Apple would ever want to become a full fledged carrier with the low margins and headaches that would go along with that. But I can see them partnering with some companies to build out a data only model for iPads, iPod touches, possibly Mac computers, and even people with iPhones who could choose to completely bypass the carrier completely. After all there are good alternatives to carrier text messaging and also VoIP calling already in place now. If you had a fast, steady, and reliable LTE data connection why would you need a traditional phone contract or carrier at all?
Typical carrier plans for the iPhone range between around $80 to $130 or more depending on options. And for $80 you really don't get too many voice, texts, or data except on Sprint. iMessage, google Voice, Whatsapp and several more options could easily replace traditional texts. Google Voice, or many VoIP apps like SessionTalk or even magicjack could replace phone calls. Imagine if Apple offered 10GB of LTE data with no expiration date for $50 or even $100. If you watched your usage and limited streaming videos, you could make 10GB last several months. No more monthly bills of $100 to use your iPhone. Now that really would be revolutionary and would turn the whole industry upside down.
Some very creative ideas here! What if Apple, as an MVNO, were to offer streamed content that included a charge/discount depending on the means of transmission -- a streamed movie to your AppleTV via cable costs $7, to your iPad via LTE costs $8.
I have very little use for video while on the go unless it is a short news clip which I don't expect to pay for. Paid video content I would rather watch at home in the comfort of my living room.
I second this.
How does it make any sense to move to a different operating system when the network is the problem?
I assume because Apple offers no LTE devices.
(shortened)
I can't tell if it's the pretentiousness, the lack of actual information, the lack of POINT, or all of the above.
seems a little pot calling kettle black, I considered the 'if you don't have an iPhone, well you don't have an iPhone" some of the most obnoxious pretentious ads ever created, even though I agreed with the points.
I assume because Apple offers no LTE devices.
There's no 4G in Philadelphia?
There's no 4G in Philadelphia…
??
Yes there is. Verizon has LTE, TMobile has HSPA+ 42, Sprint has WiMax, and ATT has HSPA+ and I believe Philly is next up for LTE from them.
I've been an iPad user since day 1, and can count the times I missed wireless capabilities on one hand, if that.
If I need something urgently out of wifi range, I can always do it on my iPhone.
That said, I'm glad to have pioneers out there racking up more charges to AT&T/Verizon and working out the bugs.
My thanks!
Apple and Reuters may think people will watch HD movies over LTE.
The prices for data that AT&T, Verizon etc. charge will however kill that idea.
HD screen means more data!
Well, to be accurate, HD content (if you choose it) means more data.
The screen itself doesn't.
Yes there is. ATT has HSPA+
That's not 4G. That's 3G. That's not going to solve any bandwidth problems.
I've got absolutely NO data to back that up, but my gut feeling trumps all data.
Mobile: the consumption of whatever I want, whenever I want it.
TV: what I want to watch with others I know or live with
Movie Theaters: where I go to watch big spectacles with people who are annoying to me.
That's not 4G. That's 3G. That's not going to solve any bandwidth problems.
That might be a matter of opinion however on the devices where it registers which type of connection it has such as Edge, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, when connected with HSPA+ identifies itself as 4G and it actually is much faster than 3G in my experience.