I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!
I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.
And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.
So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.
--David Pogue
You are one of the most knowledgeable, fairest, classiest tech reviewers around. Period.
I didn't think that guy's comment deserved to be given the dignity of a response from someone such as yourself -- but it sure is impressive that you deigned to do that.
AT&T?s ancient EDGE cellular network is excruciatingly slow. In Pogue's tests, The New York Times?s home page took 55 seconds to appear; Amazon.com, 100 seconds; Yahoo, two minutes. "You almost ache for a dial-up modem."
The thing about those pages is that they are just loaded with ads. I rarely go to those sites anyway. I think iPhone will be very handy for Google searches and Wikipedia information gathering purposes. If I'm going to be shopping or doing some recreational surfing, I'll just do it later from my desk at high speed or with my notebook which has a wireless data card.
Since the iPhone does not have GPS I'd love to see Apple add an application which would support Garmin's GPS 10 Bluetooth GPS receiver. That along with the correct mount would make a great Car GPS.
Drop the iPhone in it's holder and off you go. Once you park the local directions on the iPhone will get you to the door.
This is AI. We now will have a debate about whether you are indeed David Pogue. You can prove it by revealing the identity of the man sitting on the left on the park bench in the NYT video, seen here: http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.js...3940afb8a3f7c8
I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!
I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.
And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.
So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.
Bull. My sprint 3G works fast in all but the most podunk of towns. In the SF Bay Area, the coverage is thick and fast -- more than I can say for AT&T. I get real-world 1Mbps, which is plenty for downloading the reduced-size content quickly.
LOL. I regularly get 5 Mbps or better over my WiFi, so yes, 3G is substantially slower than WiFi. More importantly, latency on EVDO (or even HSDPA) is several times worse than WiFi.
Quote:
APple went AT&T for political reasons. As far as I've come to know, AT&T is the most low-tech and generally the poorest QoS network in any developed nation.
No, they went with AT&T because there are only two GSM carriers in the country (AT&T and T-Mo), and AT&T is by far the larger. Producing a CDMA phone would exclude the vast majority of the market - it would be like if the iPhone only worked with Macs (which would at least make a little sense since Apple sells Macs...they own no patents on CDMA, to my knowledge).
From a QoS perspective, the only choice that would have been superior would be VZW. But VZW is CDMA, plus they intentionally cripple all their (already crappy) phone, so it's pretty much unimaginable that they'd let Apple sell something nearly as nice as the iPhone on their network.
Sprint is hardly a superior alternative in the long run - they have the highest churn rate (lowest implied satisfaction) of the majors.
LOL. I regularly get 5 Mbps or better over my WiFi, so yes, 3G is substantially slower than WiFi. More importantly, latency on EVDO (or even HSDPA) is several times worse than WiFi.
Wifi is faster than 3G, that's true... I think he was saying bull more to your coverage comment than your speed comment.
But even so, at least 3G is available while you're on the move or away from urban coffee shops... not so much with wifi, obviously. And the latency issues with 3G are being worked out... Rev A EVDO, for example, is quite a bit better latency-wise than Rev0, from what I remember.
Quote:
Producing a CDMA phone would exclude the vast majority of the market-
Not in the US. CDMA is actually more popular than GSM in the US.
Overseas, yeah, different story. But still, it wouldn't be that hard to have both a CDMA and a GSM version of the iPhone (and Apple will likely need to make a CDMA version when it releases in Korea, which is heavily CDMA).
Most of the large phone makers make both types of phones. Mainly because, with about 400 million users worldwide, the CDMA market, while smaller than GSM, is still big enough that phone makers would leave a lot of money on the table by ignoring it.
Comments
I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!
I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.
And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.
So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.
--David Pogue
You are one of the most knowledgeable, fairest, classiest tech reviewers around. Period.
I didn't think that guy's comment deserved to be given the dignity of a response from someone such as yourself -- but it sure is impressive that you deigned to do that.
AT&T?s ancient EDGE cellular network is excruciatingly slow. In Pogue's tests, The New York Times?s home page took 55 seconds to appear; Amazon.com, 100 seconds; Yahoo, two minutes. "You almost ache for a dial-up modem."
The thing about those pages is that they are just loaded with ads. I rarely go to those sites anyway. I think iPhone will be very handy for Google searches and Wikipedia information gathering purposes. If I'm going to be shopping or doing some recreational surfing, I'll just do it later from my desk at high speed or with my notebook which has a wireless data card.
It's quite possible he got you confused with Paul Thurrott, who has been consistently dismissive of Apple over the last 10 years.
Could be. Thurrott is quite the loser. I love how the guy over at RoughlyDrafted picks apart Thurrott's dumbass commentary and generally owns him.
.
Drop the iPhone in it's holder and off you go. Once you park the local directions on the iPhone will get you to the door.
I may be an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite. In fact, I believe you have me confused with someone else!
I have never "prognosticated" anything--in fact, I routinely make fun of ANYONE who attempts to predict the future of tech, because it can't be done.
And I have never, would never, and WILL never give anyone advice about stocks. I've never done it in print, never on the Web, and never in person. It's not only against NY Times policy, but it's not my job, my beat, or my expertise.
So if you think I ever told anyone to sell Apple stock, or buy it, or make a sweater out of it, you're thinking of someone else.
--David Pogue
\t
"Does it have an apple logo?"
"Gobal Warming Linked to iPhone"
"Paris Hilton tries to order iPhone from jail"
Bull. My sprint 3G works fast in all but the most podunk of towns. In the SF Bay Area, the coverage is thick and fast -- more than I can say for AT&T. I get real-world 1Mbps, which is plenty for downloading the reduced-size content quickly.
LOL. I regularly get 5 Mbps or better over my WiFi, so yes, 3G is substantially slower than WiFi. More importantly, latency on EVDO (or even HSDPA) is several times worse than WiFi.
APple went AT&T for political reasons. As far as I've come to know, AT&T is the most low-tech and generally the poorest QoS network in any developed nation.
No, they went with AT&T because there are only two GSM carriers in the country (AT&T and T-Mo), and AT&T is by far the larger. Producing a CDMA phone would exclude the vast majority of the market - it would be like if the iPhone only worked with Macs (which would at least make a little sense since Apple sells Macs...they own no patents on CDMA, to my knowledge).
From a QoS perspective, the only choice that would have been superior would be VZW. But VZW is CDMA, plus they intentionally cripple all their (already crappy) phone, so it's pretty much unimaginable that they'd let Apple sell something nearly as nice as the iPhone on their network.
Sprint is hardly a superior alternative in the long run - they have the highest churn rate (lowest implied satisfaction) of the majors.
LOL. I regularly get 5 Mbps or better over my WiFi, so yes, 3G is substantially slower than WiFi. More importantly, latency on EVDO (or even HSDPA) is several times worse than WiFi.
Wifi is faster than 3G, that's true... I think he was saying bull more to your coverage comment than your speed comment.
But even so, at least 3G is available while you're on the move or away from urban coffee shops... not so much with wifi, obviously. And the latency issues with 3G are being worked out... Rev A EVDO, for example, is quite a bit better latency-wise than Rev0, from what I remember.
Producing a CDMA phone would exclude the vast majority of the market-
Not in the US. CDMA is actually more popular than GSM in the US.
Overseas, yeah, different story. But still, it wouldn't be that hard to have both a CDMA and a GSM version of the iPhone (and Apple will likely need to make a CDMA version when it releases in Korea, which is heavily CDMA).
Most of the large phone makers make both types of phones. Mainly because, with about 400 million users worldwide, the CDMA market, while smaller than GSM, is still big enough that phone makers would leave a lot of money on the table by ignoring it.
.