Oh, the patent-pissing between the various 'fathers of 3G' has been going on for some time, Mel. And in all such battles, its mostly about money.
But it won't derail 3G, simply because there's too much money invested worldwide in 3G. In Europe, in the US, in Japan, etc., many carriers have all plunked down several billion a piece (and in Europe, have bought some TREMENDOUSLY expensive [by US standards] 3G spectrum that cost them many billions more). No one is going to lets those investments just get flushed down the toilet.
When one of the patent bully boys says "this could help WiMax" its more a PR tactic (designed to get a settlement) than reality. They're hoping to score points, they're not truly that worried about Wi-Max, at least not yet.
Don't get me wrong, WiMax could still make an impact, especially in certain developing nations that don't have huge, rich, established carriers who are heavily invested in 3G. But in most rich nations, 3G just has trememendous inertia on its side. AND WiMax is a bit late to the party, as most rich nations have 3G widely-deployed already.
Its just going to be tremendously hard for WiMax to dislodge that, which is part of why we've seen a steady ratcheting down of pro-WiMax hype in the past year or so. That and the fact that WiMax has been slower to get to market than anticipated.
This is not to say that WiMax couldn't still have some moderate successes here and there, though, and I personally think it will co-exist nicely with 3G in certain nations; but the days when folks honestly though it could waltz in and eat 3G's lunch are pretty much gone.
.
I don't know. The patent fights have been going on for a while, I know that. But the injunction being asked for now, could be granted, if so, that's a lot of money.
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress. I've invested in Clearwire, the company started by Craig McCaw. There are big bucks behind it, and it's gathering customers, and network bandwidth over more of the country. It's still too new to know how it will turn out, but it does look interesting.
Neither of these companies are patent trolls, so this is different from those situations.
We will see some result in three months, possibly sooner. Then we can discuss this more intelligently.
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress.
Huh? Both Europe and Japan have well-established 3G networks, and are even further along in deployment than the US is. South Korea likely is too.
People are gullible, though. A certain percentage will believe anything.
Case in point, I remember some idiots in the dorms in college, who would believe that people were gay simply because they quoted the 'Men On Film' skit from 'In Living Color'. Even though said people were dating girls who lived in the same dorm as said idiots. I mean.... duhhhhhh.
There's always someone dwelling at the wrong end of the bell curve.
I wouldn't knock these guys. Not everyone is comfortable on stage without a lecturn, and a prompter, or notes.
At least they try. You have to give them credit for that.
The nicest thing you can say about Stan Sigman's Macworld presentation:
"It could have been worse. He could have shot the crowd."
Seriously, he sucked every bit of air out of the room. I guess it didn't help that he had to follow Jobs, a tremendous public speaker. If he had been following Gates or Ballmer at CES or someone else mediocre, then his presentation might have been considered merely 'blah'.
Still, he's the CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. He can certainly get the coaching. There's no excuse, really.
Huh? Both Europe and Japan have well-established 3G networks, and are even further along in deployment than the US is. South Korea likely is too.
.
Not as developed as you might think. It's still in the middle of deployment in many areas.
And despite what some here are saying, its cost has prevented many from using it. Things are not as hunky dory in Europe as some would want you to believe. Many people are resisting it. If something else comes around that's cheaper, it could easily gain a foothold.
People are gullible, though. A certain percentage will believe anything.
Case in point, I remember some idiots in the dorms in college, who would believe that people were gay simply because they quoted the 'Men On Film' skit from 'In Living Color'. Even though said people were dating girls who lived in the same dorm as said idiots. I mean.... duhhhhhh.
There's always someone dwelling at the wrong end of the bell curve.
.
Yeah, well, otherwise we wouldn't HAVE a Bell curve.
Not as developed as you might think. It's still in the middle of deployment in many areas.
And despite what some here are saying, its cost has prevented many from using it. Things are not as hunky dory in Europe as some would want you to believe. Many people are resisting it. If something else comes around that's cheaper, it could easily gain a foothold.
3G coverage is over 70% in the UK and that's including the remote parts of Wales and Scotland. Where 3G isn't avaliable, 2.5G kicks in. Other parts of Western Europe such as the Netherlands have 100% coverage.
3G coverage is over 70% in the UK and that's including the remote parts of Wales and Scotland. Where 3G isn't avaliable, 2.5G kicks in. Other parts of Western Europe such as the Netherlands have 100% coverage.
That seems to square with what I know of European 3G coverage. Unless we're talking perhaps some of the poorest parts of eastern Europe, 3G is already pretty darn ubiquitous over there.
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress. I've invested in Clearwire, the company started by Craig McCaw. There are big bucks behind it, and it's gathering customers, and network bandwidth over more of the country. It's still too new to know how it will turn out, but it does look interesting.
Neither of these companies are patent trolls, so this is different from those situations.
We will see some result in three months, possibly sooner. Then we can discuss this more intelligently.
3G is pretty widely deployed in rich nations, actually (and even where it isn't, it likely will be before WiMax can get there), and the speeds are evolving upwards rapidly as we speak.
But, on the plus side for WiMax, there is some talk of WiMax 'hitting 3G where it ain't', i.e. WiMiax being used to solve the 'last mile' problem for delivering high-speed internet and video (cable TV programming) to the home. And Sprint does have relationships with the large cable companies.
This is the thing that makes me think that 3G and WiMax will 'coexist'. Because if its only about mobile voice and mobile data, 3G is already there, and there's no burning need to reinvent the wheel. Super-speed is not necessary to deliver content to a 2" screen, or even a laptop (not the preferred venue for watching TV). And as TheEconomist article stated, WiMax's claims of being a lot cheaper are overblown.
But WiMax is potentially very fast, which is exactly what you'd need to get, say, HD programming beamed directly into the home. And the cable companies (or whomever) sidestep 'last mile' costs. Cha-ching!, if they can make it work.
I wouldn't knock these guys. Not everyone is comfortable on stage without a lecturn, and a prompter, or notes.
At least they try. You have to give them credit for that.
If I were to give Stan Sigman any points for just trying, I'd have to retract them for the snore inducing speech that probably came from his PR team. Not that Jerry Yang was much better... he went off on a speech about OneSearch for a while... occasionally throwing around "Apple" and "Web 2.0" but at least it didn't sound like something straight from the PR and marketing department.
3G is pretty widely deployed in rich nations, actually (and even where it isn't, it likely will be before WiMax can get there), and the speeds are evolving upwards rapidly as we speak.
But, on the plus side for WiMax, there is some talk of WiMax 'hitting 3G where it ain't', i.e. WiMiax being used to solve the 'last mile' problem for delivering high-speed internet and video (cable TV programming) to the home. And Sprint does have relationships with the large cable companies.
This is the thing that makes me think that 3G and WiMax will 'coexist'. Because if its only about mobile voice and mobile data, 3G is already there, and there's no burning need to reinvent the wheel. Super-speed is not necessary to deliver content to a 2" screen, or even a laptop (not the preferred venue for watching TV). And as TheEconomist article stated, WiMax's claims of being a lot cheaper are overblown.
But WiMax is potentially very fast, which is exactly what you'd need to get, say, HD programming beamed directly into the home. And the cable companies (or whomever) sidestep 'last mile' costs. Cha-ching!, if they can make it work.
.
I think that coverage, and developed are two different words, and concepts. 3G is new, and not as popular as you might think. As far as I know, it's not the only option. I agree with what Jobs has said about this. It's expensive, and people haven't gotten used to the idea of spending more for something they haven't yet made up their minds that they need.
I'm aware that it's changing. But it isn't there yet.
There are different forms of "3G", and even "4G" that are either out, or are being proposed. It's far from being settled.
I think that coverage, and developed are two different words, and concepts. 3G is new, and not as popular as you might think. As far as I know, it's not the only option. I agree with what Jobs has said about this. It's expensive, and people haven't gotten used to the idea of spending more for something they haven't yet made up their minds that they need.
I'm aware that it's changing. But it isn't there yet.
There are different forms of "3G", and even "4G" that are either out, or are being proposed. It's far from being settled.
3G isn't all that new, Mel. The first 3G network went up in 2001, in Japan. So it's been around for six years, while WiMax won't really be 'in the game' for at least another 1-2 years. That's an enormous headstart. And, interestingly, the iPhone may be what finally puts 3G over the top (more below).
Given how late to the table WiMax is, it needs to either be a LOT more economical than 3G (reports increasingly suggest it isn't) and/or needs to go after problems that 3G isn't really addressing much- like bridging the 'last mile' for content delivery to the home. And WiMax way well carve out a very large and lucrative market for itself in that area. But in areas that 3G is addressing, its a very uphill fight for WiMax.
Far as what Jobs has to say about 3G, take his early comments with a grain of salt- Jobs HAD to say that 3G is not necessary, because ATT doesn't have enough 3G coverage yet to make it really viable for the first iteration of the iPhone in the US. What's he going to say, that 3G is great, and the iPhone is a boat anchor for not including it off the bat? Betcha when the Euro and Asian iPhones get released (very likely with 3G), he sings a different tune.
In fact, he already is... at the D Conference, Jobs alluded to the fact that the iPhone can help make 3G more popular for the wireless carriers, by providing the user with a much better mobile internet experience than what was possible on mobile phones previously:
Jobs told Mossberg that [ATT] did a deal with Apple differently from the arrangements that it’s made with other cell phone makers. He attributes this to two major benefits Apple brings to the table — one is music, which Jobs says hasn’t been successful on phones so far, and the other is the ‘3G’ cell phone network. “They have spent a fortune building these 3G networks, and so far there ain’t a lot to do with them,” Jobs said wryly. Apple promises a richer multimedia and Internet experience with the iPhone than many of its competitors are capable of.
Catch the drift? Those aren't the words of someone dissing 3G. Apple sees an opportunity for the iPhone to show the carriers what a game-changer it is, since it makes 3G MORE attractive and MORE necessary... with the iPhone, you'll actually want to do mobile internet on a cellphone, and if you want to do mobile internet, you'll want to do it at broadband speeds, i.e. 3G (and no, ATT is not going to suddenly go WiMax, nor are the carriers Apple is likely to partner with Europe).
By next year, ATT should have good enough 3G coverage in the US for a second iteration of iPhone to include it. At that point, we sure won't be hearing any Apple rhetoric questioning the need for it.
3G isn't all that new, Mel. The first 3G network went up in 2001, in Japan. So it's been around for six years, while WiMax won't really be 'in the game' for at least another 1-2 years. That's an enormous headstart. And, interestingly, the iPhone may be what finally puts 3G over the top (more below).
Given how late to the table WiMax is, it needs to either be a LOT more economical than 3G (reports increasingly suggest it isn't) and/or needs to go after problems that 3G isn't really addressing much- like bridging the 'last mile' for content delivery to the home. And WiMax way well carve out a very large and lucrative market for itself in that area. But in areas that 3G is addressing, its a very uphill fight for WiMax.
Far as what Jobs has to say about 3G, take his early comments with a grain of salt- Jobs HAD to say that 3G is not necessary, because ATT doesn't have enough 3G coverage yet to make it really viable for the first iteration of the iPhone in the US. What's he going to say, that 3G is great, and the iPhone is a boat anchor for not including it off the bat? Betcha when the Euro and Asian iPhones get released (very likely with 3G), he sings a different tune.
In fact, he already is... at the D Conference, Jobs alluded to the fact that the iPhone can help make 3G more popular for the wireless carriers, by providing the user with a much better mobile internet experience than what was possible on mobile phones previously:
Jobs told Mossberg that [ATT] did a deal with Apple differently from the arrangements that it?s made with other cell phone makers. He attributes this to two major benefits Apple brings to the table ? one is music, which Jobs says hasn?t been successful on phones so far, and the other is the ?3G? cell phone network. ?They have spent a fortune building these 3G networks, and so far there ain?t a lot to do with them,? Jobs said wryly. Apple promises a richer multimedia and Internet experience with the iPhone than many of its competitors are capable of.
Catch the drift? Those aren't the words of someone dissing 3G. Apple sees an opportunity for the iPhone to show the carriers what a game-changer it is, since it makes 3G MORE attractive and MORE necessary... with the iPhone, you'll actually want to do mobile internet on a cellphone, and if you want to do mobile internet, you'll want to do it at broadband speeds, i.e. 3G (and no, ATT is not going to suddenly go WiMax, nor are the carriers Apple is likely to partner with Europe).
By next year, ATT should have good enough 3G coverage in the US for a second iteration of iPhone to include it. At that point, we sure won't be hearing any Apple rhetoric questioning the need for it.
.
I'm not saying that 3G, whatever that will turn out to be, is bad, or hopeless, or gone.
But, I remember very well all of the problems with 3G in Japan. no one wanted it for years. It's only been the past 2 years, when the price dropped, that people began signing up in any real numbers.
One of the reasons texting has been so popular out of the states for several years, was because it was CHEAPER, than regular speech services. Gettting those people, esp. younger ones, to accept the even more expensive 3G service has been difficult.
The point is that even though coverage may be widespread, usage is not. That's why the service is still developing. Once the carriers find the magic combination of features and price, it might take off. This is what Jobs is saying as well, though he hopes, as we do, that Apple's products will be the spur.
Until that time arrives, other services will have a chance. The naysayers about WiMax have, so far, been the biggest supporters of 3G. So, I'm not impressed with their prognostications.
i don't care about surfing the web on the iPhone. i just want to have a single item in my pocket instead of my iPod and my phone. my phone can only hold 100 songs and i can't wait to toss out the moto UI. i'm definately NOT in the 1% you speak of, but i can afford 50 - 60 a month for a plan. [i don't want to spend that much, but i can definately afford it.] still if i can pay per use for the net, that's what i'll do. i would only want it for google maps when i'm lost wandering around the north end of boston.
But, I remember very well all of the problems with 3G in Japan. no one wanted it for years. It's only been the past 2 years, when the price dropped, that people began signing up in any real numbers.
One of the reasons texting has been so popular out of the states for several years, was because it was CHEAPER, than regular speech services. Gettting those people, esp. younger ones, to accept the even more expensive 3G service has been difficult.
The point is that even though coverage may be widespread, usage is not. That's why the service is still developing. Once the carriers find the magic combination of features and price, it might take off. This is what Jobs is saying as well, though he hopes, as we do, that Apple's products will be the spur.
Until that time arrives, other services will have a chance. The naysayers about WiMax have, so far, been the biggest supporters of 3G. So, I'm not impressed with their prognostications.
Fair enough, Mel. But I really have to wonder what the 'wedge' is that will allow WiMax to be successful in market segments where 3G is already established. Its sure not going to be the iPhone, and its increasingly looking like it won't be price, either.
But I'll try to withhold judgment 'til Sprint's WiMax network is truly up and kickin'.
Fair enough, Mel. But I really have to wonder what the 'wedge' is that will allow WiMax to be successful in market segments where 3G is already established. Its sure not going to be the iPhone, and its increasingly looking like it won't be price, either.
But I'll try to withhold judgment 'til Sprint's WiMax network is truly up and kickin'.
.
Ok, my last comment about this, unless someone else brings it up, is that until the majority of the population in any given area are using a technology, others still have a good chance of displacing them.
Comments
I absolutely agree. I mean the man actually pulled out NOTE CARDS!!
Sebastian
I wouldn't knock these guys. Not everyone is comfortable on stage without a lecturn, and a prompter, or notes.
At least they try. You have to give them credit for that.
Oh, the patent-pissing between the various 'fathers of 3G' has been going on for some time, Mel. And in all such battles, its mostly about money.
But it won't derail 3G, simply because there's too much money invested worldwide in 3G. In Europe, in the US, in Japan, etc., many carriers have all plunked down several billion a piece (and in Europe, have bought some TREMENDOUSLY expensive [by US standards] 3G spectrum that cost them many billions more). No one is going to lets those investments just get flushed down the toilet.
When one of the patent bully boys says "this could help WiMax" its more a PR tactic (designed to get a settlement) than reality. They're hoping to score points, they're not truly that worried about Wi-Max, at least not yet.
Don't get me wrong, WiMax could still make an impact, especially in certain developing nations that don't have huge, rich, established carriers who are heavily invested in 3G. But in most rich nations, 3G just has trememendous inertia on its side. AND WiMax is a bit late to the party, as most rich nations have 3G widely-deployed already.
Its just going to be tremendously hard for WiMax to dislodge that, which is part of why we've seen a steady ratcheting down of pro-WiMax hype in the past year or so. That and the fact that WiMax has been slower to get to market than anticipated.
This is not to say that WiMax couldn't still have some moderate successes here and there, though, and I personally think it will co-exist nicely with 3G in certain nations; but the days when folks honestly though it could waltz in and eat 3G's lunch are pretty much gone.
.
I don't know. The patent fights have been going on for a while, I know that. But the injunction being asked for now, could be granted, if so, that's a lot of money.
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress. I've invested in Clearwire, the company started by Craig McCaw. There are big bucks behind it, and it's gathering customers, and network bandwidth over more of the country. It's still too new to know how it will turn out, but it does look interesting.
Neither of these companies are patent trolls, so this is different from those situations.
We will see some result in three months, possibly sooner. Then we can discuss this more intelligently.
Hey, you brought it up. I just exploited it for comedic purposes.
.
Like, I thought you were serious, man!
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress.
Huh? Both Europe and Japan have well-established 3G networks, and are even further along in deployment than the US is. South Korea likely is too.
.
Like, I thought you were serious, man!
People are gullible, though. A certain percentage will believe anything.
Case in point, I remember some idiots in the dorms in college, who would believe that people were gay simply because they quoted the 'Men On Film' skit from 'In Living Color'. Even though said people were dating girls who lived in the same dorm as said idiots. I mean.... duhhhhhh.
There's always someone dwelling at the wrong end of the bell curve.
.
I wouldn't knock these guys. Not everyone is comfortable on stage without a lecturn, and a prompter, or notes.
At least they try. You have to give them credit for that.
The nicest thing you can say about Stan Sigman's Macworld presentation:
"It could have been worse. He could have shot the crowd."
Seriously, he sucked every bit of air out of the room. I guess it didn't help that he had to follow Jobs, a tremendous public speaker. If he had been following Gates or Ballmer at CES or someone else mediocre, then his presentation might have been considered merely 'blah'.
Still, he's the CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. He can certainly get the coaching. There's no excuse, really.
.
Huh? Both Europe and Japan have well-established 3G networks, and are even further along in deployment than the US is. South Korea likely is too.
.
Not as developed as you might think. It's still in the middle of deployment in many areas.
And despite what some here are saying, its cost has prevented many from using it. Things are not as hunky dory in Europe as some would want you to believe. Many people are resisting it. If something else comes around that's cheaper, it could easily gain a foothold.
People are gullible, though. A certain percentage will believe anything.
Case in point, I remember some idiots in the dorms in college, who would believe that people were gay simply because they quoted the 'Men On Film' skit from 'In Living Color'. Even though said people were dating girls who lived in the same dorm as said idiots. I mean.... duhhhhhh.
There's always someone dwelling at the wrong end of the bell curve.
.
Yeah, well, otherwise we wouldn't HAVE a Bell curve.
Not as developed as you might think. It's still in the middle of deployment in many areas.
And despite what some here are saying, its cost has prevented many from using it. Things are not as hunky dory in Europe as some would want you to believe. Many people are resisting it. If something else comes around that's cheaper, it could easily gain a foothold.
3G coverage is over 70% in the UK and that's including the remote parts of Wales and Scotland. Where 3G isn't avaliable, 2.5G kicks in. Other parts of Western Europe such as the Netherlands have 100% coverage.
3G coverage is over 70% in the UK and that's including the remote parts of Wales and Scotland. Where 3G isn't avaliable, 2.5G kicks in. Other parts of Western Europe such as the Netherlands have 100% coverage.
That seems to square with what I know of European 3G coverage. Unless we're talking perhaps some of the poorest parts of eastern Europe, 3G is already pretty darn ubiquitous over there.
.
I actually think that WiMax has a good chance. 3G isn't all that developed yet, it still has some way to go. It's in this country that we're seeing progress. I've invested in Clearwire, the company started by Craig McCaw. There are big bucks behind it, and it's gathering customers, and network bandwidth over more of the country. It's still too new to know how it will turn out, but it does look interesting.
Neither of these companies are patent trolls, so this is different from those situations.
We will see some result in three months, possibly sooner. Then we can discuss this more intelligently.
3G is pretty widely deployed in rich nations, actually (and even where it isn't, it likely will be before WiMax can get there), and the speeds are evolving upwards rapidly as we speak.
But, on the plus side for WiMax, there is some talk of WiMax 'hitting 3G where it ain't', i.e. WiMiax being used to solve the 'last mile' problem for delivering high-speed internet and video (cable TV programming) to the home. And Sprint does have relationships with the large cable companies.
This is the thing that makes me think that 3G and WiMax will 'coexist'. Because if its only about mobile voice and mobile data, 3G is already there, and there's no burning need to reinvent the wheel. Super-speed is not necessary to deliver content to a 2" screen, or even a laptop (not the preferred venue for watching TV). And as The Economist article stated, WiMax's claims of being a lot cheaper are overblown.
But WiMax is potentially very fast, which is exactly what you'd need to get, say, HD programming beamed directly into the home. And the cable companies (or whomever) sidestep 'last mile' costs. Cha-ching!, if they can make it work.
.
I wouldn't knock these guys. Not everyone is comfortable on stage without a lecturn, and a prompter, or notes.
At least they try. You have to give them credit for that.
If I were to give Stan Sigman any points for just trying, I'd have to retract them for the snore inducing speech that probably came from his PR team. Not that Jerry Yang was much better... he went off on a speech about OneSearch for a while... occasionally throwing around "Apple" and "Web 2.0" but at least it didn't sound like something straight from the PR and marketing department.
Sebastian
3G is pretty widely deployed in rich nations, actually (and even where it isn't, it likely will be before WiMax can get there), and the speeds are evolving upwards rapidly as we speak.
But, on the plus side for WiMax, there is some talk of WiMax 'hitting 3G where it ain't', i.e. WiMiax being used to solve the 'last mile' problem for delivering high-speed internet and video (cable TV programming) to the home. And Sprint does have relationships with the large cable companies.
This is the thing that makes me think that 3G and WiMax will 'coexist'. Because if its only about mobile voice and mobile data, 3G is already there, and there's no burning need to reinvent the wheel. Super-speed is not necessary to deliver content to a 2" screen, or even a laptop (not the preferred venue for watching TV). And as The Economist article stated, WiMax's claims of being a lot cheaper are overblown.
But WiMax is potentially very fast, which is exactly what you'd need to get, say, HD programming beamed directly into the home. And the cable companies (or whomever) sidestep 'last mile' costs. Cha-ching!, if they can make it work.
.
I think that coverage, and developed are two different words, and concepts. 3G is new, and not as popular as you might think. As far as I know, it's not the only option. I agree with what Jobs has said about this. It's expensive, and people haven't gotten used to the idea of spending more for something they haven't yet made up their minds that they need.
I'm aware that it's changing. But it isn't there yet.
There are different forms of "3G", and even "4G" that are either out, or are being proposed. It's far from being settled.
I think that coverage, and developed are two different words, and concepts. 3G is new, and not as popular as you might think. As far as I know, it's not the only option. I agree with what Jobs has said about this. It's expensive, and people haven't gotten used to the idea of spending more for something they haven't yet made up their minds that they need.
I'm aware that it's changing. But it isn't there yet.
There are different forms of "3G", and even "4G" that are either out, or are being proposed. It's far from being settled.
3G isn't all that new, Mel. The first 3G network went up in 2001, in Japan. So it's been around for six years, while WiMax won't really be 'in the game' for at least another 1-2 years. That's an enormous headstart. And, interestingly, the iPhone may be what finally puts 3G over the top (more below).
Given how late to the table WiMax is, it needs to either be a LOT more economical than 3G (reports increasingly suggest it isn't) and/or needs to go after problems that 3G isn't really addressing much- like bridging the 'last mile' for content delivery to the home. And WiMax way well carve out a very large and lucrative market for itself in that area. But in areas that 3G is addressing, its a very uphill fight for WiMax.
Far as what Jobs has to say about 3G, take his early comments with a grain of salt- Jobs HAD to say that 3G is not necessary, because ATT doesn't have enough 3G coverage yet to make it really viable for the first iteration of the iPhone in the US. What's he going to say, that 3G is great, and the iPhone is a boat anchor for not including it off the bat?
In fact, he already is... at the D Conference, Jobs alluded to the fact that the iPhone can help make 3G more popular for the wireless carriers, by providing the user with a much better mobile internet experience than what was possible on mobile phones previously:
Jobs told Mossberg that [ATT] did a deal with Apple differently from the arrangements that it’s made with other cell phone makers. He attributes this to two major benefits Apple brings to the table — one is music, which Jobs says hasn’t been successful on phones so far, and the other is the ‘3G’ cell phone network. “They have spent a fortune building these 3G networks, and so far there ain’t a lot to do with them,” Jobs said wryly. Apple promises a richer multimedia and Internet experience with the iPhone than many of its competitors are capable of.
Catch the drift? Those aren't the words of someone dissing 3G. Apple sees an opportunity for the iPhone to show the carriers what a game-changer it is, since it makes 3G MORE attractive and MORE necessary... with the iPhone, you'll actually want to do mobile internet on a cellphone, and if you want to do mobile internet, you'll want to do it at broadband speeds, i.e. 3G (and no, ATT is not going to suddenly go WiMax, nor are the carriers Apple is likely to partner with Europe).
By next year, ATT should have good enough 3G coverage in the US for a second iteration of iPhone to include it. At that point, we sure won't be hearing any Apple rhetoric questioning the need for it.
.
3G isn't all that new, Mel. The first 3G network went up in 2001, in Japan. So it's been around for six years, while WiMax won't really be 'in the game' for at least another 1-2 years. That's an enormous headstart. And, interestingly, the iPhone may be what finally puts 3G over the top (more below).
Given how late to the table WiMax is, it needs to either be a LOT more economical than 3G (reports increasingly suggest it isn't) and/or needs to go after problems that 3G isn't really addressing much- like bridging the 'last mile' for content delivery to the home. And WiMax way well carve out a very large and lucrative market for itself in that area. But in areas that 3G is addressing, its a very uphill fight for WiMax.
Far as what Jobs has to say about 3G, take his early comments with a grain of salt- Jobs HAD to say that 3G is not necessary, because ATT doesn't have enough 3G coverage yet to make it really viable for the first iteration of the iPhone in the US. What's he going to say, that 3G is great, and the iPhone is a boat anchor for not including it off the bat?
In fact, he already is... at the D Conference, Jobs alluded to the fact that the iPhone can help make 3G more popular for the wireless carriers, by providing the user with a much better mobile internet experience than what was possible on mobile phones previously:
Jobs told Mossberg that [ATT] did a deal with Apple differently from the arrangements that it?s made with other cell phone makers. He attributes this to two major benefits Apple brings to the table ? one is music, which Jobs says hasn?t been successful on phones so far, and the other is the ?3G? cell phone network. ?They have spent a fortune building these 3G networks, and so far there ain?t a lot to do with them,? Jobs said wryly. Apple promises a richer multimedia and Internet experience with the iPhone than many of its competitors are capable of.
Catch the drift? Those aren't the words of someone dissing 3G. Apple sees an opportunity for the iPhone to show the carriers what a game-changer it is, since it makes 3G MORE attractive and MORE necessary... with the iPhone, you'll actually want to do mobile internet on a cellphone, and if you want to do mobile internet, you'll want to do it at broadband speeds, i.e. 3G (and no, ATT is not going to suddenly go WiMax, nor are the carriers Apple is likely to partner with Europe).
By next year, ATT should have good enough 3G coverage in the US for a second iteration of iPhone to include it. At that point, we sure won't be hearing any Apple rhetoric questioning the need for it.
.
I'm not saying that 3G, whatever that will turn out to be, is bad, or hopeless, or gone.
But, I remember very well all of the problems with 3G in Japan. no one wanted it for years. It's only been the past 2 years, when the price dropped, that people began signing up in any real numbers.
One of the reasons texting has been so popular out of the states for several years, was because it was CHEAPER, than regular speech services. Gettting those people, esp. younger ones, to accept the even more expensive 3G service has been difficult.
The point is that even though coverage may be widespread, usage is not. That's why the service is still developing. Once the carriers find the magic combination of features and price, it might take off. This is what Jobs is saying as well, though he hopes, as we do, that Apple's products will be the spur.
Until that time arrives, other services will have a chance. The naysayers about WiMax have, so far, been the biggest supporters of 3G. So, I'm not impressed with their prognostications.
i don't care about surfing the web on the iPhone. i just want to have a single item in my pocket instead of my iPod and my phone. my phone can only hold 100 songs and i can't wait to toss out the moto UI. i'm definately NOT in the 1% you speak of, but i can afford 50 - 60 a month for a plan. [i don't want to spend that much, but i can definately afford it.] still if i can pay per use for the net, that's what i'll do. i would only want it for google maps when i'm lost wandering around the north end of boston.
My thoughts exactly.
"We actually considered charging $10,000 per phone, but dealing with the loan documents was just going to be too much of an administrative burden."
That statement (in hindsight) is very telling
But, I remember very well all of the problems with 3G in Japan. no one wanted it for years. It's only been the past 2 years, when the price dropped, that people began signing up in any real numbers.
One of the reasons texting has been so popular out of the states for several years, was because it was CHEAPER, than regular speech services. Gettting those people, esp. younger ones, to accept the even more expensive 3G service has been difficult.
The point is that even though coverage may be widespread, usage is not. That's why the service is still developing. Once the carriers find the magic combination of features and price, it might take off. This is what Jobs is saying as well, though he hopes, as we do, that Apple's products will be the spur.
Until that time arrives, other services will have a chance. The naysayers about WiMax have, so far, been the biggest supporters of 3G. So, I'm not impressed with their prognostications.
Fair enough, Mel. But I really have to wonder what the 'wedge' is that will allow WiMax to be successful in market segments where 3G is already established. Its sure not going to be the iPhone, and its increasingly looking like it won't be price, either.
But I'll try to withhold judgment 'til Sprint's WiMax network is truly up and kickin'.
.
Fair enough, Mel. But I really have to wonder what the 'wedge' is that will allow WiMax to be successful in market segments where 3G is already established. Its sure not going to be the iPhone, and its increasingly looking like it won't be price, either.
But I'll try to withhold judgment 'til Sprint's WiMax network is truly up and kickin'.
.
Ok, my last comment about this, unless someone else brings it up, is that until the majority of the population in any given area are using a technology, others still have a good chance of displacing them.