Seriously, this guy doesn't know any more than the rest of us. If we used our combined knowledge of providers and strategies and just plain knowing what we want, we could churn out a better report than this guy.
Our service sucks because of the private market approach we took.
We use nonstandard frequencies for GSM, 3G, and the completely non-standard CDMA technology for our service. So we have to pay more for altered phones and have to blanket the country at least twice (one for each network technology). That is why our system sucks. If we had adopted the European GSM technology, Korean WCDMA or Japanese network technology we would have better phones and service.
Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day.
I will admit some of those frequencies were reserved for the military, but 3G presenter the perfect opportunity to harmonize and transition them off the needed frequencies and they didn't do it.
Video telephony is a dud. It has been available over the landline for decades. Why would you use that? ...
Sure, in a HOME, video phone HANDSETS are pretty rediculous. What am I going to show you? Me sitting down?
Imagine, I have family that lives in Illinois (which I do), and I am living in the Seattle (which I do) and I am going to my son's soccer game (imaginary son, no kids yet). How cool would it be to be able to video chat with my mother and show her grandson playing in his first soccer match ever (Football to you UKers).
Let's say, you are anywhere where you want to show anybody something. You can describe it in words on the phone, and a picture is worth 1000 words or something, but seeing something for yourself is priceless.
I have this to say about the UK and Japan having an "unsuccessful" video chat...
People in Japan and the UK have countries about the size of some of our states in the U.S. (slight exaggeration) so it is easier to visit family and friends if they live in other countries. It's a weekend getaway. In the U.S. a flight from Seattle is about 2200 miles. It takes roughly 8 hours to fly (round trip)... the price ranges anywhere between $300 and $1200 round trip depending on the airline and time of year and how advanced you plan your trip.
Obviously video chat doesn't beat seeing somebody in person, but it feels pretty good when you haven't seen somebody in a while and it's the only option at the time. I think it is going to be huge, particularly for Apple owners that already have iCHAT. PC users may not find this very useful since they have such lame video chat options.
As for the phone, I would be really surprised if it wasn't a 3G phone from the beginning. There are plenty of decent, not too big, 3G phones out there, and in other markets like Europe and Japan, there are even more. Plus UMTS is at least a bit more standardized between Europe and Japan than using GSM which the Japanese don't use at all.
Perhaps a keyboard model and non-keyboard model I could see, but if it doesn't even match an LG CU500 or SE W850, then there is really no point in Apple even bothering.
Our service sucks because of the private market approach we took.…
"Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day."
Actually, the FCC did do its job and part of the problem they have to take blame for. However, it takes an Act of Congress for the FCC to do many of the other things to significantly improve things.
GSM is a foreign invention and thus subject to certain restrictions which by the way took 9 years before it was accepted for use in the US. Now since 911, we some have other concerns.
One of the things that we do slowly is change. Although the cell phone was invented in the U.S., when the government gets involved, changes are even slower.
"The basic concept of cellular phones began in 1947, when researchers looked at crude mobile (car) phones and realized that by using small cells (range of service area) with frequency reuse they could increase the traffic capacity of mobile phones substantially. However at that time, the technology to do so was nonexistent.
Anything to do with broadcasting and sending a radio or television message out over the airwaves comes under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. A cell phone is a type of two-way radio. In 1947, AT&T proposed that the FCC allocate a large number of radio-spectrum frequencies so that widespread mobile telephone service would become feasible and AT&T would have a incentive to research the new technology. We can partially blame the FCC for the gap between the initial concept of cellular service and its availability to the public. The FCC decided to limit the amount of frequencies available in 1947, the limits made only twenty-three phone conversations possible simultaneously in the same service area - not a market incentive for research.
The FCC reconsidered its position in 1968, stating "if the technology to build a better mobile service works, we will increase the frequencies allocation, freeing the airwaves for more mobile phones." AT&T and Bell Labs proposed a cellular system to the FCC of many small, low-powered, broadcast towers, each covering a 'cell' a few miles in radius and collectively covering a larger area. Each tower would use only a few of the total frequencies allocated to the system. As the phones traveled across the area, calls would be passed from tower to tower."
Well, as the first, countries that followed had the luxury to change and improve the technology had an advantage. Obviously, copying, recognizing the inadequacies, correcting and improving the system is significantly less costly than being the first kid on the block. We have to remember also that we have government, business and private citizens who can affect progress. Many other countries don't have such luxuries or disadvantages, depending upon how we want to look at it.
Kinda like how people using hands-free or a BT headset look(ed) like a total idiot ? Or how people thought SMS was retardedly slow ? Mobile video chatting will gain in popularity, once price point/usability/market pentration reaches a certain point. I dread the day it becomes socially unexpectable to not look someone in the eye over the phone.
Re: North America's crappy cell service. As the pioneers originally with cell technology, North America invested FAR more than anybody else in analogue infrastructure. Feeling sufficiently burnt from this, they're playing real cautious when it comes to 3G / Next / Edge etc.
It sure does suck, but a combination of geography, demographics and previous infrastructure investments mean we'll be behind Western Europe and East Asia for a while.
I'm not sure that this video chat thing is the way to go to gain success. We've had it for ages (Sweden), and no one uses it, perhaps because of high prices, about five times higher than ordinary taxes, but it seems like a gimmick.
True, but remember how crappy MP3 players were before the iPod came along.
I'm not so sure. Video chat has been available with iChat on a Mac for some time and despite that, and the $150 I spent for an iSight camera, I hardly used except for the novelty of it.
Voice and/or text communication allows you to focus on other things while chatting. This is not to say that an Apple iPhone will not incorporate video into it's design. In fact, I think it will be included, after all, it's already in iChat. I just think that as a the most popular way to communicate it isn't the best option.
"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat software that runs on Macs," American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday.*"We believe it will focus initially on mobile IM as opposed to e-mail."
What? - I can only video chat with a few other people knowing there are millions out there?
The IP approach (voice or video) isn't going to work unless the operators really want it i.e. low data costs & low latency & if it conflicts with their own services it ain't happening.
That's a non arguement, people have being listening to music on the go for 30 years.
I think Shookster's point is there's a difference between doing a job & doing a job so well it takes off & makes us change how we do things.
Not sure about mobile video chat, Vodafone have it at the same cost as voice chat here in NZ & I still don't know may people who use it that often (or am I just ugly?)
I dread the day it becomes socially unexpectable to not look someone in the eye over the phone.
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.
McD
Apple does have a patent for the technology that will fix that...
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that. though video-chatting with Mum's a bit disconcerting.
Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.
My two cents.
That argument does not hold water -- mobile reception is FAR better even in very large countries such as India and China.
Comments
Seriously, this guy doesn't know any more than the rest of us. If we used our combined knowledge of providers and strategies and just plain knowing what we want, we could churn out a better report than this guy.
I'll begin:
I predict Apple has made a prototype phone.
If you'd like to add to this, feel free.
-Clive
We use nonstandard frequencies for GSM, 3G, and the completely non-standard CDMA technology for our service. So we have to pay more for altered phones and have to blanket the country at least twice (one for each network technology). That is why our system sucks. If we had adopted the European GSM technology, Korean WCDMA or Japanese network technology we would have better phones and service.
Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day.
I will admit some of those frequencies were reserved for the military, but 3G presenter the perfect opportunity to harmonize and transition them off the needed frequencies and they didn't do it.
Video telephony is a dud. It has been available over the landline for decades. Why would you use that? ...
Sure, in a HOME, video phone HANDSETS are pretty rediculous. What am I going to show you? Me sitting down?
Imagine, I have family that lives in Illinois (which I do), and I am living in the Seattle (which I do) and I am going to my son's soccer game (imaginary son, no kids yet). How cool would it be to be able to video chat with my mother and show her grandson playing in his first soccer match ever (Football to you UKers).
Let's say, you are anywhere where you want to show anybody something. You can describe it in words on the phone, and a picture is worth 1000 words or something, but seeing something for yourself is priceless.
I have this to say about the UK and Japan having an "unsuccessful" video chat...
People in Japan and the UK have countries about the size of some of our states in the U.S. (slight exaggeration) so it is easier to visit family and friends if they live in other countries. It's a weekend getaway. In the U.S. a flight from Seattle is about 2200 miles. It takes roughly 8 hours to fly (round trip)... the price ranges anywhere between $300 and $1200 round trip depending on the airline and time of year and how advanced you plan your trip.
Obviously video chat doesn't beat seeing somebody in person, but it feels pretty good when you haven't seen somebody in a while and it's the only option at the time. I think it is going to be huge, particularly for Apple owners that already have iCHAT. PC users may not find this very useful since they have such lame video chat options.
Perhaps a keyboard model and non-keyboard model I could see, but if it doesn't even match an LG CU500 or SE W850, then there is really no point in Apple even bothering.
Our service sucks because of the private market approach we took.…
"Basically the FCC failed to do its job and set standards. Like the costs of not being metric, they are hidden from the consumer who pays for them every day."
Actually, the FCC did do its job and part of the problem they have to take blame for. However, it takes an Act of Congress for the FCC to do many of the other things to significantly improve things.
GSM is a foreign invention and thus subject to certain restrictions which by the way took 9 years before it was accepted for use in the US. Now since 911, we some have other concerns.
One of the things that we do slowly is change. Although the cell phone was invented in the U.S., when the government gets involved, changes are even slower.
"The basic concept of cellular phones began in 1947, when researchers looked at crude mobile (car) phones and realized that by using small cells (range of service area) with frequency reuse they could increase the traffic capacity of mobile phones substantially. However at that time, the technology to do so was nonexistent.
Anything to do with broadcasting and sending a radio or television message out over the airwaves comes under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. A cell phone is a type of two-way radio. In 1947, AT&T proposed that the FCC allocate a large number of radio-spectrum frequencies so that widespread mobile telephone service would become feasible and AT&T would have a incentive to research the new technology. We can partially blame the FCC for the gap between the initial concept of cellular service and its availability to the public. The FCC decided to limit the amount of frequencies available in 1947, the limits made only twenty-three phone conversations possible simultaneously in the same service area - not a market incentive for research.
The FCC reconsidered its position in 1968, stating "if the technology to build a better mobile service works, we will increase the frequencies allocation, freeing the airwaves for more mobile phones." AT&T and Bell Labs proposed a cellular system to the FCC of many small, low-powered, broadcast towers, each covering a 'cell' a few miles in radius and collectively covering a larger area. Each tower would use only a few of the total frequencies allocated to the system. As the phones traveled across the area, calls would be passed from tower to tower."
Well, as the first, countries that followed had the luxury to change and improve the technology had an advantage. Obviously, copying, recognizing the inadequacies, correcting and improving the system is significantly less costly than being the first kid on the block. We have to remember also that we have government, business and private citizens who can affect progress. Many other countries don't have such luxuries or disadvantages, depending upon how we want to look at it.
Re: North America's crappy cell service. As the pioneers originally with cell technology, North America invested FAR more than anybody else in analogue infrastructure. Feeling sufficiently burnt from this, they're playing real cautious when it comes to 3G / Next / Edge etc.
It sure does suck, but a combination of geography, demographics and previous infrastructure investments mean we'll be behind Western Europe and East Asia for a while.
I'm not sure that this video chat thing is the way to go to gain success. We've had it for ages (Sweden), and no one uses it, perhaps because of high prices, about five times higher than ordinary taxes, but it seems like a gimmick.
True, but remember how crappy MP3 players were before the iPod came along.
Voice and/or text communication allows you to focus on other things while chatting. This is not to say that an Apple iPhone will not incorporate video into it's design. In fact, I think it will be included, after all, it's already in iChat. I just think that as a the most popular way to communicate it isn't the best option.
True, but remember how crappy MP3 players were before the iPod came along.
That's a non arguement, people have being listening to music on the go for 30 years.
"From our understanding, it will leverage off existing iChat software that runs on Macs," American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday.*"We believe it will focus initially on mobile IM as opposed to e-mail."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
What? - I can only video chat with a few other people knowing there are millions out there?
The IP approach (voice or video) isn't going to work unless the operators really want it i.e. low data costs & low latency & if it conflicts with their own services it ain't happening.
McD
Am I the only one that finds it funny that they are working on "#2" when there has been Zero proof there was ever a "#1"?
I agree. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is no iPhone as of this writing and here they are speculating on a second one.
That's a non arguement, people have being listening to music on the go for 30 years.
I think Shookster's point is there's a difference between doing a job & doing a job so well it takes off & makes us change how we do things.
Not sure about mobile video chat, Vodafone have it at the same cost as voice chat here in NZ & I still don't know may people who use it that often (or am I just ugly?)
McD
I dread the day it becomes socially unexpectable to not look someone in the eye over the phone.
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that.
McD
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that.
McD
Apple does have a patent for the technology that will fix that...
Until the screen & camera are truly integrated you CAN'T look someone in the eye over video chat. Even with iSight's good positioning you always look like you have your eyes lowered - but my girlfriend's used to that.
McD
..true
Apple does have a patent for the technology that will fix that...
..true
Size.
Think about it...deploying new service technology to all of Britian is like deploying it to all of Texas (where I am proud to say I am from, incidentally). The United States has enormously larger landmass than Britian...but the service area of a given cell tower is no different in the US than Britian...so the greater amount of equipment that needs to be deployed to perform a system-wide upgrade in the US is hugely expensive in comparison.
My two cents.
That argument does not hold water -- mobile reception is FAR better even in very large countries such as India and China.